But here’s the thing; you’ve pointed out many times that you would accept - in favour of, in fact - a marriage-without-the-name-only term for gay partnerships of this kind. Possibly this is just because it hasn’t come up in these debates, but i’ve never heard you declare that we should have a different name based on those various good things being different. I mean, would you be in favour of a different name for such a partnership if there were no childen involved, yet another foundational aspect? If there was no true love between the partners, yet another foundational aspect? If the people involved intended to forsake commitment and merely marry for three hours, yet another foundational aspect?
The problem is not just that the man/woman part isn’t the important bit, though that is a point. The problem is the elevation of one factor which really doesn’t deserve it to being greater, of more importance to the overall meaning of a thing, than all these other vastly more important issues. Yes, i’m trying to slice the word and throw away one part of it; I make no bones about that. But your argument is like saying that if a person has an appendectomy, they’re no longer a person, or no longer a human. Yes, the appendix is part of that meaning - a foundational aspect, even - but that it has been around for a long time is not of inherent worth in and of itself, and certainly not of inherent worth as compared to other, more important aspects. Why does this one aspect deserve a different name, must have a different name, when so many other aspects being different does not? Why are we not in Bizzaro Land when people don’t want a word referring to those differing aspects?
Everything isn’t questioned until it is. If we never questioned anything, we wouldn’t have - well, science, for one. Perhaps more important to the thread (though I suppose the computers are pretty vital ;)) something merely being obvious to people at the time isn’t a power. Your Founding Fathers signed a document outlining freedom for all, while some of them owned slaves. You aren’t bound by that meaning, that freedom for all means freedom for white men, because it is such a foundational aspect. You aren’t bound to slavery when the Constitution itself mentions it, accepts it, condones it. And slavery does not have some inherent power or worth merely because it existed at that founding moment, or because it lasted for so many years. As history moves forward, we look back at our actions and philosophy of the past and we say “Yes, people believed those things, and believed them for many years. But they were wrong to do so. And keeping with tradition is not as valuable as attempting to truly include all who should have been included”. We correct our mistakes.