"It shouldn't be called marriage, even if only so as not to step on convention and conventional toes."

Apart from that being YOUR opinion, you fail to give a VALID reason why it shouldn't be called marriage. Stepping on other people's emotional metaphorical toes is hardly a valid legal reason not to treat all citizens equally before the law. How come the 'toes' of the minority can be so easily stepped on by the majority?

Dec 20, 2010 -- 9:48AM, Do_unto_others wrote:

In your opinion, you selectively ignore that all of Europe did NOT embrace these "civil" unions. Spain and the Netherlands quickly come to mind as two countries that apply the word 'marriage' equally to all couples.

DO BETTER.

Dear Do_unto_others, (Is it okay to call you Duo? Either way, please use "imo" (uncapitalized)).

There are exceptions to most things.

The facts are that any proposed change can be seen in many ways.

It may help in motivating one's side to infuse emotion into a topic and also in communicating strength of intention to an opposing side.

If, one wishes to convince (or conquer) it helps to understand the object of one's attention. Simple solutions, derision and direct attack; all have serious side effects and weaken both one's purpose and chances for success.

Perhaps it is not one's style to nuance or approach the object indirectly - some feel that it denotes a lack of frankness or even dishonesty; however, confrontation can shut off open discourse and relegate one to the realm of fanatical behavior. At that point many will say that it is no use trying to talk to one. Any salesman will tell you that it is important to keep the conversation going and comprehend the prospect's objections and concerns.

Some will say it is not a sales job. Well then; what is it? Coercion, won't work and makes more enemies. Manipulation, breeds distrust, disrespect and won't work a second time; even if it did the first.

So, persuasion is it, and requires understanding of the feelings and thoughts of the majority who have the votes that decide the issue.

Dear DUO,

Did not mean to lecture, just to explain how it seems to this one. By respect, do not mean approval but rather the forming of loving interaction and the understanding that any soul has as much right to its beliefs, thoughts, choices and feelings; no matter how wrongheaded, evil, exasperating, unacceptable and generally horrible they may seem to another.

Use of acronyms is certainly, as you said, to be in capitals. The ones that make up imo may be confused with the common IMO, IMHO, etc. So, have a preference for the lower case and being nullus et nunnus it fits rather well.

Dear DUO,

Let's turn the question around.

Since logically we can use any term to express any meaning; as these connections between vocabulary and sense are all nomothetic constructs, remnants of accidental origins in diverse languages, the real reason is the practicality of communication and being understood.

Thus if, pragmatism rules; then, would it be wrong to name it something different? Must the word "marriage" be necessarily be used, when another useful word, even a neologism, would serve? Is it such a major point when it becomes a deal-breaker and raises animosity?

Dec 22, 2010 -- 7:42PM, dblad wrote:

Marriage is a good word... I'll just stick to that term.

 

Let us then fall back on the Bard and let his foil pierce the discontented dark!

Hist! He speaks in sweet Juliet's warbling words. Hear him!

(It is of love we speak and lovingly's more meet.)

Juliet:
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

Romeo and Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)