We've all agreed this is the best approach, but it's never going to happen. People have too much invested emotion in the idea of their "marriages". Will young men get down on one knee and ask their girlfriends to "legally bond" with them? Not gonna happen.
The idea of marriage, and the word "marriage", are here to stay. So if we need to have two separate notions of the word.....that recognized as a legal contract by the state...and that recognized as a sacrament by the church...then so be it. As such, though, only the Church should be able to deny that sacrament to people based on sexual orientation. Pure and simple. On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:58 AM, Scott Stroz <[email protected]> wrote: > > The root of this whole issue is that the same word 'marriage' is used > by 2 different entities to describe 2 different things. > > Most religious institutions use the word to describe a religious rite > or ceremony. > > The government uses the word to describe a civil 'contract' between adults. > > My issue is that people in religious institutions are trying to push > their definition of 'marriage' on to the government. By telling 2 > people they cannot enter into a contract solely based on their sexual > orientation is, without a doubt, discriminatory. To me, it is akin to > telling a gay man he cannot sign a lease for no other reason than the > fact that he is gay. > > Personally, I think the government should get out of the marriage > business. What we now know as 'marriage' in the eyes of the government > would simply be called something different. People who want to get > married would do so in a church, temple, etc. But if they want that > 'union' to be recognized by the government, they need to follow an > additional procedures or file different paperwork. Right now, in a > Catholic church for example, when a couple gets married, the priest > performs the religious ceremony AND the civil 'paperwork', under my > suggestion, they would be separated to avoid any confusion. > > Any adults who enter into this new 'civil contract' would be eligible > for the same benefits from the federal government as 'married' people > do now. > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Remember we were talking about marriage, not history in general? > > > > . > > > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Eric Roberts > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> That is a fact. There were pagan faiths long before Judaism was around. > >> Babylonian, Sumerian, Chinese, Arabic, not to mention all of the pagan > >> faiths of the African tribes were aroundlong before Judaism. Judaism > sprung > >> out of Canaanite Paganism. That is a matter of fact, not an opinion. > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:353266 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
