Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovetv
[1]There is "civil marriage" as in Justice of the Peace and marriage license, and there is religious marriage, as in church, synagogue, mosque, etc.
[2]This is a "civil" arrangement and should not be put upon the religions. [3]And I think it should be termed a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" instead of a "marriage".
[4]Terms (words) convey concepts, and homosexual unions are not the same concept as heterosexual marriages.
|
For the sake of discussion and understanding, I have numbered in bold the points made by ilovetv.
[1] One cannot disagree with this, though it should be pointed out that the first—civil marriage—is the one that is legal. A religious marriage by itself is not a legal marriage.
[2] A "legal marriage" is indeed a "civil arrangement," I would think. As far as religions are concerned, I know some ordained clergy who would happily participate in the marriage of two persons who love each other, without regard to the gender of the participants—whether hetero or gay/lesbian/transgender. I know other ordained clergy who would differentiate, presumably based on personal beliefs, and not be willing to marry a gay or lesbian couple. No one is forcing anyone to do anything against his or her will. And who am I—a lay person—to even consider judging what a clergy person might be willing or unwilling to do?
[3] Here is where I'm confused. Why "civil union" or "domestic partnership" rather than "marriage"? Not to be crass, but is this a differentiation based on body parts? It's clearly not based on feelings, is it?
[4] I agree that words
can convey concepts; however, IMO words themselves are
not concepts, just as words can be used to attempt to convey feelings, but words themselves are
not feelings. If what I just said is acceptable, then what follows in
[4] is confusing as well.
What differences are alluded to by saying that marriage between two persons of the same gender is not "marriage"? That they cannot have children biologically? If so, would this mean that a heterosexual couple who are unable—or choose not—to have children would not be considered in a "marriage relationship"? The divorce rate upwards of 50 percent and its implication for children does not speak well for "marriage," yes?
Everyone is different! But beyond what makes each of us unique, I would just like to understand the view that there are differences in relationship between two persons of opposite gender and two persons of same gender that both should not be called "marriage." What are those differences?...