"Redefining"

[Deadbolt]

I think it's pretty much understood be people who live their lives under a pretext of rationality that legally permitting a group of people to engage in an activity, for example, To build a shed on their property or get married does not really effect the right of another person to do the same. Furthermore, in that it "means" anything at all, to a rational mind, one person's exercise of a right should not effect what it means for another individual to exercise the same right. To a rational mind.

But in the debate you must now realize I am getting to, reason has no place in the minds of the opposing side. And I think I've figured out why they are so adamant in their bloody mindedness.

It appears to me that they live in some kind of consensus reality fantasy world where allowing gays to get legally married really does change the meaning of the word on some elemental level. To them, words have some kind of magical power. Therefore, if the meaning of the word is changed, the power behind it is lessened or tainted in some way.

This idea is actually fairly widespread in fundamentalist Christian circles, especially among conservative historical revisionists and crazy homeschool types as demonstrated by the reverence in which they hold such books at the KJV Bible, Webster's 1828 dictionary and various other antiquated tomes.

If not in full, I believe this is a good part of why Christian Fundamentalists oppose the right of homosexual couples to attain the right of civil marriage. They really believe that it changes what the word "Marriage" means. As childish a belief as this is, it's really par for the course among such unreasoned fantasies as Astrology, Creationism and Holistic healing. As such, nothing will be accomplished by treating their concerns as in any way legitimate or even sane.

 

[Hentenza]

There must be an inordinate amount of fundamentalist Christians in the US since 31 states have rejected by majority vote the idea of ssms. I think your logic is a bit skewed.

 

[Deadbolt]

There must be an inordinate amount of fundamentalist Christians in the US since 31 states have rejected by majority vote the idea of ssms. I think your logic is a bit skewed.

Narrow majorities won over by fear mongering funded by out of state organizations who's leadership are EXACTLY the types I described.

 

[quatona]

Good post (OP)!
Except that the idea that the meaning of a word has some magical power to change *what is* doesn´t seem to be exclusive to the group you are adressing.
Personally, I don´t understand why many of us who want equal rights for homosexuals insist on using the term "marriage" for those legal unions.
As long as I get equal rights I couldn´t care less what label is put on them (let alone the fact, that language in practice will call what walks, talks, smells and tastes like a duck a "duck" sooner or later. No matter what the official term is, people will call committed unions "marriage").

 

[Hentenza]

That's a heck of an opinion.

 

[Belk]

There must be an inordinate amount of fundamentalist Christians in the US since 31 states have rejected by majority vote the idea of ssms. I think your logic is a bit skewed.

An interesting point. Was %50 of the population racist during the civil rights era? Or was it more due to a lot of people preferring the status quo because change can be difficult?