If you are replying, and don't agree with the premise I put forward,
we can revise it until we all agree on what we are dealing with, before taking the discussion of the implications further.
If we don't have a common understanding of WHAT we are discussing, we gonna get nowhere.
The argument FOR changing the definition of marriage, or for putting a definition forward if none exists is:
1) So that Gays can be afforded the same civil rights as 'married' couples. This includes being able to note Married on application forms, afforded rights of next of kin, inheritance rights,hospital visitation rights etc. etc. etc.
It has also been said that
2) The notion of 'Marriage' is a religious notion, and seperate and apart from the civil benefits of a union according to the law.
The Seperation of Church and State was noted.
'Marriage' has deep religious and Traditional connotations that specifically imply "the union of a Man and a woman". It has always been that way, and this is an indisputable fact. If this were not fact, we would not be in this discussion right now. There would be nothing to change.
This is the premise that I'm going with before going further with my point. Because if we can't agree on the above, it doesn't make sense discussing the matter much past this.
-Gel
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
