Ok, my bad for the lack of clarity on my part. Yes I do know words have specific meanings. I do think that applies when talking about people, but, again, the point was you can't just be all quasi-logical and reduce everything down to original definition when there are emotions involved. Marriage is more than just function, it is love and companionship too.KiMare wrote:
You are not being honest.
-The point is not about feelings, it is about distortion.
-Where have I said being a mutation makes me less valid? Nor is the mutation my fault. It happens to make me distinct. And an incredible curiosity. I find that a positive extremely often.
-You can 'say' homosexuality has any reason for existence. Only some are true. See the difference?
-Ss couples cannot 'have' children. Do you see what your denial is trying to equate?
-Yes, the law is a part of reality. But no, if the law denies reality, reality doesn't change. The reality is, the law is simple wrong.
Do you feel a 'haunting' now?
I listed point by point corrections to your statements.
Words have specific meaning for a reason. You seem to think that specificity is only necessary with things and not people. I disagree.
Just a note; The issue is not whether ss couples would harm marriage. The fundamental question is do they equate to marriage. The only aspect is in number. That means marriage would then mean 'two people in a committed relationship'. Restricting marriage to only two for that reason is discriminatory. Again, it leaves your mother and father, and your family without distinction. I find that sad.
See your point about taking away the man/woman in a marriage. For my part I'd prefer it for selfish reasons as would SS couples. Back at one time part of the vows was to 'obey' which many dispense with now. Would it not suffice to keep the man/woman part in the vows in some way. The service is often tailored to the couples, so the only real difference would be the legal definition; and the gender part could still be on the license. I do also see why it can be sad. But, change is part of progress. At one time a woman was not called a woman but as a wife (and the man still man as opposed to being husband) was chattel. Do we/they really need such distinction, will still be a hetero marriage and family, documents will still no doubt specify the gender of those involved. It seems a little like an exclusive club which is set to opening itself up the a wider variety of members; except the esteemed exclusivity of the club is more in the minds of some than it is in practical effects.
Thank you for answering my query about chimeras and mosaics. Like I just said yes I know words are specific but often what one person calls one thing appears to be different because of the word they use but actually it's the same thing, especially between Countries (eg. America and England). Wrongly, I thought that was what the case was here. The twin thing I've heard about, happens quite often, but usually the lost twin is totally absorbed physically and their individual DNA lost. Not for you though, lucky you; why have either/ or when you can have both is what I say. I want to add a little smirkey smiley face to that but it may be taken as mocking.