I would also point out that “politically correct” is about as dismissive a term as can be found today.
Cultural attitudes may shift, and at some point a marginalized concept dismissed as “politically correct” becomes simply “correct.”
I would also point out that “politically correct” is about as dismissive a term as can be found today.
Cultural attitudes may shift, and at some point a marginalized concept dismissed as “politically correct” becomes simply “correct.”
In many countries/states, civil unions are the norm for gay people, and have been for some time.
However, the current debate from gay people seems to be that they want to re-use the "marriage" label, which has traditionally been for between a man and a woman.
I'm not saying it's right simply because it's tradition - but trying to argue that it has been anything but between a man and a woman for thousands of years is just historical revisionism.
So yes, you can try to argue that, we should redefine marriage to include between any two people who want it.
However, to claim that they're somehow being "oppressed" because we don't simply let them win their argument is just silly.
If this was really about them wanting benefits, then the civil union would achieve that.
Civil unions or legal gay marriages are still not possible in about 2/3 of the United States.
It's not "historical revisionism" for the definition of a word (in the eyes of the law) to change or evolve. For example, marriage used to be legal with women under 16-- now it's largely not. I'd say that most proponents care more about the rights than the label.
That's not Uganda style death penalty as some are equating it to.
There's no etymology war, you can keep the word "marriage", just give everyone equal rights to marry and have their marriage recognized everywhere.
It's a good point, unfortunately the problem with that is how far back we should we go?
For example: Same sex marriage ( not just civil union ) did occur for example in the Roman Empire, until the Christian Emperors Constantius II and Constans passed a law prohibiting same sex marriage and making it punishable by death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient
The examples were apparently satirical, and had no legal standing under Roman law.
The exceptions were a few Roman emperors who had...interesting....whims.
But hey, it's the emperor, who are you to tell him what's legal or illegal.
Fast forward a few thousand years, and the one other exception is history is one Spanish priest in 1061.