I agree 100%, marriage is definately a religious term.. So lets give the term back to the church and only use the civil union term when talking about the government
Ummm... I don't care. I think if they want to, they should be able to if it doesn't harm anyone. But I guess Princess Clara could be right and Nazis would ride dinosaurs on rivers of lava.
I think someone missed the gravy train. I'm not ranting about the "issue", I'm ranting about the government and the various religions handling this mess like a bunch of toddlers playing with firearms. If the government DOES have a say in this, a religious issue, either way, what's the next step? As much as I loathe to compare Republicans to Nazis (note: sarcasm content of this observation exceeds accepted health levels), this is precisely what led to that kind of crackdown. The only time the government can step into religious matters is when that religion poses a literal threat to society (ex: suicide cults). I think people will start caring when the President starts telling them what they can believe. Oh, wait! He already is. Man, that's irony for you. Sometimes I honestly think that idiocy is something Bush has been cultivating so that his exceeds standard human capacity...
The problem is, marriage may have been a religious thing at some point in time, but marriage has changed A LOT since it was invented. For one thing, women aren't considered property anymore.
There's a lot of reasons people get married, but USUALLY religion is not one of them. Tradition, peer pressure, the benefits married people get compared to unmarried ones, the whole thing where they're legally recognized as together... not religion. The only people who have religion as a major reason to get married are those who are very religious anyway, and for a lot of them, religion is a major reason for doing EVERYTHING.
And most people in this country probably don't even know what a "civil union" IS, unless they've been paying attention to all the complaining over gay marriage.
No, the problem is that they ARE seperate things, but have failed to be recognized as such. A "marriage license" in not, in fact, the legal right to marry religiously, it's the right to form a civil union. Also, marriage has never considered women to be property. The vows and expectations of society, however, have in the past done so. I agree, however, with your point: people don't see that. People see the peer pressure, the tradition, and the benefits of the resulting civil union (though they may not recognize that tidbit). This is why legal divorce and divorce by religion are also two seperate things. Legal divorce means breaking the civil union (and thereby distributing goods, and, unfortunately, children), while a religious divorce has no legal impact (the Pope annuling a marriage doesn't change the legal fact). So, somewhere along the way, the two terms become one term...and they NEED to be seperated again in the public view for this "issue" to have any hope of being properly resolved. Which seems to have about a
( ... )
Comments 5
So lets give the term back to the church and only use the civil union term when talking about the government
Reply
Reply
Reply
There's a lot of reasons people get married, but USUALLY religion is not one of them. Tradition, peer pressure, the benefits married people get compared to unmarried ones, the whole thing where they're legally recognized as together... not religion. The only people who have religion as a major reason to get married are those who are very religious anyway, and for a lot of them, religion is a major reason for doing EVERYTHING.
And most people in this country probably don't even know what a "civil union" IS, unless they've been paying attention to all the complaining over gay marriage.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment