Don't Call It 'Same-Sex' Marriage, Advocates Say

CNSNEWS.com ^ | 2/11/04 | Susan Jones

[Modernman]

The accurate terminology -- on-air, in headlines and in body type -- should be 'marriage for gays and lesbians,'" the letter said.

As a pure issue of semantics, I don't see how this term is any more or any less accurate than "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage."

[wisconsinconservative]

A rose by any other name is still a rose.......A disgusting act by any other name is still a disgusting act. Go back to your closets...

[Dr. Frank fan]

The accurate terminology -- on-air, in headlines and in body type -- should be 'marriage for gays and lesbians,'" the letter said.

Actually, this is completely wrong.

"Marriage for gays and lesbians" is and has always been PERFECTLY LEGAL. Nothing in the world prevents a gay or lesbian person from getting married (as long as they can find a person of the opposite sex willing to marry them, of course - this is a condition which non-gay/lesbian people must also fulfill). Nobody declines to give a marriage license to a person "because he is gay". The question of their sexuality isn't even asked on the marriage license application.

So "marriage for gays and lesbians" is not what the conflict is about. The conflict is about whether to change the definition of marriage so as to allow a person (whether gay/lesbian or not) to get "married" to someone of the SAME sex as themselves.

Which means that "same-sex marriage" is actually the more appropriate, accurate term.

[Dr. Frank fan]

hmm, you beat me to it

[Dr. Frank fan]

As a pure issue of semantics, I don't see how this term is any more or any less accurate than "gay marriage" or "same-sex marriage."

It's actually far less accurate than "same-sex marriage". "Marriage for gays and lesbians" is and has always been PERFECTLY LEGAL.

[B4Ranch]

You were going to say something nasty about perverts and queers weren't you?

[RichInOC]

How about "Straight Tie for the Queer Guys"?

[EdReform]

Ping

[EdReform]

Ping

[AFPhys]

You've got it.

Nothing could be more descriptive than "queer marriage".

[upchuck]

You've got it. Nothing could be more descriptive than "queer marriage".

Thanks! I appreciate another FReeper who tells it like it is.

For years they were called queers. Then they convinced their buds in the media to start calling them "gay." And them the PC Police got ahold of it and here we are. I suggest we not let them prevert the name of this unholy union they are promoting.

IMHO, I wonder what is "gay" about such a deviant lifestyle that has horrible death from AIDS as it's centerpiece?

[river rat]

Shame on you!
Trying to draw a old man into a fight that will get him banned...

I have already been warned..
I can't afford to get banned - I would miss this forum terribly...

Now, stop it and use your imagination...

Semper Fi

[little jeremiah]

Homosexual Agenda Mass Ping.

More coming at you.

Let me know if you want on or off this vital ping list.

[B4Ranch]

You aren't old yet, my friend

[Vermont Lt]

My point is not one in favor of the "queer agenda" (whatever that is.)

My point is that all too often these threads espouse Christian scripture and values--yet spew hateful words. The two are incongruous. If you are a true Christian, you would forgive the sinner. If you were a true Christian you would expect the same from them.

I think the only way this argument is going to be won is to get off the "sinner" kick and start using terms that mean something to everyone: The economic cost of gay unions. It is a subject I havent seen much about--but I am sure it is much more compelling than "I dont like it, so it must be wrong."

Its always about money and power. That, is the real gay agenda.....