| fillet said:
Incorrect. Marriage is an entirely religous affair. In the real world more often than not people getting married aren't religious or even believe in god. That is wrong and something that should be corrected at law level. For those people they should be allowed to have a civil ceremony or equivalent of marriage that gives all the same benefits and legal status minus the religous part. It's blatently obvious that the problem lies with the state here and that both same sex couples - and the people protesting are in the right. It's simply the politicians in all countries don't have the balls to risk their re-election by making drastic changes to law that would prohibit people who admit to not believing in god from getting married and only allowing them civil partnerships - which would be identical to marriage in legal terms. This may be an impossible and idealistic direction to take things but that's the way it is. There's nothing wrong with proposing a hypothetical solution, even if it will never happen. The whole reason that it is a problem is because no governement would be willing to make it happen. There is no other just solution that will honour religion and treat same sex couples with fairness that they deserve. |
I am a bit confused as to why one would desire to create class distinctions here? What purpose does it serve to segregate people on basis of religion or anything else?
"You're an 1, then your love is x, and you're a 2, so your love is y and of course being a 3 your love is z."
Why does it threaten what you have? How would you even know looking at me and my fiancee what we believe and what our love is based on? I think long ago we established that edicts of "separate, but equal" fail because that very separation breeds inequality.
