Marriage and it's supposed sanctity

[hobbes]

You have contended (in your own roundabout way) that the only people who would object to sharing the term marriage do so on religious grounds, and whose opinions on the matter are therefore of no account.

Right?

The thing is that same sex couples may make the exact same pledge to God that you do, it just may be that they define their God differently.

It is the belief in God that is important, not which God.

There are many heterosexual couples who are "married" but have no faith in God, haven't heard much of a ruckus about insisting they use another term. Only since this whole gay thing came up that this has been an issue.

But I'm not one who cares about the word. Call it garraige, fairyage, homosexualarige, it is the violation of personal rights that I am concerned with.

[vidcc]

You have contended (in your own roundabout way) that the only people who would object to sharing the term marriage do so on religious grounds, and whose opinions on the matter are therefore of no account.

Right?

wrong.

I have pointed out that many do only because of their religious beliefs but have not said once that because it is soley because of religious beliefs that it is of no account, i just disagree that they have a monopoly on the word marriage.
Where i object isn't because they wish to keep the word marriage, rather they wish to deny the rights that go along with it.

[j2k4]

wrong.

I have pointed out that many do only because of their religious beliefs but have not said once that because it is soley because of religious beliefs that it is of no account, i just disagree that they have a monopoly on the word marriage.
Where i object isn't because they wish to keep the word marriage, rather they wish to deny the rights that go along with it.

And I, your own personal rock-ribbed conservative, have said that I myself wouldn't care if, say, a civil union included all rights normally included in heterosexual marriage, as long as, if it is not a heterosexual union, it is not referred to as a marriage.

If those partaking in "civil unions" wish some sort of religious sanctification to be conferred upon the ceremony, that is a fight for them, to be fought another day; mayhaps they'd find it a desirable option to try to start another religion or something.

May I take it you would agree with the scenario I have just laid out, vid?

[manker]

And I, your own personal rock-ribbed conservative, have said that I myself wouldn't care if, say, a civil union included all rights normally included in heterosexual marriage, as long as, if it is not a heterosexual union, it is not referred to as a marriage.

If those partaking in "civil unions" wish some sort of religious sanctification to be conferred upon the ceremony, that is a fight for them, to be fought another day; mayhaps they'd find it a desirable option to try to start another religion or something.

May I take it you would agree with the scenario I have just laid out, vid?

I'm not sure what vid would think but I think it's nonsense to take a stand declaring that you don't mind homosexuals getting married so long as they never utter the word marriage when relating to their state of union. Would you also like heterosexual folk to also have a monopoly on the word wedding or perhaps referring to a young lad in the ceremony as a page boy is also a bone of contention.

Please, live and let live. What possible difference does it make.

[sArA]

One definition of to marry is 'to combine or blend agreeably' Therefore, imo to marry is precisely that, and is not dependant on the sex or even nature of the individual parts, but a joining together.

[vidcc]

J2

Please put your ego back in the box.... .... then point to where i said "all" conservatives in ANY post when i have argued the rights for homosexuals to marry/civil union ....if i mean you specifically i will use your name or words such as "you"

It has been noted because you made the point of actually letting us know what your view is (sometimes we never find out )...we understand and accept your view but don't agree with it as I at least don't believe anyone has the ownership of the word.
Make it a civil union by all means as long as it carries the same rights countrywide...no state excluded....however you will not be able to stop people from calling it marriage. couples are going to say "we are married"...not "we are civil unioned". But then what would you call it if a church decides it will accept gay "unions"?

@ manker

I won't say that J2s stance is "nonsense" even if i disagree and and can say why (as you did) i say this not to argue with you but because i think just because someone disagrees with me that doesn't mean they have a less valid viewpoint....there is too much of that already

@ sara

not wishing to open that can of worms.....

[manker]

@ manker

I won't say that J2s stance is "nonsense" even if i disagree and and can say why (as you did) i say this not to argue with you but because i think just because someone disagrees with me that doesn't mean they have a less valid viewpoint....there is too much of that already

I think lots of people have less valid viewpoints than my own. Some of them, in my opinion, are nonsensical whereas my own are not. That's not to say I'd deny them the right to their own viewpoint - merely that I think my own is better.

I duno, does that make me sound like an arse

Of course I meant no detriment to J2, fine chap that he is. I expressed that I believed his viewpoint to be lacking in logic, or sense - hence nonsense.

[j2k4]

J2

Please put your ego back in the box.... .... then point to where i said "all" conservatives in ANY post when i have argued the rights for homosexuals to marry/civil union ....if i mean you specifically i will use your name or words such as "you"

I didn't say you said "all"; I alluded to the fact you defined (everywhere I have ascertained), in every instance you mentioned, that those who were stuck on the point of just who should be allowed to appropriate the term, were doing so based on a religious objection.

You never acknowledged one who so objected could be doing so for any reason other than religion.

If you ever specified me, I do not remember it.

In my last post, I began by referring (rather clearly, I thought) to myself, so your last makes no sense.

Worry not, though-it isn't the first time for that.

[vidcc]

You never acknowledged one who so objected could be doing so for any reason other than religion.

This is because i have not come across anyone that objected to the use of the word other than due to religious beliefs.

I don't doubt that there are people that fit this criteria and have not once said that they don't exist.

I will of course refrain from starting a thread complaining that because i haven't mentioned those of non religious objections that i am being unfairly judged as not realising they exist

[hobbes]

Just making it a round 80, just to be tidy.