Don’t see how that would though since gays can already get married, just not legally. Marriage is a law thing not a religious. Take the law away and everybody and anybody is married EQUALLY still so people crying that it disgraces the word would still have the same thing to cry about as they do now hence ONE of the reasons I never understood that argument.
Well, as you may have guessed from my previous posts, I am of the opinion that marriage has two parts, the legal and the religious.
Partly because of this, I don’t think government should be involved in ANY marriages (the whole separation of church and state bit).
Perhaps I’m nuts…
I’ll give you indirectly at best hence removing marriage negates the question, so it can’t be directly related
Excellent.
You could be right but IMO I think the exact opposite would happen as most would view the name change as to not allow gays to ever obtain that lawful title
Well, that would be the effect, but I’m actually supporting it more so that
no one can obtain that lawful title.
Why cater to people who want to discriminate?
And also don’t you think this would upset many gays as it would be an obvious dodge from owing up to equal rights?
Trying to correct your English usage in sentences really messes with my responses…But here goes:
It’s not catering to people who want to discriminate, it’s eliminating any real connection between religious marriage and legal marriage by changing the title of legal marriage, thus (IMO) nixing the whole
“The word “marriage” is a sacred religious thingy and forcing us to accept those disgusting gays using the word would violate separation of church and state” pseudo-argument”.
As to it being an obvious dodge, I don’t see it that way at all. I see it as granting those rights completely.
And that’s exactly why I think it would cause more problems as it would be very transparent that it was changed only to not allow to have gays use the word marriage.
Actually, if they insist that the same word be used, they are no better than those who insist the word has religious meaning. It’s just a damn word, and you can use it all you want. Hell, you can even call the legal “civil union” a marriage if you want; no one will be able to say **** about it legally, which is the whole issue anyway.
Like I said it would be obviously done to appease the group of discriminators as opposed to practicing equal rights.
Not at all obvious, as my previous responses show (IMO, of course).
For example what if blacks (of any large part) weren’t allowed to be president (but there was no laws saying people couldn’t vote for them).
Obama wins and they were forced to do something about it.
“No!” some people cry the word president is sacred it can’t be associated with blacks, so instead of just using equal rights they cater to discriminators and change the word to something else it doesn’t matter like CEA, Chief Executive of America
Ok, what’s with the “(of any large part)” bit? Don’t get that.
But on to your point: Not a good example, as the presidency has no religious aspect, and thus (IMO) no even tentative reason to complain on religious grounds. And I consider the religious aspect slightly applicable to the gay marriage bit. But we’ve been over that, if memory serves.
You telling me that’s not discrimination on any level and people would not have a legit gripe?
I agree if the word marriage never exists then no discrimination but CHANGING it because now it’s going to allow blacks or gays etc can EASILY be argued has such.
Perhaps.
But if eliminating marriage from government control (except the legal equivalent of it, obviously) requires weathering that storm, so be it.
So lady you can’t be CEO because you’re a women but we will let you run the company and now we’re are going to call it group leader from now on because CEO is to good for you.
That would be discrimination. Again, a poor parallel IMO.
Basically, I see some validity in the argument that:
Granting the ability to enter into a legal contract entitled “marriage” would in effect force people who disagree with that interpretation of the word to accept it against their religious views. Thus, IMO, violating the whole separation of church and state bit.
But I don’t think you agree, as we’ve been over that.
Awhile ago, too.
Bla.