Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to I would like to hear one good reason
Re: arGee - I agree completely with what you are saying and I don't fully
Talk about parsing the meaning of a word...! These people need to get a life – or something.
posted by
arGee
on April 26, 2007 at 8:31 AM
| link to this | reply
arGee - I agree completely with what you are saying and I don't fully
understand why it is not acceptable as an option.
I have however heard some arguments against a distinctly defined but equal marriage contract that hold some merit. Number one being that as a distinct contract it inherently discriminates in a subtle sense.
posted by
gomedome
on April 26, 2007 at 8:30 AM
| link to this | reply
I think we discussed this before, Gome...
But here is a good reason for restricting "Mariage" to heterosexual relationships: because marriage is so defined, not by law, but by thousands of years of cultural history. There is no compelling reason to change this, so long as same-sex unions are given completely equal status with heterosexual unions (marriages) in fully every respect. Let the name retain its accepted definition, but make sure that any committed union be treated equally before the law.
This satisfies everyone – except the diehards who will have nothing but disruption of society for their own political purposes.
posted by
arGee
on April 26, 2007 at 8:14 AM
| link to this | reply
strat - But does the word "marriage" connotate religious trappings?
Where I agree that it does by tradition to the vast majority of people and it is true that over 80% of people in our societies have a religious ceremony of some type when they marry, the ceremony itself has no legal standing upon the marriage except in one scenario; A religious ceremony can be viewed as solemnization of a marriage and if enough other legal "markers" exist, even without the existence of a marriage license, it can be a deciding factor in determining if a couple is married at common law.
There is no legal requirement to have a religious figure perform a marriage service. (Such a requirement would bar atheists from marriage). Further and more importantly, most of common law is based on or derived from the Bible and despite what most people believe, there are no scriptural commands, or even permission, for a religious leader to perform a wedding ceremony. This reality has been given recognition by the courts in recent decades, this recognition underlines two important prevailing views which ultimately pertain to same sex marriage: The legal aspects of marriage have and always will evolve to suit the needs of society - the "religious trappings" of marriage are superfluous and irrelevent if someone is not religious.
No need to apologize for long comments, I don't mind a bit when someone has something to say - as you always do.
posted by
gomedome
on April 25, 2007 at 9:48 PM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-x - it really is rather amazing when you think that what we consider a
no brainer in the Equal Rights Amendment has yet to be ratified after 90 years.
I can only imagine what the initial debates on the subject sounded like at the beginning of the last century. I would bet that as you imply, they sounded a lot like the stuff we are hearing about same sex marriage.
posted by
gomedome
on April 25, 2007 at 9:12 PM
| link to this | reply
Marriage is tough. Anyone brave enough to take the challenge ought to.
posted by
Pat_B
on April 25, 2007 at 9:09 AM
| link to this | reply
I've probably said this before.
I agree. There is no reason whatsoever for same sex couples to be denied the same rights as hetero couples. This would be a legal matter, not a holy matter.
That having been said, the word "marriage" has been the term generally used to describe such, although it seems that word is, in fact, something that belongs more in the domain of the church.
So while I have a very difficult time understanding why the knuckleheads won't just shut up about the notion of extending legal rights and protections to people who love and are committed to each other, I also believe that, whether we like it or not, traditionally, the word "marriage" connotates religious trappings, therefore homosexual couples should probably either find a church that accepts the lifestyle and get "married" there, in the eyes of a God that loves and accepts them, or they need to simply be satisfied with the legal term "civil union," or whatever the legal term is, since what is probably most important is the protection of basic rights under the law.
Sorry about the length of the comment.
posted by
strat
on April 25, 2007 at 6:57 AM
| link to this | reply
Keep stirring the pot
Even the best of stews needs stirred occasionally or it will burn on the bottom
posted by
Living_Life_Large
on April 25, 2007 at 6:28 AM
| link to this | reply
Personally, I find such an argument rather insulting. If he never loved me, why didn't he just leave me alone?
posted by
Jenasis
on April 25, 2007 at 5:50 AM
| link to this | reply
REMINDS ME OF THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT
giving women the same rights as men.
one of the reasons the right gave against it was that women would be required to go to war.
the amendment failed.
women go to war.
and all the amendment did was state that women would have the same rights as men -- receiving equal pay, etc.
but opponents put so much trash on it, inferring that so much negative would result (straw men), that the amendment failed (went back to some legislatures to be defeated).
and this is the same -- lots of fear and paranoia and other trash attached to it --
posted by
Xeno-x
on April 25, 2007 at 5:33 AM
| link to this | reply