"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[robvalue]

This "sanctity of definitions" defense makes me feel a bit ill. It's a thinly veiled appeal to tradition. What exactly is the problem with definitions changing? Will it confuse people? I don't think so, in this case. It's rather a newsworthy event. Will it upset people who have emotional attachments to definitions? That's really their problem, I think. Aiming for equal rights is a bit more important than protecting these strange people from their psychological problems.

At least fundamentalist types are honest enough to admit that they think less of homosexuals, and that allowing them the same rights devalues "regular" marriage. It's disgusting, but at least it's not duplicitous.

---

PS: having this definition change doesn't suddenly mean all other definitions change as well, or whatever other nonsense is implied. Religiously defined marriage can stay the same anyhow. The rest of us can move on.