[jwrogers]

If you'll call it bloogey, then I support that 100%. The problem is that you are looking at one thing, then calling it something else that ALREADY has a meaning.

My particular point on this issue and many others is that WORDS HAVE MEANINGS and we shouldn't randomly reassign the meanings of words just because we think it's nice to do so.

I'm not arguing the pluses and minuses of gay unions. I'm saying that for hundreds of years marriage has meant the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of starting a family together, and I don't want that long-standing definition to be watered down by "new English".

Words have meanings.

[ArGee]

I'm saying that for hundreds of years marriage has meant the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of starting a family together, and I don't want that long-standing definition to be watered down by "new English".

Neither do I. But I think if we call it "civil union" because we want to preserve the meaning of "marriage" even though it is the same thing for different people, we will have done precisely what you want to avoid.

People will probably simply cease to use the term "marriage" and they will all become "civil unions."

Shalom.