| BasilZero said: @Osc89 Or how about removing the benefits of unions (i.e. tax breaks or w/e) overall since it seems to be the REAL reason why people are arguing over the argument you are using. Like I said, you can have civil unions from the state but churches shouldnt be forced to do something that their laws forbid them to support nor should you say they should change their laws in terms of matrimony between men and women because they refuse to do something you want them to do. You say marriage is older than the christianity version? Then why force Churches to do those weddings? Why go through all the aspects then? Why not do it like the first union however that was like. (Apologize if they are the same - though I think they arent) (Doesnt affect me because Indian weddings are different from western weddings at least the type of indian wedding my culture goes by - (i.e the verses they use at the end, more aspects than western weddings etc) Note - I use the word "Aspect" cause I cant think of a word to describe for use for each event/step in a wedding lol. |
The Church can have whatever laws they want, but they shouldn't be for everyone else (i.e actual laws). The Church shouldn't be allowed to define what marriage is. And they have been forced to change before, with interracial and underage marriage. Was that wrong?
I am not saying that marriage has to be the same as the first ones, I am pointing out that the definition of marriage has changed over time and is also independent of religion.
(This image isn't directed at you or anyone here, but sums up how attitudes change over time)
Edit: Here is some info on the hospital visitation
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/15/hospital.gay.visitation/index.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-memorandum-hospital-visitation
PSN: Osc89
NNID: Oscar89
