Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramrod
People who haven't got a religion could have some sort of civil ceremony (as my wife and I did) because, for them (and us), marrying in a church would be hypocritical.
.
|
I think we may have been arguing at cross-purposes. I'm arguing that there should be many forms of marriage ceremony. Religious ceremonies can and should be only open to adherants of that religion, I agree with you totally on that, it is hypocritical otherwise. Anybody else should be allowed the freedom of the civil ceremony, it is then up to them if they have a private marriage ceremony second to that.
What I don't like and am arguing against, is the argument that the word marriage should only be applicable to religious marriage. I take my beliefs very seriously but they are not religious beliefs. However, I feel very strongly, that I want to be married (I'm heterosexual). I want to have the civil marriage, to be married in the eyes of the law, then to have a private ceremony to be married in my heart. I find it insulting that some people are arguing that they would not recognise that marriage and by implication that my feelings for my partner re less special. Yet if I were to break my own beliefs, and go and marry in a church (which I will not do) then I would be recognised as being married.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ramrod
Not at all. I just think that a 'religious' marriage should be kept as it is and always has been.
|
No one is disagreeing with you
It's just confusing when people put marriage and forget the reigious prefix :tut: