So you would advocate one religious term for marriage and a separate civil term for marriage - but would those apply equally to same-sex couples as well as opposite-sex couples?
Esprix
Sorry, gay marriages aside, I fail to see where the hypocrisy lies in secular people using a secular word to describe a legal status. 
Or in other words: if you want a church-based marriage to appear “special” or “better” in some way, make up your own word.
And IMO, life-long committment ain’t any better for it being “spiritually-based” than any other life-long committment. Whether it’s between a man and a woman, or two men, or two women.
Hmmm…I am a married heterosexual woman whose vows were performed by a lesbian reverend. Does that make my union “spiritual” or “civil”?
P.S. I wouldn’t use the phrase “loony right”, I’m just quoting your post.
Yes. Go to the church to get married to whomever you please, as far as I’m concerned. Go to the local… oh, hell, whatever it is that one goes to when one has a civil service… with whomever you please. And, I add, until you do the latter, don’t expect to derive any benefits from having done the former.
I was rather under the impression that we did, and it’s long since been co-opted. Is that just sheer blinding idiocy on my part?
A “new term” wouldn’t work. Some wise acre would apply the term to himself, someone else would insist that he couldn’t do that, he’d argue that he has as much right as anyone else to use that term and blammo, we’re right back here debating the rules of use. It’s happening now. It’s happened before. (I’m never more gay than when having sex with my wife, but saying that would cause much confusion, no?)
Therein I think lies the seed of the debate. Each side thinks the other should come up with the new term. And I, to attempt to drag this OP-proscribed debate back to the realm of a IMHO Poll, stand on the side of those who hold that the term “marriage” should be put back to the original definition of a sanctified union. Non-sanctified unions should have all the civil rights and be termed “Something Else”.
Lily - dunno. How do YOU see it? (My never-humble opinion is that a lesbian minister denotes a secularized church, so to me, all bets are off. But PLEASE, if you want to continue that debate, start a new thread & link it here.)
- I would prefer that the word “marriage” be used, but if another word was developed that granted all the same legal rights & priviledges, and if the gay community embraced such a term, I wouldn’t have a problem with that.
- Yes.
You didn’t answer my question.
Esprix
How? Please clarify what I didn’t address.
Or, yes, I mean ALL non-sanctified unions should have all civil rights…
Well, what I asked was:
So you seemed to have answered “yes” to the civil term part of the question. What about the religious term? If a same-sex couple were joined in a religious ceremony (and heaven knows plenty of churches perform them), would your religious term apply to them as well as a traditional opposite-sex couple?
Esprix
Esprix-- he means that us straight heathens should have a “civil union”, along with gay couples, and that “marriage” will be reserved only for straight churchgoing couples.
Easy out: Join a church whose liturgy allows gays to marry. I was married by a witch, for instance.
Thanks for your reply. For the record, even though we disagree, I wasn’t trying to debate you, just trying to get clarification on definitions for the terms you used and how they would be implemented. That is one of my big questions about how one would draw a line between secular and non-secular marriages. I hope it didn’t sound confrontational.
- No
- Yes
Which makes me a default. Hey, I’m defaultive! Whose de hell fault is it anyway? I think it’s jjim’s.
- No, we don’t need a new term for gay marriage.
- I am not homo myself.
…
DING! DING! DING!
-We Have A Winner!
It might be useful to point out that the concept of marriage is based on a union sanctioned by a religion–not state law at all. If you are the traditional sort, then you would know that it isn’t possible to get married outside of a church/synagogue/mosque/whatever. The state should get out of the marriage business entirely, and if you don’t like the terms of the marriage or the church, then find another church you do like, or don’t engage in church rituals.
~
1.No and 2.Yes.
I don’t think homosexual marriage “should” be called something other than “marriage,” but I think that’s probably what’ll end up happening, if it does. Not that it’s right for it to be “seperate but equal,” but in my opinion, there are a lot of weak-spirited people who’d need some sort of verbal “boundry” of gay/straight marriage terms to keep their own pretty little heads from exploding.
Thomas Jefferson once said, “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” I think something similar could be said towards this situation.
…of course, I’m also the sort of guy who thinks we as a nation should legalize gay marriage and recreation drugs, and celebrate by executing everyone on death row and invading east Africa. According to all the online political affiliation tests I’ve ever taken, I’m some sort of facist civil libertarian. So consider my opinions with a grain of salt, I suppose.
- No
- Yes
- I would prefer whatever term the gays who are legalizing their realationship would prefer.
- I am a heterosexual theist, wed to a heterosexual atheist. We certainly refer to ourselves as “married” (our wedding wasn’t in a church, but was performed by a non-denominational minister who may or may not have been a lesbian), so I don’t know how we’d refer to our union under Tygr’s rules.
- No
- Yes
- No – Marriage is marriage!
- Yes
The church service and the civil service are both weddings. The marriage is what happens afterwards if you are really lucky.
So my agnostic/lapsed Catholic parents aren’t actually married because their ceremony took place in a court house? Does this mean when people call me a bastard they were just stating a fact?