mrstickball said:
The idea of a sacremental, special, union between 2 people is from religion. Since the dawn of Judiaism some ~3,000 years ago, marriage was institutionalized as a specific ritual with specific contexts. That's our basis the current definition of marriage. That's why we say if you want to do Civil unions, do civil unions. But the current context of marriage has been defined by religion. Like it or not, that's how it's been defined. But if you want to open the doors for a civil union to be between 2 of anything for legal/financial benefits, feel free to argue that in your local country. I just don't like the idea of equating gay marriage (which is an absolute rarity in your gay culture, and you know it) and normal marriage which has is a far different beast. |
Sorry, I was going by marriage in terms of human nature not terms of history. People who are away from all that cultural religious bullshit still get married, that was my point. The current context of marriage has to do with the law and the state, not religion...
@bolded
Wow, you're putting a lot on me. I don't know anything about gay culture, nor do I care. I don't really want to get married, but I would like someone that I could spend my life with. Someone to fuck with, someone to grow old with, someone to love, all that stuff. What's so different about staight and gay marriage? Two people who get together and want to have legal benefits.







