TheLastStarFighter said:
Raven722 said:
Adinnieken said:
Aielyn said:
Cobretti2 said:
well same sex marriage still hasn't past in Aus. The main reason being is that religious groups don't want the word marriage used. SO I guess you are right to some degree.
To me this issue has gone on too long fucking come up with a new word and let both groups be happy.
|
I've been saying for years that we should just call it "Civil Unions"... and use that word for ALL instances of legally-recognised unions. Replace all instances of "marriage" in all of our laws with "civil union", etc. Let the religions have "marriage", make "civil union" the secular term.
Hopefully, if Rudd can't convince the religious people who take issue with the use of the word "marriage" to accept same sex marriage, then hopefully he'll take this approach, and destroy that argument.
Mind you, the groups saying "calling it marriage means you're changing the definition, and we don't like that!" won't accept civil unions for all, either - their issue has always been recognition of homosexuality, as it is seen as "sinful". The "changing the definition" argument is just spin, so that rather than preventing gay marriage being "religion imposing itself on government", it becomes "government imposing itself on religion" by changing the definition. With the term changed, all that changes is the ability of religious people to spin it.
|
100% agree with this. Let marriage be a religious term for a civil union conducted by clergy.
|
First, the term and concept of marriage is not exclusive to Christianity and was around long before it. So they don't own any rights to it nor should they be awarded such a thing. Then you also have to consider that being an atheist or of any religion besides Christianity is a sin as well. So are you going to start telling everyone in the nation that is not Christian that they cannot refer to it as being 'married'? Why not? You would have already prevented homosexuals from doing it. Why not go further and make sure those other heathens can't do it, too? It's ridiculous. It's just a compromise to help make Christian Americans feel like they're even more special in this world than they already believe they are and make it feel like they didn't really lose the argument.
|
You aren't saying "Many Christians", you are saying Christians. And yes, you are being bigotted. And yes, it's wrong to be a bigot toward a group no matter what members of that group have done in the past 2000 years. Especially since it's a rather diverse group with no set leader.
|
Yeah, nice of you to leave out one of my replies where I did, in fact, say "many Christians". No, I was not lumping all of them together. You can think that all you want but I have friends and family who are Christian and don't get involved in the same stupidity as so many of them do. They alone are proof enough to me that not all Christians are like that. Again, I am not going disclaim every use of the word "Christians". If you can't handle that then you should probably give up on life because there are much more difficult things to grasp. Pointing out the bigotry of others and not abiding by it is now considered bigotry as well? Wow. People like you are really reaching these days to play the victim, huh? "You must tolerate intolerance or you're intolerant yourself!". Yeah, no.
