True and there comes the rub, when religion and law get tangled up we can have disaster. Especially when either side go extreme. But as usual I could be wrong.
Washington D.C. approves gay marriage
- Thread starter myp
- Start date
-
- Tags
- approves gay marriage washington
Yah, you really need to draw the line in the sand. In Britain, Thatcher mercilessly centralised most state powers, which meant a lot less local democratic leverage.
True and there comes the rub, when religion and law get tangled up we can have disaster. Especially when either side go extreme. But as usual I could be wrong.
It happens to the best of us, but i think you're absolutely right, in this case.
True and there comes the rub, when religion and law get tangled up we can have disaster. Especially when either side go extreme. But as usual I could be wrong.
That's the trouble. When you mix the two, things can get really hostile. Then like you said with the extremes, disaster can strike.
Maybe I am wrong, but I thought that marriage was a legal contract, and had nothing to do with religion. Having the marriage in a church is a personal preference, and the Minister is actually acting on behalf of the Government for the marriage ceremony?
It is a legal agreement. You can have a secular occasion at the town hall or whatever, or you can have a religious ceremony.
It's how the state recognises marriage (or whether it does) that is the issue, i think.
And the minister sure pushes for the ceremony too. They want to get you married so you can stop all that"sinning". And they know you will probably slip them a few dollars after the ceremony.
Good work, and it's damn sure about freakin' time.
Because when it wasn't allowed, it was a HUGE violation of human rights - regardless of their gender. However, a better term should be come up with. Because technically, marriage is the action of being united to the opposite sex.
Because when it wasn't allowed, it was a HUGE violation of human rights - regardless of their gender. However, a better term should be come up with. Because technically, marriage is the action of being united to the opposite sex.
Good work, and it's damn sure about freakin' time.
Because when it wasn't allowed, it was a HUGE violation of human rights - regardless of their gender. However, a better term should be come up with. Because technically, marriage is the action of being united to the opposite sex.
Just amend the wording.
Marriage is what we make it.
Marriage is what we make it, but the word creator defined the word as the uniting between man and woman.
And yet marriage existed for, what, 25 millennia before that midlevel definition? Just saying.
Exactly right, and soon there will be small children, so that will obviously add to the numbers of the congregation .... :giggle:And the minister sure pushes for the ceremony too. They want to get you married so you can stop all that"sinning". And they know you will probably slip them a few dollars after the ceremony.
Laws change, society changes, language changes ...
We dont speak a dead language, any words definition is up for grabs.
That said its only religious nuts and bigots that have a problem with gays being married and calling it marriage.
I'm not sure I get it? Are you saying that religious nuts and bigots have a problem with calling gays who are married as being in a marriage, or is it your opinion that when gays get married, it cannot be a marriage?
Ya, I didn't make it as clear as I could have.
I meant that bigots and those who think they are doing their gods will, seem to be the only groups that are anti-gay.
They try to find any reason they can to justify hating someone.
For some that manifests itself as a stupid, pointless fight to limit the definition of a word *L*
I would agree with that. Also people who are intolerant and unaccepting of those who are different from who they are and who may be threatened by this along the lines off: "The Lady Doth Protest Too Much".
I don't see a lot of tolerance from anyone anymore. Believer, non-believer, conservative, "progressive". None of them truly believe the other side has a right to think what they think. Arrogance all around in my opinion.
The thread got a bit off-topic, so I have created a spin-off here: http://www.politicalfray.com/showthread.php?t=1084
Similar threads
