Posted by
emily_rose on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 10:29:00 AM
I have been disturbed by the recent efforts of gay Americans to
redefine the word “marriage.” According to Webster’s (and a long,
extended history in a vast array of cultures, including ancient Greek
and Roman cultures where homosexuality was rampant alongside
marriage…by the way, why didn’t the Greeks and Romans have this
“marriage” definition crisis?), “marriage” is defined as, “…to join as
husband and wife; unite in wedlock; to join a man to a woman as her
husband or a woman to a man as his wife; to take as husband or wife...”
I am not alone in my frustration. The majority of Americans like this
definition and want it to hold. Even Barack Obama and Joe Biden agree
with the traditional definition of marriage—the poster boy ticket for
“change.” So this is obviously not merely a GOP issue, this is an
American issue that includes all political persuasions.
Many Americans find it unsettling to even have to say “traditional”
marriage to define what they are referring to. Since when did the
definition of “marriage” become “traditional?” It used to simply be the
definition. Now the definition needs defining. It is ludicrous.
While many gays argue that it isn’t about the word “marriage”, it’s
about “rights,” I beg to differ. If it were merely about rights, they
would be petitioning for those rights, not for the fundamental changing
of a word. I would propose that it is—in fact—primarily an ideological
issue. They want to play a game with semantics and dance around the
issue, but I—along with many Americans—am not buying it. It is obvious
that gays are really pushing for their lifestyle choices to be seen as
identical to heterosexuals. They believe in their gut that if they can
just change the definition of the word “marriage,” they will no longer
feel different. This is not possible. They will always feel different,
because they ARE different. This is not to be cruel, bigoted, or
condescending, it is simply a fact. While gays advocate their
"alternative lifestyle," they do not want to admit that it is exactly
that, "alternative."
To use a completely non-controversial example, let’s liken gay union
and heterosexual marriage, to margarine and butter. Some people like
margarine better than butter, some people can't eat butter...but they
don't say, "Let’s just call them BOTH butter! It's the same thing!" It
isn't the same thing. One is an alternative to the other--it only makes
logical sense that they be called different things. For an informed
choice to be made, the options must be clearly labeled. This benefits
both butter lovers and margarine aficionados.
The bottom line is this, gays want to force their views and lifestyles
on all Americans and they do not want to be seen as any different from
heterosexuals. But whether they eventually beat down the opposition and
get their way and brainwash our children from a young age under the
"protection" of the educational system, they will not be able to change
the fact that they ARE different. They are engaging in a lifestyle that
is not, and never will be, the same as that between a man and a woman.
Even if the commitment is the same, the end result is not.
I do not believe that the majority of those who oppose gay “marriage”
are opposed to gay rights and legal gay unions. They simply don’t want
the word “marriage” changed and the confusion that will follow. They
want to know that if they ask for butter, they will get butter, and if
they ask for margarine, they will get margarine. Gays seem to
vehemently advocate individuality and diversity—yet they desperately
want to be the same as everyone else when it comes to the word
“marriage.” They are creative, thoughtful people, why not come up with
a new term to define their lifetime commitments? If they don’t like the
term civil union, let’s scratch it. If they would just tell folks what
they want their unions called, I am sure most Americans will gladly use
the new term—but don’t mess with OUR term—the majority of Americans
like “marriage” just how it is.
p.s. I realized there are many issues at stake here, I have simply
written about the definition of the word...feel free to add to the
discussion!