If you are an American, you are an American with all the blessed benefits that entails. But some folks hyphenate their identity with African-American or Irish-American thinking they are adding to their identity.
But actually they are subtracting from it.
To have to add a qualifier to their American status is to reduce their identity to a sub-unit of American life. Personally, I couldn't care less what you look like or where you came from. I will, however, defend your right to self-identify yourself in any manner you want because that is your privilege as an American, not because I necessarily agree with you.
The same holds true for many identifications in human life.
You are either a man or a woman. You are either pregnant or not pregnant. You are either married or not married. These are specific identity-conditions that can not be put into a subset.
But homosexuals are seeking to "hyphenate" marriage with 'Gay Marriage' creating a new identity and sub-set.
If you accept the Kinsey report that claims homosexuals make up 10% of the human population (a percentage that is in dispute but for our purposes we will accept), then the homosexual movement to re-define marriage is basically an attempt to force 90% of the population to agree with 10%.
That can not hold. Words have meaning. Words are perception. As our perception of the world changes, the meaning of words can change too. Flibbertigibbet was once the name of a fearsome devil, now it simply means "flighty person".
Yet marriage has held its meaning for millennia. Marriage is marriage, the union between a man and a woman.
I bow to no one in my support of human rights. I whole-heartedly support all who love. No one should denied the same privileges as the majority unless they have broken the law. Period.
That said, the movement to redefine marriage to include the hyphenate 'gay marriage' is misguided because it is an attempt to change the meaning of an identity-condition that 90%+ of human beings do not believe or want changed.
Which is why the Gay Movement is seeking to force it on our American democracy via the courts rather than by vote.
A better, more logical course, is to simply accept a new meaning, a new identity. Rather than forcing the meaning of marriage to change, create a new identity-condition. Perhaps instead of getting married, homosexuals get united by a joining ceremony. That choice is theirs to make.
Because to de-couple marriage from its meaning of the union between a man and a woman is to open a societal Pandora's Box. Marriage without its meaning could allow all sorts of less desirable identity-conditions to rise up. What is to stop that Man-Boy group from claiming marriage? Polygamists from demanding legal status? Or worse, for some unscrupulous lawyer from defending his rapist client by abusing marriage - "I didn't rape her, we formed a violent marriage."?
Yes, I know. All extreme cases. But when a word like marriage loses its meaning, 90% of society loses an identity-condition that has formed the basis of civilization. The family unit arose from the bonding of marriage to raise children. The State's recognition of marriage developed property and heredity rights. And women and children gained the protection of the State by the recognition of the male-female marriage condition.
Homosexuals deserve those rights and protections too when they form loving bonds, but by forcing the meaning of marriage to be changed, by subsetting or hyphenating marriage is to destroy what 90% of the population wants to preserve.
Revolt! U.S. city 'ground zero' in refugee battle
10 minutes ago