Quote:
Originally Posted by Kymmy
Actually civil partnerships have most of the same rights and benefits but not all..
Also the same sex marriages that the government want to introduce will be civil only...
 |
I thought that the Government was also going to allow having same-sex marriages in a "place of worship"? Or was that for civil partnerships only?
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyh
I think the problem is that marriage is still seen as largely a religious ceremony as a union between a man and woman in the eyes of whatever deity they believe in .Civil ceremonies done through a registry office have gone someway to remove the religious aspect and make it a legal union rather than a religious one .Even those still have a basis in religion though which is why imo there is still the difference between same sex marriages and heterosexual marriages
|
My wife and I were married in a civil ceremony in a register office. By law, no religious aspect is allowed at all in a civil wedding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NitroNutter
Had your parents not consumated their relationship (married or otherwise) you would simply not be here to post.
|
What has that got to do with anything? You seem to be changing your "argument", as that does not fit with what you were saying previously where the "purpose of the formal union known as marriage" is "the state of being married".
As mentioned previously in the thread, the "requirement" to consummate a marriage is not a barrier to same-sex marriage, because same-sex couples can still consummate.
What are you going on about?
Any chance of answering...
How is it clear that marriage cannot involve only one sex?
How is it scientifically absolute that marriage cannot involve only one sex?
How is it physically impossible for marriage to involve only one sex?
What law are you talking about and why is it "beyond the scope of mankind"? Ideology does not sound irrelevant for you...
As for "it should not need to be said the dangers that exist should this status quo change." I think it should be said... Please, enlighten us...
Quote:
Originally Posted by NitroNutter
Yes you can change and redefine terminology but not without compromising the original definition so therefore it is not as easy as you suggest.
When law is used to ratify terminology redefining any terminology presents great risk.
Marriage is such a term which rites have as far as we know always related to people of oposing genders consented to formally unionise their relationship usually with mutual intent to procreate and produce their direct descendants.
A question I would like to see answered and answered truthfully beyond any baggage of dissassociation disorder and have yet to have seen asked is what is this sudden infatuation within the gay comunity to marry ?
|
So what it the original definition is "compromised"?
What risk?
So marriage is purely for procreation?
My wife and I have no intention of having children. We married each other because we love each other and wanted a formal commitment. Is our marriage not real simply because we have no desire to procreate?
My maternal grandfather re-married many years after my maternal grandmother died. His second wife was too old to have children. Does that invalidate their marriage?
What about other opposite-sex couples who marry but either do not want to have children or can not have children? People who just don't want kids, people who are infertile, people who are too old, etc. Are they not really married? Should they not be allowed to get married?
As for the "sudden infatuation" of the gay community with marriage... I don't believe it is "sudden", and I don't see an issue with gay people simply wanting the same rights as everyone else.