- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 72,131
- Reaction score
- 58,867
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
What you're talking about are what the proposed change would (and could) entail. I'm talking about what is, right now.
Ahh. Well, my view is without that change the mach outlined, then we should just give everyone the right to be married and not care of some get offended. Its not harming them anyway.
I don't see how that could be true. Many non-religious people are routinely married, legally, and it's called marriage. Prohibiting gays from being married doesn't change that, so if that is the reason, it's irrational.I thought the whole reason for any of this coming up in the first place was so that religious organizations didn't have to see the word "marriage" used for anyone but the religious.
They already can, so this change is neutral on that issue.If, as you say, atheists, pagans and homosexuals can be "married" how does this change achieve that?
"Marriage" is a civil and religious institution, to claim otherwise is simply false. Churches or private families agreements were the only "marriage licenses". Wasn't until the late 1800s when States got involved. So, if you change the term "marriage" to one of the ones I proposed, under the law, it allows private institutions to decide their "marriage" guidelines. Would also allow churches in favor of same sex unions to use the term marriage as well.
And at the end of the day, "marriage" would likely remain common in the description of two people together under a legal union.
Ultimately, this is why I agree that gocernments should adopt new terminology, than people can define marriage how they see fit and nobody else has to care.
We have issues of actual importance to not be distracted from by stuff like this.
They don't, they get to choose who they perform marriage ceremonies for.
I don't see how that could be true. Many non-religious people are routinely married, legally, and it's called marriage. Prohibiting gays from being married doesn't change that, so if that is the reason, it's irrational.
They already can, so this change is neutral on that issue.
If someone is very religous, they should be quite happy with the freedom to both legally join (whatever the word), and to be MARRIED in say, the catholic church. They can tell people, "We were married in the catholic tradition", or whatever, and it would be true, and would have whatever meaning it has in that subculture or the wider nation. The idea that this would be insufficient, seems absurd.
Fishstyx just proposed this as an alternative. If it's pros aren't want is desired by the parties, then as megaprogram points out, fine, just allow anyone to be married. If it's government, it can't be religious, end of discussion right?
No, I didn't.
As I replied before, I have no problem with that. However, the majority of even STRAIGHT couples are so entrenched in marriage they wouldn't agree to it. Why do you think it hasn't already been implemented?
What you just went to the county and got the license? No ceremony at all? Very rare I'd think.
And it has been thought of, and proposed, but the movement wants the title "marriage".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?