Poll: Who truly owns the right to the word "marriage"?
- Thread starter Samoftherocks
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ah, but marriage (or the lack thereof) affects taxes, work-related benefits, next-of-kin questions, and probably several other things I can't think of off the top of me gulliver.Turismo said:
An entire class of people runs into problems with these things because of the unjustifiable beliefs of others.
Not to mention the second-class-citizen implications.
The church has plenty of rituals: baptism, christenings, brisses, bar/bat mitzvahs, et cetera. Marriage affects lives out here in the real world.
Really? No one owns the word. Not only that, more religions than Christianity have marriages. Jews, Muslums, and so many get married. I think even an athiest or two get married... Tax breaks and all.
Hmmm, why would you bring up the word monkey.... Is there a monkey threatening you right now?! Do you need help? Evil monkey attacks are so common now-a-days!Trivun said:
Ya know, liking monkeys is like liking satan, it's not that cool. Don't be like Mike, hate monkeys... Wait... Who's Mike? Nevermind!Lexodus said:
Correct me I'm wrong but can't a man and a woman get a civil marriage?
As in, no religious ceremony or theology tied to the act.
And stop using your slippery slope "people marrying animals" argument and discuss the actual issue. The issue is two people, two humans, debate that.
As in, no religious ceremony or theology tied to the act.
And stop using your slippery slope "people marrying animals" argument and discuss the actual issue. The issue is two people, two humans, debate that.
Words have been bastardized for years, you even said it yourself.avykins said:
Tons of words have had a set meaning before other languages bastardized them, why should marriage be so different? Because it had religious implications in a book called 'Bible', where it's barely (if ever) even used anyway, instead saying 'the union of a man and woman' or 'flesh of my flesh' and 'one flesh', never the word marriage for the bond between a man and a woman? Thats absurd. The idea for marriage has been around for much longer, and before the word 'married' or 'marriage' were ever defined.avykins said:
The word 'marriage' isn't widely used in traditional wedding ceremony either, by any religion.
And the church officials are bitching just as much, if not more, than the homosexuals.
You want a solution, take marriage out of any government or legal handlings. Do not use it, ever. Do not give it any more power or meaning than 'civil union'. Make a new word to indicate 'the union of two people' so that everyone is recognized, no matter what their preference is, on any government, corporation, or legal document. The words 'marriage' and 'civil union' should be kept between the two consenting parties, and given the same rights as the other.
If the church owns marraige, then how do jews, muslims, sikhs and all the other religions have marrages, let alone gays
Yeah, but the government doesn't force churches to marry gays. In fact they specifically avoid making them do that so as to nullify that argument. I'd also have to completely disagree with your assertion that marriage is "under god". Does that mean that Atheists shouldn't get married, or people who don't worship the Christian God? Marriage is a civil ceremony that is sometimes performed in churches. That is no way shape or form makes it a religious ceremony. And "some gosh-darned reason?" Do you count equal rights as some "gosh darn reason?" I suppose that Civil Rights activists wanted to legalize interracial marriage "just for the hell of it" then. In any case, the government doesn't make churches marry gay couples; and since there is separation of church and state in America, it really isn't the church's business.vivaldiscool said:
