Gay "marriage". Nobody ever mentions THIS...

I believe that gays should be allowed to have unions and have all the benefits that heterosexual couples would otherwise have.  And why shouldn't they? Granted, I haven't seen any studies on the topic, but I think you could argue that something as basic as legal recognition of their union is, for lack of a better term, a human right.

I used to think that even though gays should have a right to a union, a strong argument could be made that their union should be called something other than "marriage".

After all, isn't one of the demons of a politically correct society the fact that some call for the actual change in definition of words? Isn't it wrong to change society so drastically? Of course it is.

The traditional definition of marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

But the question one should be asking is this:

We know gays have been discriminated against for quite a long time.  Is it possible that that when marriage was first defined, discrimination against gays was the reason that they were excluded them from the definition of marriage itself? That is very possible.....

And hence, if the definition of marriage has been discriminatory from the very start, it's very reasonable to consider that a gay union should be called marriage.