That is a very good question to which there is no reasonable response.
It isn't gender, it's semantics.
I'm not going into the street to define a minor word, one way or the other.
This is obviously being kept a 'burning issue' (directly affecting a small group out of a small minority) by forces that either get part of their support from anti-homosexuals of from pro-homosexuals.
It's sort of like religion; to keep going, the end must never be attained. There are directors and workers that derive their being (and their salaries) from the movement/cause/sect existing.
To
social conservatives (especially
the religious ones), it would be giving ground on what they consider to be
a moral absolute.
So.....how do we call this a "free" Country....if the church-folk are layin'-down-the-LAW....or,trying to....once, again??!!!
Most people are probably hard wired (I don't know how else to put it) to want their own way. So, I understand the tendency for people (especially in groups) to find solace in numbers and dig in their heels for a fight.
But I'm more of a compromiser at heart. In many things, I think it's generally a waste of energy to bicker endlessly when a solution presents itself.
I've long supported Civil Unions (which, oddly enough, my state just passed into law). I say give gay people equal rights in terms of the law, but do it by giving them an equivalent status without the classification of the word marriage. They would have all the legal rights of married people simply without the official use of the term.
And when push comes to shove, gay relationships, even ones that can last happily for 50 years or more, can never be truly equal since natural procreation is not possible between the partners. So, the relationships are more equivalent than they are equal compared to heterosexual partners.
I must also admit that I can see where parents of young children could easily see the issue of gay marriage as a threat to their impressionable children if their children consider gay marriage little or no different from a heterosexual marriage/relationship. I say that in the sense that orientation and behavior are two completely different things. I would no more want to see a heterosexually-oriented young person enter into a gay marriage when he or she is young simply because they have a close same sex friendship that perhaps goes a little further than it probably should have, than I would want to see a gay-oriented person enter into a heterosexual marriage mostly because he or she is just trying to better fit in to a mostly heterosexual society.
But I'm not going to be out there demonstrating one way or the other. I'm a live and let live kind of person. In my opinion, the world would be a FAR better place if more people adopted that attitude. But I hold out no hope for that taking place anytime soon as people seem to thrive on conflict of one kind or another. And often, when they don't have conflict, they'll find it, or manage to create it somehow. And there are more than enough people willing to accommodate them by jumping in to the fray. And there will be equally as many people willing to exploit both sides for fun and profit.
makes you chains you into a civil union.
