• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

semantical arguments against same-sex marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter FallingPianos
  • Start date Start date
F

FallingPianos

some of the most prominent arguments against same-sex marriage these days are purely semantical.

arguments along the lines of "there is no such thing as same sex 'marriage', therefore we can't legalize it"

so, I have a question to those of you who argue that "same-sex marriage" doesn't exist by definition.

what do you call the civil institutions present in the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Spain, and soon Norway?

are the opposite-sex couples in these countries no longer "married", because they are participating in a civil institution that is also open to same-sex couples?

does it matter whether they were married in a court or in a church?
 
I have an idea, let's argue this without using words. that way semantics won't get in the way of our arguments.
 
emdash said:
I have an idea, let's argue this without using words. that way semantics won't get in the way of our arguments.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with returning the sanctity of marriage to the churches, and replacing the civil institution of marriage with civil unions.

not sure how many opponents of same-sex marriage would support that though.
 
FallingPianos said:
I have no problem with returning the sanctity of marriage to the churches, and replacing the civil institution of marriage with civil unions.

not sure how many opponents of same-sex marriage would support that though.
Click to expand...

there is no call to "return" the "sanctity" to the churches, it was never taken away from the churches. people who care about having religious marriages have weddings in their church. my grandparents were married three times, once in a courthouse when they eloped, once in the greek church for his mom and once in the catholic for her mom. marriage as the state sees it is just a contract between two people and the state, no more or less sacred than any other contract.

I don't know, I for one wouldn't go for your idea. giving civil unions is the same as giving civil marriages, why would I support one and not the other? I hope I can't be accused of getting hung up on semantics. what is the point of gov't giving marriages OR unions?
 
Civil Unions = Recognition for State and Federal Purposes.

Holy Matrimony, "The Sacred Institution of Marriage" = A religious process. Nothing more.

I support this whole heartedly. I will shed my "Marrital status" (in the religious sense) and submit my proper forms to be recognized as a civil union as soon as it is possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom