| 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. |
When we're talking about "gay marriage," I think we're really talking about the legal status of marriage.
Religions can continue to do whatever they want, and define things however they'd like. But if we're going to have a "legal marriage" (which we probably shouldn't at all, for problems just like these, but whatever... too late to close the barn door), then let's open it up to all of our citizens.
