- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 5,528
- Reaction score
- 2
- Location
- Chicago
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
jfuh said:Finally we're parting in opinion - got scary there for a moment.
But with reference to the bolded portion, that sounds like "seperate but equal" to me.
The argument over marriage is not simply over the semantics of what is seen as marriage by any particular group, but since by law, the definition of marriage is of that for the purpose of property, visitation rights, child custody and so on, it extends beyond the religious contexts of. There for by law, there should be no limitation whatsoever of marriage between any of the sexes.
If churches deny to wed, so be it, the government has no right whatsoever to interceed on such matters.
However, nor does the government have the right to interceed in establishing law because of religious beliefs.
Yes, in as the example you so elouqently described, seperate but equal was a battle of shades, today we might even be close to grey. This is man and woman, hardly the thing you just cast aside, and pretend dosen't exist, I know my wife wouldn't let me get away with that. It deserves it's own title, it's own definition, if it can't stand alone, it's not real, and I don't believe that.
Just let it go, let it be, let the people decide what we should call it. I don't think were together on that right now, but I hope we don't label things as much in the future. Perhaps if we stop labels like gay, straight, left, right..........maybe we can end labels like rapist, murderer, child molesters, maybe just maybe, we can erase those as well.