Torillian said:
fillet said:
Nothing wrong with that, but if things are to move forward and so nobody is offended a distinction should be made between religous marriages and straight up civil ones.
I'm not preaching some "this is wrong!!!" message. It's wrong from the Christian/Bible perspective and they will never be satisfied until the distinction is made.
It's a fact that many people see marriage as a religous event and god is mentioned in pretty much all marriages these days, even if the people getting married don't believe and marriages usually take place in a church in the UK and are conducted by a local vicar etc. Detach those things from it and you're left with a civil parternship and why should anyone who doesn't believe in god etc give a damn that the marriage takes place in a church? Has god mentioned? Is conducted by a vicard?
Surely most people wouldn't give a damn.
Can't have ya cake and eat it, and that's the reason that we have this problem with religious elements making a big fuss because people do want their cake and to eat it, it's just not compatible. Just like I kind take a dump in a female only toilet, "just because I feel like it". There's rules there for a reason and if gay marriages are going to be allowed then those marriages shouldn't be religous ones - by law, because they aren't part of the said religion.
I'm just talking about modernizing things so all get along really, I'm no faschist!
|
See though to me it seems more like the religious are trying to have their cake and eat it too in your plan because they'll keep the term marriage while everyone else has to come up with something else for the thing most people do without religion involved.
I don't give a damn about where I'm married, but I do care about getting married and not just a civil union because the term marriage annoys the religious when god isn't involved. Noone said that the gay marriages should be religious, and you can't force churches to marry people, but marriages are not religious by and large so as far as the government is concerned they can't distinguish those eligible and ineligible based on religion. The churches can certainly individually decide who they do and don't want to marry in their church, but they shouldn't have the final say on who gets married under the law.
I'll propose a similar plan, why don't we keep marriages as they are under the law and churches can come up with some new term to call their specific marriages? The end result is the same, but I'm sure you won't like my idea just as much as I don't like yours.
|
Not at all, in fact that sounds like a much better idea than mine! I hadn't thought of it that way round, and it would certainly affect less people since as you correctly point out most marriages aren't based on religous reasoning.
I'm all too ready to be proven wrong and shown a different way :) Maybe it doesn't sound like it because of the way I post but that's not the case, appreciate the response and direct answer to my post.
