[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

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.

Agreed. It's a tricky one and all down to what things are called. I'll have to have a think...

No one is disagreeing with you It's just confusing when people put marriage and forget the reigious prefix :tut:

Sorry