Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.
From my perspective, the freedom to marry is very much like the freedom to go skydiving. Anyone is free to go skydiving, but many choose not to. They have no interest; they just aren’t into it. They may prefer skateboarding. In the same way, homosexuals choose not to marry becuase they just aren’t into it; they prefer something else that is superficially similar, but fundamentally different. So from my perspective, the debate is not over whether homosexuals are allowed to marry (they already have full marriage rights), it is over what word we will use to call homosexual unions. I believe in using different words to describe different things (it makes communication easier when language has more than just one word) so I call heterosexual unions “marriage” and homosexual unions by some other word (still pending, perhaps “civil union”). I also believe in freedom of speech. This means that I do not believe it my place to force others to use my terminology. Why then, do homosexual activists insist on pushing through measures that – at least for legal purposes – force the rest of us to adopt their terminology? Why change the definition of a perfectly good word, forcing us to have to invent a new word to identify what used to be called “marriage”? And the biggest question of all: Will they stop there? Or will they try to redefine the new word in the next generation? Based on some things I have seen written by these people, I suspect they will never be satisfied.
Email (will not be published) (required)
Pre-order your copy now by clicking on the cover
Read the manifesto by clicking above.
© 2011 - 2013 All Rights Reserved - Margaret Hoover