Debate: How can gay marriage hurt any one?
Side: Hurts everyone?

Addressing your first point, of course there are modern developements in calling legally recognized relationships between same sex couples "marriage", that is why it is worth debating, whereas as little as ten or twenty years ago it was not. I was speaking in the broad scope of human history, and in that great span, this misapplication of the more traditional term of "marriage" to some form of relationship between a couple who are of the same sex IS new and IS unprecedented, particularly noteworthy is the use of the law as a weapon to force the new definition of the word "marriage" on everybody else against their consent in the name of equality and liberty for all.I assure you words DO have meaning, and pondering that meaning is neither "vacuous" or "pseoudo intellectual". Some of the greatest intellectuals of Western Civilization are on my side on this one. Descarte, Aristotle, Newton, poets like Shakespeare, and Thoreau (who has been speculated as being homosexual by the way) all poured over the fine nuance and meaning of the words they used. And we have benefited greatly from them.Of course the meaning of words change over time, but the underlying reality does not. Some words are reaplied to have new meaning, but the thing refered to has remaind unchanged in its underlying nature. The same bird is called by different names in different languages; and while some words may change faster than others, changing the word does not change the bird.Any culture that values its heritage will naturally want to defend that culture from uncontrolled change including its own language, and it is natural and good that it should do this it is the practice of a form of social self preservation. This may sound academic, but it is not! It is exactly what is practiced by the government in French Canadia. They censor and conrol their printed media, street signs, and advertising billboards so as to assure adherence to the standard French language in word use and spelling. This may seem outlandish to the provintial mind, but begs the question...why do they do it? Because they value their own culture.I do not venture to put myself on the side of government cencorship of all printed media, but surely our American society if it values its own cultural heritage at all, must atleast protect its language within the confines of the written law.If sufficient demand for civil unions passes the standard of civil debate and law, that is fine. But no equivelant forum exists for the passage of redefining the meaning of words. Unlike in French Canadia, there are no language police. As law is nothing but the accumulation of words, the manipulation and steady curruption of those words will lead to the destruction of those laws original meaning, either in word, or in practice as those ignorant of the past will be unable to understand the true meaning of the words as they were intended.This is not hypothetical. The Spanish conquistadors destroyed their conquered Aztec subject's written histories and records for a reason, to bring about the destruction of their civilization.As for interracial marriage, i have already addressed that issue, please read the previous post more carefully.My 1984 reference was about the ministry of Truth, which systematically corrupted the language by deminishing the number of words and broadening each remaining words application, thereby diluting its meaning. The speaker posits this is exaclty what is occuring in the case of legal use of the term "gay marriage", for the reasons stated in the primary statement.This speaker did not state "that same-sex marriage could lead to 'a state of total decay and ruin.'" The inner statement was taken out of context, see previous argument. Neither has this speaker sought to discredit same sex unions, either in principle or in law. The speaker wishes to make clear the distinction between using the word marriage in the traditional sense and in the new same-sex sense in which it is being applied. Proponents of the use of language of so called "gay marriage" would have you believe there is no difference between the two definitions, while simultaneously insisting that their new definition be accepted; which is a contradiction.