Quote:
|
Originally Posted by irateplatypus
i listed that caveat in one of my earlier posts. i'm pretty sure this thread is directed at the implications of churches granting marriages, not anything to do with state or federal law.
there is a big difference between marriage in a legal sense and having church doctrine allow for gay marriage by clergy. i could be wrong, but that is the purpose of the discussion i gleaned from the title and original post.
|
You can make the abstract distinction, but in practice i think you'll find that the most strident opponents of gay marriage are religious people claiming that their religion has dominion over the proper usage of the word marriage. The most vocal critics of homosexuality have always argued from a religious perspective. What they are really saying without really saying it is "My religion owns the absolute definition of marriage and no other religions have the right to define marriage as they see it."
There is always the secular state definition of marriage, but in calling it marriage has the state not commited itself to using a religious word? Perhaps the state should stop offering marriage licences to anybody and offer civil union licences to everybody, regardless of the gender of those involved. Would that make you happy? That way marriage would be completely seperate from legality and we wouldn't have to get caught up over the definition of a word.