gays hijacking our language, page-55

No zipper

she married John Sheelha


On the concept of gay marriage I can't see why they just won't accept that hetrosexuals have a right to hang onto something that was named for them. I guess I do know the answer but it is a shame that everything that minority groups fight for is a 'right'.
On the other hand I can't see what it changes apart from upsetting those that hold marriage as sacrosanct between man and women (although in BALI recently the lad was made to 'marry' the cow he has sex with. He became a widower the same day...true story).
Our current laws recognise a defacto gay couple exactly the same as a defacto hetrosexual couple which in the eyes of the law is the same as a married couple.
I am not sure of any 'benefits' a married couple recieve over a defacto couple?
So after once being 100% in the parrots corner and say why not simply call it a union rather than marriage or come up with another term, I now go well what harm can it do anyway. They can adopt children or have surrogate children and in vito fertilization etc so what difference is there really?

Still I guess this thread was about the 'hijacking of language'

I wonder who has been the greater hijacker of language. The gay community or technology in the hands of adolesents?

big thumbs up for keeping what could be a contentious issue pretty darn civil...well done :)