During the election season, one of the debates used by the "Yes on 8" campaing was that Gay marriage was a threat to marriage because it changed the definition. This caught me up because at the time I couldn't think of a logical counter argument. However, as time progressed, it hit me. Language is an invention used to name things so we can communicate. When the first humans were walking around they discovered strawberries, apples, and pears. All of these were later put in the blanket term - fruit. Yet, there is the huge debate over whether or not tomatoes are fruits because they taste like vegetables. Scientist assure us the classification of tomatoes in the fruit category is correct because what makes something a fruit is that it developed from the plants ovary and that it contains the seed of the plant.
Many people get tripped up over the same gender quality of a gay marriage. But, what should we use to classify things into the category of marriage. Should it be love, commitment, and the many other aspects of such relationships? Vegetables and fruits are too simple to compare to Civil Unions and marriages. However, what's at the heart of the matter is the malleability of our language. At no point did humans ever put a lock on the definitions of the words in our language until now.
Sometimes words have broad meanings to capture every new thing humans come up with. Like the word transportation, it's changed from simply walking on foot to include such things as traveling by ship to traveling to the moon. Even the silverware's trio of a knife, fork, and spoon had to change to include a spork. Why is it then that marriage can't be extended to include same-sex couples for one reason - gender.
Is gender so intrinsic to it's definition? Do all marriages really have to "taste" the same? And wouldn't gay marriages be the fruit and stright marriages the vegetables any way?
