[ExI] Change of thought (was Just curious, it's not natural!)

[Anna Taylor]

I had the privilege last weekend to attend my first
gay marriage. Before the wedding, I thought deeply
about what my conviction was regarding gay marriage.
(Of course this led me back to what I had written a
year ago, see below.)  

This particular wedding will forever be in my
thoughts.  It's amazing how one experience can alter a
belief perception.

After seeing them together, it seems silly to me to
have wasted time even debating such an issue.  Who am
I to decide what is better for one than the other? Who
am I to judge?  

Anyhow, didn't mean to bore anybody but I did feel the
need to apologize to those that may have been offended
by some of my remarks.  

Hope everyone on the Extropy List has had a wonderful
summer.

Anna:)

Anna wrote on Mon Oct 30:
>>> >Why wouldn't the gay communities want their own
>>> >word for their union and still keep the basic
>>> >laws for spouse and marital?

On 10/31/06, Terry Colvin <fortean1 at mindspring.com>
forwarded:
>> Maybe because they're forming a union, joined for
>>life, and creating a family -- so there's a
perfectly
>>good word for that already in existence.

That word is already taken.  It describes the "Union"
between male and female.  

>>In any case, it's not "scriptural" -- the
>>institution predates and is independent of any
>>particular scripture.

No. Laws are institutions that predate.  If gays want
to be married, I again will repeat, I have no problem
with that.  I believe they should have every right to
the same benefits and laws as a "married" couple
should have but I think it should be defined by a
different word.  

>>>I can't presume to understand the relationship
>>>between 2 men or 2 women and who am I to judge what
>>>"Union" they want but as a heterosexual woman,
>>>don't I have every right to keep word "marriage"?.

>> Sure you do. Your marriage won't suddenly become
>>a "flerm" just because someone else got married. Did
>>all heterosexual marriages suddenly change somehow
>>in 1989, when Denmark recognized gay marriage?

It's not about recognizing gay marriage.  I have the
up most respect for gays, I would never disrespect any
choice of sexual behaviour unless it violates rights.
I
feel using the word "marriage" as a symbol of the
union between 2 men or 2 women violates my right as a
heterosexual female.  Why is that so wrong?

>> What you don't necessarily have is the right to
>>deny the word to other people.

Why? If the word had already been established, why
wouldn't I have the right to keep it just the way it
is? The "Union" between man and woman.
What I don't understand is why the gay community would
not choose to represent itself as a self-sufficient
member of society and choose a word that describes
what their future "union" may one day represent.

I am aware that most don't believe in the sanction of
a woman and a man.  That's their choice.  I do.  Not
the laws, not the piece of paper but the choice to
want to procreate with somebody and evolve as humans. 
It's not my scenario, at the present time, but I do
believe that it should be a right and that "right" is
the term defined by the word "marriage".

Just an opinion.
Anna




      Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail at http://mrd.mail.yahoo.com/try_beta?.intl=ca