Were I to start a soft drink company, I could market a product identical to Coca Cola. It could taste like it, look like it, smell like it, even have the identical chemical composition.
But, I could not call it Coca Cola. I'd have to come up with a new name, as that brand is already taken.
Now, gays want to take over the brand name enjoyed by heterosexuals: Marriage.
First problem is if you knew anything about law it doesn't work that way with brand names. When Apple came into existence did we all have to stop using the word apple? Do Apple Pie companies have to ask apple for the rights to use the word apple? It very simply does not work that way. Also, to get a brand name requires you do a few things first, and no one has actually done that.
Your second stupid is not thinking your idea all the way through. Marriage involves a wedding. Straight marriage often involves a woman who has been programmed from birth tot hink that this is the best day in her life when she gets to be the princess at her own fabulous extravaganza. And who out there makes fabulous fabulous? You got it, faggots. If straight people want to own marriage, fags will most certainly own fabulous. (By fags I am not referring to your standard gay guy, but your over the top flamboyant fairy type of gay, and yes they do exist, and there are good people) You will not be able to satisfy your women without the help of faggots. You really do not want to offend them either because without gays she is going to want to talk to you about wedding things, and you do not want to hear that. The reality is if gays have their own weddings, women, especially the hot ones, are going to want gay weddings.
Gays should have the same rights as anyone else. They have every right to have civil unions with all of the rights and responsibilities, not to mention the pitfalls, of marriage.
Shouldn't gays get to make the name of their marriages? How christian of you to name them for gays, but I am sure gays would call them something better than civil unions.
But, why do they have to call it that? That brand is already taken.
You see, the brand is not taken because you have to do something to make it a brand. In the end it is not just gays who will be on your case if you make the attempt to brand name it. Because we all klnow this is a christian thing and they share like a two year old. You are going to have to fight with atheists, jews, muslims, hindus, and every other damned religion on the planet to get that brand name to discriminate. I am going to tell you something, if it could be done the sceinos would have already owned it because those are some legal knowledge having crazies.
They can have a wedding, a honeymoon, call each other husband, wife, spouse, whatever they like.
Really? Do you really think it would just end there? this is not about the use of a word at all. They do not want gays being married. They are out there talking about god smiting us all for this, and I am sure it is not over a word. This is because they do not want gays forming a family union. You would call it civil unions and people like you would still have a huge problem with it because you simply do not like gays.
The only dispute is over one word: Marriage.
Yeah, you have completely misrepresented the entire argument, and are deliberately trying to mislead others into thinking gays are the unreasonable ones. You should run for congress with that.
And, while the government should not be in the marriage business, the fact is that it is and isn't likely to get out of it any time soon. The government has a history of applying a new name to the same old thing, and pretending it is something new. So, why not do so in the marriage debate?
Actually, the government is in the civil dispute business, which puts it into the business of dissolving partnerships and contracts. In order to get them out of the marriage business you would have to stop people from joining assets and stop giving them benefits. Plus you would have to have some way to divide up the children without a fight. The government will be in that business until people can stop behaving like spoiled brats when they break up. In other words they are never getting out of it, and that is because of straight people.
California's Proposition 8 redefined, or perhaps confirmed the definition would be a better term, of one word: Marriage. It left intact civil unions with the same rights and responsibilities as marriage. It didn't address words like weddings, spouses, husbands, or wives.
So, why not simply compromise: People who oppose gay marriage can have their brand name, but the gays get their civil unions with the same meaning as marriage. They get to have as splashy and showy a wedding as they wish to have. They can have a wedding license. They can call each other whatever they choose.
Seems to me a good compromise, and one that can put an end to a debate that boils down to much ado about one word.
Oh, how presumptuous of you to tell us all you can end the debate. news flash for you, you are a nobody and no one needs to compromise with you. I have a deal for you, you give us a call when you are worth compromising with, and we won't hold our breath waiting until the twelfth of never for that to happen.