- Jan 12, 2012
- 27,286
- 113
I would argue that the problem is in the movement of outspoken homosexuals demanding universal imprimatur on their choices. Marriage has been defined as it is throughout human history. This argument is like a black man claiming discrimination because he is not redefined as some other ethnicity and called such. Personally, although I consider homosexuality categorically wrong, I will maintain that anyone has a right to join their worldly fortunes with whomever they choose. That does not include redefining words and institutions (like marriage, which, again, is what it is). This is the same type of thinking that threatens our own rights as more erosion is done to the Constitution by redefining the words contained within than by amendment or simply ignoring it. What little sympathy I may have entertained evaporated that the point that homosexuals were offered a union geared to their type of relationship and they immediately responded with the notion that if it doesn't start with the letter 'm' it isn't good enough. I am sorry, but redefining language is not a right. Now I will return to my standard foundational position: If non-homosexuals were the intolerant and dangerous monsters that selected groups like to portray them as being, there would be no living homosexuals available to complain about it.
