board77

Thanks, TED.

The conservatives are actually a fairly new phenomenon, but so very visible in the media and the news that it's often necessary to jog people's elbows about this. Christianity is too big and too complicated and too old to be monolithic.

I often mutter with fellow church members and my pastor about reclaiming the word "Christian". . . .

Just to dip my toes in here:

Quote:

I should also address one of Cerin’s concerns here that no one else has acknowledged - that people like myself who are pushing this issue on an unwilling population are playing into the hands of the conservative extremists who seem to be taking over our government.

I'm not sure where I heard it said but I remember a quote that went something like: "The true measure of civilisation is in how you treat your minorities". That may be a misquote, but the sentiment is true in any case. It's easy to look after the majority and keep the masses happy.

Cerin wrote:

I believe the opposite is also true, that a greater number of persons do not want to call gay unions "marriage because in their minds, gay unions are not "marriage."

I hope this isn't a "straw man" argument, but there was a time when the vast majority of Americans thought that Black people were inferior to White people and fit only for slavery. That didn't make it right.

The point here is that marginalisation of any kind is about maintaining the status quo at the expense of another person. Allowing Gay unions to be called "Marriage" does not change the relationship I have with my wife. Calling my Marriage a civil union would not change it either. It's all semantics.

Alatar

Ah yes, TED. MUCH better.

I'm going to refrain from hugging you to maintain a scrap of dignity, for us both... but you've got a hug sitting here waiting with your name on it. Just sayin'.

My Christian beliefs are quite focused, and I am often perplexed with all the other "stuff" that gets thrown in to the "religion" of Christianity, that I am therefore somehow responsible for defending. I do have some conservative beliefs (which I will not apologize for) but also lots of other thoughts that are all over the chart. I actually do not like the label "religious" either... religion, to me, is quite man-made, and mankind makes up weird and nonsensical rules about God. Bah.

Anyway, I'll hop off of my soapbox... thanks for letting me vent, folks.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Alatar, I agree with you about the word marriage, and how others see it, and being a non-issue with my own marriage. It's interesting that it was pointed out that my marriage involved the community; I felt, and feel, that my marriage was deeply personal, and quite separate from the rest of the world.

This is something that I do to honor one man, every day, and the magic and effort are ours alone. I think this is why the marriage of gays and what it is called is such a non-issue for me; I could have jumped over a stick at midnight with my man and felt the same level of commitment. Someone down the street who had 10 attendants and a white horse-drawn carriage is no more married than I am. Other people's commitments to each other cannot and do not affect mine to my hubby.

I firmly believe that gays should be offered some way to legally bind themselves to each other. Fair is fair. What it is called is not an issue at all with me.

But I understand better now why it is an issue with others.

That was an excellent post, tinwe.

Will try and comment more later. (I hope Cerin doesn't feel ganged up on!)

Primula_Baggins wrote:

I often mutter with fellow church members and my pastor about reclaiming the word "Christian". . . .

Same here!

I just wanted to say, for the record, that this is the most intelligent discussions about gay marriage that I have ever witnessed or been a party to. Even with several dissenting viewpoints, everyone has managed to stay focused and civil.

Good for us!

yovargas wrote:

That wasn't quite the question.

Hmmm. I thought that was one of them, perhaps TED will clarify.

Quote:

So what is the negative impact on society that you are trying to prevent?

I haven't been thinking in terms of impact, but rather, on what it would reflect about our valuation of that aspect of marriage as a society, if we removed that meaning from the word.

Quote:

Is it nothing more then a linguistic preference?

I wouldn't dismiss it as "a linguistic preference." Words are very important. Language reflects reality. We have words for concepts that are worthy of recognition in thought and speech. The committed union of a man and a woman, which embodies the design for procreation, is worthy of recognition in thought and speech, therefore there should continue to be a word to designate it. That is the totality of my viewpoint, but I would not call it a preference. It is a very important principle to me.

Quote:

Oh, and there were some points I made in my last post that you hadn't addressed.

Well, I have nothing to add on the subject of flugehorns.

Seriously, would you mind cutting and pasting those points you would like a response to? Usually if I don't address something, it's because I don't have anything to say about it, it might be because it is outside of my focus, which tends to be rather narrow.

Quote:

The only thing that is important to me is that, since they are legally the same exact thing, they should be called legally the same exact thing.

Because they are (should be) legally afforded the same exact status and protections, does not mean they are the same exact thing. Sorry for another lame analogy, but we don't call cats and dogs the same thing because they are afforded the exact same legal protections?

Quote:

If there is no legal purpose for distinguishing different people, they should NOT be distinguished. EVER. That goes for race, gender, religion, sexuality, and anything else.

Oh, for heaven's sake! We should use the same word for men and women, we should not differentiate race or ethnicity linguistically? That is not a language or society I would want any part of! Legality is not reality. Reality is much larger than the legal constructs we invent for the purposes of governance.

Quote:

This is part of the tradition of marriage and it is a highly valuable and desirable one and it cannot simply be transferred over to this concept of "civil unions".

Words take their meaning from the thing they describe, the thing does not take its meaning from the word. Civil unions will be apprehended for exactly what they are, loving public commitments to be together for life, which are indeed valuable and desirable.

Quote:

I say pointless because the public declaration and the social and personal commitments and all the significance that that is meant to imply in our society is exactly the same between gays and straights.

The significance is not exactly the same! A man and a man are not designed so as to fit together in completion of a biological design for the creation of life!

Quote:

Straight folk lose nothing within their marriage by the idea of gay marriage

Straight folk lose a word that uniquely describes their union. Things considered worthy of individual distinction, have words to describe them. Marriage -- the committed union between two persons of opposite sex -- is worthy of a word to describe it; it differs in a very significant aspect, from the union between two persons of same sex (which also deserves a word to describe it).

Quote:

(I hope Cerin doesn't feel ganged up on!)

Not at all, but I appreciate your concern.

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

So, if their relationships can be the same, why must we distinguish between the two.

Their relationships cannot be the same. Two persons of opposite gender cannot join physically in a way that fulfills a biological design. This physical joining that a man and a woman can experience in the context of a loving relationship, is significant, therefore the union that embodies it should be distinguished from those that don't.

Quote:

But, it isn't significant because it can happen outside of this union.

So because sexual intercourse can happen in other contexts, the sexual intercourse that happens within the context of a committed relationship is insignificant? That strikes me as a strange viewpoint. I wonder if other married couples would agree that their sexual relationship with their spouse, as it is a physical expression of their love and committment, is insignificant?

Quote:

If marriage was strictly about the ability to breed

Being strictly about the ability to breed would not be the point. Marriage embodies the design for reproduction; it is in the nature of things that a man and a woman are designed so that new life can be created out of their shared love and commitment. This is not an insignificant aspect of their union! I do not see how anyone can make the case that this aspect of an opposite sex union is so insignificant, as to not warrant recognition in the language.

tinwe_linto wrote:

I know for a fact that Cerin is not part of that culture, but I do think that she unwittingly plays into their hands.

I think the insistence on calling gay unions "marriage' is what is playing into their hands, because it is going to result in the denial of legal protections to gay couples! (And I greatly appreciate your trust, that I am not part of that culture.)

Quote:

My personal feeling is that legal recognition of gay marriage would, in time, help to erase that perception, and that, in turn, would help to eliminate some of the suffering of people that I know.

I think you are a very sweet and tender hearted person, but I think you are wrong. I think just the opposite has happened and will continue to happen. Legal recognition of gay "marriage" will create a furious resistance and backlash that will poison any goodwill that might have developed toward gay unions, on the part of people who might have harbored some adverse perceptions about gays. Again, things do not take their meaning from the word used to describe them; rather, words take their meaning from the reality of the thing they describe.

Alatar wrote:

Allowing Gay unions to be called "Marriage" does not change the relationship I have with my wife. Calling my Marriage a civil union would not change it either. It's all semantics.

Yes, for me it's all about words and their meanings (which to me is of utmost importance).

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

The only thing that is important to me is that, since they are legally the same exact thing, they should be called legally the same exact thing.

Because they are (should be) legally afforded the same exact status and protections, does not mean they are the same exact thing. Sorry for another lame analogy, but we don't call cats and dogs the same thing because they are afforded the exact same legal protections?

If there is no reason to distinguish between the two species legally, then they would use the word "animals" or "pets".

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

If there is no legal purpose for distinguishing different people, they should NOT be distinguished. EVER. That goes for race, gender, religion, sexuality, and anything else.

Oh, for heaven's sake! We should use the same word for men and women, we should not differentiate race or ethnicity linguistically? That is not a language or society I would want any part of! Legality is not reality. Reality is much larger than the legal constructs we invent for the purposes of governance.

If there is no reason to distinguish between two genders, races, or ethnicities, then they should use the words "humans" or "people". You don't make one set of laws for women and then another set of laws for men, even if the two sets of laws are identical. It is not only absurd to do so but it is also dangerous because it allows women to be treated differently then men from a legal aspect.

Quote:

Why do I consider the creation of life within the context of a committed relationship, to be something of great significance? Gosh, it seems so obvious.

This doesn't seem so obvious to me. The design for life is not something only a small segment of the population are equipped for. Everyone has half the ability to create life. That would be akin to holding all food sacred because of the design for digestion. I don't think that creating a child is of no significance, but from a social (or less personal) standpoint it isn't something that needs to be celebrated by all of society. I'm probably holding a minority opinion here.

I do agree that on the personal level, sharing a loving and committed relationship with someone and creating a life is something joyous and worthy of celebration, but the impact doesn't extend past the personal.

My question to you was, what would be the impact on the word or society itself if the this opinion of marriage was changed? Although, I believe I can assume your answer. Would I be right to assume you might say that taking the design for reproduction out of marriage would change the way society values marriage and in a way devalue marriage, not because it includes gays, but because of the loss of this design distinction?

Quote:

I haven't been thinking in terms of impact, but rather, on what it would reflect about our valuation of that aspect of marriage as a society, if we removed that meaning from the word.

Semantically, this is the same as impact. Would the negative impact (or reflection about how we value) be the devaluing of the design for life?

I think I might discontinue this segment of our debate because it seems we've exhausted much of it and are reaching no new understandings (no fault is laid, just the realization that much of the core opinions on marriage's importance are too polar).

I'm going to move on to this because it seems fresher. Thank you for your responses Cerin. Obviously, if I have gotten anything wrong, you may and will correct me if I know your style.

Quote:

Legal recognition of gay "marriage" will create a furious resistance and backlash that will poison any goodwill that might have developed toward gay unions, on the part of people who might have harbored some adverse perceptions about gays.

I actually don't disagree here. I am not sure the opposing segment of society is ready yet to accept gay marriage (if watching Da Ali G Show has taught me anything), but, and I haven't seen any numbers, I'm not sure the opposing segment is even ready to accept civil unions. If these folk are not even willing to accept civil unions (across the board, not just state by state) then what are we to do? Not that I want the federal government regulating marriage, but (and here's the catch 22) if left up to the states I think many of the states that voted to legally define marriage will see no need to grant the same legal benefits to civil unions keeping gays marginalized. How many states actually grant civil unions (to gays)? I know of 2 maybe 3. How many accept civil unions (for gays) from other states? I know of 3 or 4 (though there may be more I just don't know of).

Quote:

I just wanted to say, for the record, that this is the most intelligent discussions about gay marriage that I have ever witnessed or been a party to. Even with several dissenting viewpoints, everyone has managed to stay focused and civil.

We can when we want to be.

ETA: What yovargas said.

Quote:

Legality is not reality. Reality is much larger than the legal constructs we invent for the purposes of governance.

But reality cannot be legality. Just because we have two genders doesn't mean we need two sets of laws. Same goes for races, religions and sexual orientations.

Alatar wrote:

I hope this isn't a "straw man" argument, but there was a time when the vast majority of Americans thought that Black people were inferior to White people and fit only for slavery. That didn't make it right.

I've never quite understood the concept of the strawman argument.

This isn't about people thinking something is inferior or about something not being right. This is about the fact that a union between persons of opposite sex, and a union between persons of same sex, are different from one another in that definitional aspect -- that one involves opposite genders, and the other involves same genders. As it happens, the union between persons of opposite genders represents the design for procreation (a not insignificant phenomenon), and the union between persons of same gender does not. This will not change. The question is simply, should the language have a word that describes the kind of union that embodies the design for procreation. I think the answer is obvious, and I think more people agree with me than don't. Perhaps there will come a time when the majority of people in our society regard the reproductive design within marriage as so insignificant, that they agree there should be no word by which to designate this concept in thought or speech. I don't know.

Quote:

The point here is that marginalisation of any kind is about maintaining the status quo at the expense of another person.

The status quo here is that persons of opposite sex in a committed union (marriage) are configured to experience a kind of physical joining (significant in its design) that persons of same sex in a committed union cannot experience. If this is marginalization, it is not achieved or maintained by any human effort.

yovargas wrote:

If there is no reason to distinguish between two genders, races, or ethnicities, then they should use the words "humans" or "people".

I'm guessing that you mean, no reason to distinguish within the context of legal documentation? I had misunderstood that earlier, I thought you were talking about speech in general.

My point is, there is good reason not to call gay unions "marriage," so naturally, there will have to be laws written to apply to whatever it is officially decided that gay unions be called. Those laws might be exactly the same as the laws for marriage, it's just that they will have to be written separately, as applying to gay unions.

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

Everyone has half the ability to create life.

Yes. And when you put the two opposite sex halves together, it results in a whole (a full representation of Man), out of which life can be created! A man and woman are designed so as to come together and create their very own flesh and blood children! It's really quite a thing.

When you put two of the same halves together, all you have is two halves that don't make a whole, and do not embody the design to create life. And yet you, and others say, this is not a difference significant enough to merit attention. That can only mean that you view the creation of children within the context of a loving marriage, as not significant enough to merit attention. This seems really quite remarkable to me.

Quote:

That would be akin to holding all food sacred because of the design for digestion.

No, that is an incorrect analogy. It is not about holding anything sacred, it is about recognizing that the existence and value of something is significant enough to merit a word in the language to designate it.

Quote:

I don't think that creating a child is of no significance, but from a social (or less personal) standpoint it isn't something that needs to be celebrated by all of society.

Well then, by all means, don't celebrate the creation of children within committed relationships. But don't try to deny others the means of celebrating this in thought and speech, by removing from the language, the word used to designate the kind of committed unions that embody this phenomenon.

Quote:

I do agree that on the personal level, sharing a loving and committed relationship with someone and creating a life is something joyous and worthy of celebration, but the impact doesn't extend past the personal.

I would say that is a strange and unusual point of view, considering the numbers of people who attend baby showers, send cards of congratulations to new parents, or buy birthday gifts for other people's children, etc.

Quote:

My question to you was, what would be the impact on the word or society itself if the this opinion of marriage was changed?

I think we've been talking about a definition of marriage being changed, not an opinion of it. You can't change an opinion about marriage by changing the definition, and that is why people will not accept calling gay unions "marriage."

As I've said, changing the definition would be a statement that our society does not value that aspect of the meaning of the word, and most people will not stand for that statement being made by their government, because most people understand that this concept is, in fact, significant enough to merit a word that describes it.

Quote:

Would I be right to assume you might say that taking the design for reproduction out of marriage would change the way society values marriage and in a way devalue marriage, not because it includes gays, but because of the loss of this design distinction?

Luckily, no one can take the design for reproduction out of marriage (unless men and women are prohibited from marrying one another).

You could (theoretically) officially remove that aspect of the meaning of the word from its definition, but it wouldn't change the true nature of marriage, and it wouldn't enable two persons of same sex to experience it. All it would do would be to officially declare that our society doesn't value this aspect of the concept of marriage (which would be truly bizarre, IMO).

Quote:

Semantically, this is the same as impact. Would the negative impact (or reflection about how we value) be the devaluing of the design for life?

I don't think it's the same as impact. We could all go around pretending or even believing that the birth of children within committed relationships is of no significance, but the birth of children within committed relationships would remain a profoundly significant phenomenon. In other words, you cannot devalue the design for life, regardless of how you might try.

A society could make a statement declaring that it doesn't value the design for life (for example, by removing the word from the language that designates the type of union that embodies it), and that is what I am objecting to. Would it actually devalue the design for life? No, but it officially disrespects it.

Quote:

I think I might discontinue this segment of our debate because it seems we've exhausted much of it

Yes, I think we have entered into the dreaded realm of repetition.

Quote:

I think many of the states that voted to legally define marriage will see no need to grant the same legal benefits to civil unions keeping gays marginalized.

Yes, that is the tragedy here. By insisting that gay unions be called "marriage" (and thereby instigating this spate of state referendums defining "marriage") I believe the gay rights movement has destroyed what was a real possibility for gaining legal recognition of civil unions. It is truly tragic, IMO.

Quote:

Just because we have two genders doesn't mean we need two sets of laws.

It isn't the fact of two genders that requires two sets of laws, it is the fact of two types of committed unions (different in a significant aspect) that requires it. If you can't call gay unions "marriage" (and I believe you can't, or shouldn't), then obviously you need to produce a separate set of laws for whatever it is officially decided that gay unions be called.

Thanks.

Quote:

Yes, that is the tragedy here. By insisting that gay unions be called "marriage" (and thereby instigating this spate of state referendums defining "marriage") I believe the gay rights movement has destroyed what was a real possibility for gaining legal recognition of civil unions.

This is not answering my comment. My comment is concering the fact that if left up to the states (especially those that already voted to legally define marriage) I do not think that these states especially will see any need to grant gays civil unions or unions that afford them the same legal rights as marriage. I have said nothing about whether the proponoents of marriage have harmed or helped their cause.

I don't get it. In one sentence you were appalled that someone could possibly assert the need to separate genders, races and religions linguistically, but you see nothing wrong with separating sexual orientations linguistically.

Quote:

Those laws might be exactly the same as the laws for marriage, it's just that they will have to be written separately, as applying to gay unions.

Do you have that much faith that whatever the new word created might be will actually be put on equal footing with marriage in the eyes of the law?

TheEllipticalDisillusion wrote:

This is not answering my comment. My comment is concering the fact that if left up to the states (especially those that already voted to legally define marriage) I do not think that these states especially will see any need to grant gays civil unions or unions that afford them the same legal rights as marriage.

What I'm saying is, now that the issue has been exacerbated by the push for gay "marriage," and states are passing marriage definition referendums willy-nilly because of it, I think you are probably right, states are not going to be inclined to favorably consider the needs of gay couples. I think they may well have been amenable to doing so, before the Massachusetts case.

Quote:

I have said nothing about whether the proponoents of marriage have harmed or helped their cause.

I understand that; I was the one making the link between your supposition of a lack of interest on the part of states to consider the needs of gay couples, and the recent push for gay marriage. I definitely see a connection, I wasn't implying that you had made one.

Quote:

In one sentence you were appalled that someone could possibly assert the need to separate genders, races and religions linguistically

No, please go back and re-read that (perhaps it was confusing because it was based on a misunderstanding of what yovargas had said); I was appalled that someone could possibly assert the need NOT to separate genders, races, etc. linguistically.

Quote:

Do you have that much faith that whatever the new word created might be will actually be put on equal footing with marriage in the eyes of the law?

I wouldn't say I have faith that it will ever happen now, unfortunately. That would be my hope, and as yet, no one has been able to explain what the practical difficulty would be in accomplishing that (assuming the good will and determination to see it done, but I think the effort has been fatally sabotaged by the misguided focus on gaining recognition for gay "marriage").

:):)

Denial Of Marriage Costs Same-Sex Couples Thousands A Year:
http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/03/032405connFamily.htm

-Kushana

Insteresting link, Kushana (hi, btw ). Personally, it doesn't make me wish I got those benefits. It makes me wonder why straight people get them.

Because we're, like, sending off little sparklies of wholesomeness in all directions, yov. Flowers perk up when we walk by, holding hands and gazing at each other like Doris Day and Rock Hudson. The universe is a better place because we're in there every day doing the ball-and-chain thing. Of course we deserve lots of money. Sheesh.

Cerin says: "Their relationships cannot be the same. Two persons of opposite gender cannot join physically in a way that fulfills a biological design. This physical joining that a man and a woman can experience in the context of a loving relationship, is significant, therefore the union that embodies it should be distinguished from those that don't. "

Well, Cerin, I gotta disagree with you. Sex is not intercourse. Intercourse is one kind of sexual activity, but it's not the only kind. Willing partners can find a lot of ways to "join physically", if I may say so without being too technical here.

Nature has provided many sexual avenues for pleasure and the bonding that results from that pleasure in a relationship and only ONE for procreation. Why should that ONE be the ruling factor?

People have been homosexual since they have been people. As far as I can tell, it's as "natural" as being straight, only not as common. Still, it's a pretty significant portion of the population.

If it was not "natural", think about it: it would have vanished in the first generation of homosexuals, since they could not reproduce.

Instead, it keeps cropping up in every generation. That leads to me to suspect it has some evolutionary advantage to our species.

"Marriage" has included many kinds of unions in the past and no doubt will in the future. It is an easily understood word and signifies exactly what it is: the official, sanctioned, recognized, open, common tie between two people who we shall presume love each other and wish to say so out loud to the world. I agree that it is a "public" thing. There are cultural and legal reasons for that to be so.

Since the reality is that only "marriage" will ensure that all "joined" people will have the same rights, then "marriage" is the word that better be used.

Hello, Yovargas

<bows> Glad to be a provider of interesting links.

I think everyone that's human gets civil rights: since gay people are quite human, I don't understand why there's an argument. (I note that we seem to have had exactly the same problem confering humanity, in the past, with blacks, the Chinese, interracial couples, and women as participants in heterosexual marriages. )

-Kushana, who suddenly feels very glad that she can own property, vote, testify in a court of law, pay taxes, make contracts, open bank accounts, be treated neutrally in terms of employment and housing, and would be treated fairly in any legal proceedings ... alas, this leaves a raft of other social justice issues (and that's only going by my gender. )

Cerin said:

Quote:

Two persons of ... [the same] gender cannot join physically in a way that fulfills a biological design.

Then why isn't a woman's pleasure, physical comfort, or even mere willingess required for conception?

Why is the vagina actually rather insensitive (except for the outer third)?

Why isn't conception pleasurable -- or indeed (for most women) noticable?

Why don't women go into heat, like most other mammals? (i.e. our sexual interest does not correspond to our fertility. )

Why do the same responsive nerves serve that entire area of the body, making all sorts of non-procreative delights possible? (For both sexes. )

Why does male pleasure have nothing to do with fertility? (i.e. men with vasectomies don't seem to enjoy sex any less) Or procreation? (i.e. contact with the cervix isn't reinforced for either sex)

Why do men lack the little barbs that keep other mammalian males in place until they've fulfilled their role in procreation?

Sex, I don't know -- I think it's all quite biological. (And whatever else *ahem* non-biological you're bringing into it is really your own business...)

-Kushana

Quote:

Well, Cerin, I gotta disagree with you. Sex is not intercourse. Intercourse is one kind of sexual activity, but it's not the only kind. Willing partners can find a lot of ways to "join physically", if I may say so without being too technical here.

Quote:

Sex, I don't know -- I think it's all quite biological.

I've wondered this, Cerin. This is one of my reasons for why I asked "why the current opinion of marriage is so dang important". I suspected that you didn't literally mean marriage is about sex, but the design is important in some other notion that I have still not been able to grasp.

Hi, vison! Replying to your comments would just be to repeat myself, and I don't want to subject you all to that tedium.

Hi, Kushana!

I'm not sure what the point is, of all of your questions. I'm simply saying that when a man and a woman engage in sexual intercourse, that act is part of the biological design for reproduction (in the same way, for example, that eating is part of the biological design for nourishing the body).

Maybe the old banana example will help. If you eat a banana, that's part of a biological design for nourishing your body (and also includes the pleasure and satisfaction we experience when eating). If you stick the banana in your ear because you enjoy sticking bananas in your ear, that isn't part of a biological design for nourishing your body, though it may give you some sort of physical or emotional pleasure nonetheless. Perhaps you would also consider that the fulfillment of a biological design, but I am differentiating between the two. The difference is plain to me, though perhaps I am failing to articulate it, or perhaps you don't see the difference as significant?


I'm not sure where this quote originated:

Quote:

I suspected that you didn't literally mean marriage is about sex, but the design is important in some other notion that I have still not been able to grasp.

Sex (the physical expression of love, the enjoyment of physical intimacy as it reflects emotional intimacy) is one of the things that marriage is about, just as it is one of the things that a gay committed relationship is about. Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman fulfills the biological design that makes new life possible; this phenomenon is especially significant within the context of a loving, committed union (as evidenced in this recent thread):

http://www.phpbber.com/phpbb/viewtopic. ... um=board77

This is what I'm talking about. I believe this kind of union warrants a word in the language to describe it, because the type of event being celebrated in that thread, is not insignificant.

:):)

We aren't going to agree, Cerin. I see it as a matter of right and wrong, not Rights alone.

The change is inevitable and trying to stop it is like King Knute trying to stop the tide.