But the definition of marriage is one of the issues being questioned in the
debate.
The argument is that marriage is a religious institution and because of
that, the government should have no say so in it.
So then why must I have a licence to marry?
-----Original Message-----
From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 16, 2004 2:24 PM
To: CF-Community
Subject: Civil Union (was RE: Senate rejects move to ban same-sex marriage)
Allow me to state this argument, or my view of it, in point form.
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]
