What might be said of Bush's spirituality

Originally posted by twhitehead
Since when did the word marriage mean 'Christain union'?
It is used to refer to unions (usually in the legal sense) between two people whatever thier religion. Why not use the word?

Why use it? Why does the word matter to you? It's all I'm asking.

I don't mean Christian union, but religious union.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Yes, I do. I don't think it's the biggest threat, or that it's independent of other attacks on marriage and traditional morality - but it is a threat nevertheless.

And muslims praying are a threat to the 'traditional christianity' but you have no right to ban it. I personally think that encouraging gay people to have 'non traditional' relationships is more damaging to the concept of marriage than allowing them to marry.
Of course the real problem is that those opposed to gay marriage are actually oposed to gay relationships similar to the whole condom issue. ie allow condoms and you allow extramarital sex. It doesnt matter if such attitudes have resulted in millions of people dying of AIDS.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
As to your point, I guess some gay person who insists on the use of the word "married" will have to answer it, although I suppose that the "union of souls" idea has something to do with it (a theist concept to be sure). For me, common-law marriage is a concept that is flexible enough to cover this case without too much fuss.

But my point is that, in a lot of countries, they are denied rights of civil marriage because there is religious opposition. So for them, even if the words mean nothing, they are not allowed a civil union/marriage in the same way as an atheist heterosexual can.

Originally posted by twhitehead
And muslims praying are a threat to the 'traditional christianity' but you have no right to ban it. I personally think that encouraging gay people to have 'non traditional' relationships is more damaging to the concept of marriage than allowing them to marry.
Of course the real problem is that those opposed to gay marriage are actually oposed to gay rela ...[text shortened]... l sex. It doesnt matter if such attitudes have resulted in millions of people dying of AIDS.

You didn't get my point. I meant ALL civil marriages to change name. Not just homosexuals, that's discrimination.

Gay relationships are not illegal, using condoms is not illegal and extramarital sex is not illegal. You fail to explain then why gay marriage is illegal.

Edit: Sorry, apparently I'm dumb and egocentric. Thought you were replying to me.

Originally posted by Palynka
Why use it? Why does the word matter to you? It's all I'm asking.

I don't mean Christian union, but religious union.

I dont see why the word marriage cant be used. I dont think it is a religious term. What gay marriage proponents want (and Bush doesnt) is the legal implications of a marriage. To get a particular religions members to recognise the union is up to thier religious leaders etc and not the law.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I dont see why the word marriage cant be used. I dont think it is a religious term. What gay marriage proponents want (and Bush doesnt) is the legal implications of a marriage. To get a particular religions members to recognise the union is up to thier religious leaders etc and not the law.

I will marry someday, most likely not religiously, and I wouldn't have any problem in calling it otherwise. I actually would prefer it to be called otherwise.

If it's just the legal implications of marriage, why insist on the word marriage?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
I'm curious as to why you should think that. Would you mind giving your reasons? (Not looking for an argument, promise).

Not sure what kind of reasons you're looking for here. And reasons to which specific part of my post?

Originally posted by Palynka
For the theists: If civil marriage was called civil union (or another name) would you still oppose a civil union between homossexuals?

Depends on what "rights" come under civil unions.

I have no objection to hospital visitation rights, for instance. I have mixed feelings about property inheritance and am opposed to adoption privileges.

So, whether I would still oppose a civil union between same-sex couples (homosexual or heterosexual - it doesn't matter) depends on what such a union entails.

Originally posted by Palynka
As for gay Christians, you have a point if you mean married by the church, but I don't see the RCC allowing it any time soon. I believe that the prohibition of gay civil "marriage" is a much bigger problem of civil rights.

Try "never" with the RCC.

Not sure what the second sentence means - are you saying that "prohibition" of gay civil "marriage" is a much bigger problem than the civil rights movement of the 1950s-60s?

Originally posted by twhitehead
And muslims praying are a threat to the 'traditional christianity' but you have no right to ban it. I personally think that encouraging gay people to have 'non traditional' relationships is more damaging to the concept of marriage than allowing them to marry.
Of course the real problem is that those opposed to gay marriage are actually oposed to gay rela ...[text shortened]... l sex. It doesnt matter if such attitudes have resulted in millions of people dying of AIDS.

Not everyone opposed to same-sex "marriage" (as I said before, whatever their sexual orientation) is opposed to homosexual relationships (and, AFAIK, some of them are gay themselves) and vice-versa.

Also, your last sentence doesn't make sense. Clearly if extra-marital sex has been responsible for millions of people being infected with HIV (IIRC, AIDS itself is preventable with modern, albeit expensive, medicine) - then surely those who oppose it are on the right track?

Originally posted by Palynka
If it's just the legal implications of marriage, why insist on the word marriage?

That is the question.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Depends on what "rights" come under civil unions.

I meant it as the same as a heterosexual civil marriage nowadays. Marriage would mean a union both religious and civil and the new term would mean a strictly civil union.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Try "never" with the RCC.

Not sure what the second sentence means - are you saying that "prohibition" of gay civil "marriage" is a much bigger problem than the civil rights movement of the 1950s-60s?

I was tempted to write never, but never is just too long... I believe it won't be "never", but since that is mere futurology and irrelevant to my argument I opted to leave it like that.

Where did you get the civil rights movement of the 50s-60s from? I meant it bigger than that of homosexuals that want to marry by the church.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Not sure what kind of reasons you're looking for here. And reasons to which specific part of my post?

You must have reasons for believing that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage.

Originally posted by Palynka
I meant it as the same as a heterosexual civil marriage nowadays. Marriage would mean a union both religious and civil and the new term would mean a strictly civil union.

Then I would oppose it - most particularly on any legal privileges associated directly or indirectly with the rearing and providing for of children.