I still want a different word for 'gay marriage'

Well, I was talking about legitimate in my opinion but lets not digress. It becomes different, to me, when religion is considered. This is in the context of whether or not the fake marriage is with a guy or a girl. Combined with all of the other people's dishonesty and it could become everyone's problem. That's what I think we should avoid. That's why I don't support calling gay-marriages marriage. No, that doesn't make any sense to me.

*scratches head*So... we are going to purchase thirteen year-old child brides again?'Cuz seriously... I could use free maid service. I typed and deleted a few sarcastic replies to this, but none of them could really do my reaction justice. (Not without breaking forum rules, at least.)You can choose to not equate them all you like. You can also, while you're at it, choose to not equate six of one with a half-dozen of the other. But if someone asks for inclusion, and you deny them that inclusion, you are excluding them.

---

"We had survived to turn on the History Channel
And ask our esteemed panel, Why are we alive? And here's how they replied:
You're what happens when two substances collide
And by all accounts you really should have died."
-Andrew Bird

I thought that when you get married and then go down to the courthouse to sign the paperwork its all one big thing called marriage and that a civil union is something different altogether. So if I get married then I don't need a civil union. Am I wrong?

I thought that a marriage is not just a religous ceremony and a civil union. Legally, its something different, right?

Its a sacrament to my religion. I'm still under the impression that the civil part of the marriage is included in the whole package of the religious part and that a civil union is a different thing than marriage.

But how can we know how and what exactly will happen? I think its gonna mess up healthcare (assuming it can get worse :rolleyes because we'll be more prone to fake marriages for getting a friend on your healthcare plan. Some people think society will fall apart, some think the rapture will occur. My question was:At what point do their wishes become considered?and your answer is:

quote:

---

their wishes become considered when enough people agree that a behaviour is so abhorent that any practice of it will objectively harm another person.

---

Hence the amendment. There just isn't enough people that agree with it so I guess we'll just go ahead and have gay marriages. I'm just not gonna support it because I think its a bad idea.That doesn't mean that I want to exclude gay people or deny them rights or force my religion on other people though.

Let's not. I don't think that has anything to do with my position.

Well the way it works is that the government does not recognise religious marriages, to it, all marriages are civil unions. The whole bit with having to go to the County Clerk and get a marriage license and have the priest/rabbi/judge/... sign it is the civil union part. The church/temple/... part is the religious part.

what? of course it is.. exactly the same!to willfully fail to include someone is precisely the same as purposefully excluding them.how can you honestly say it is different.

If you were a friend of mine, and I went out to dinner with other friends and did not include you on the invite list, it need not be a purposeful exclusion. (Just a practical matter.)

Well Phat, what then is the practical reason to exclude gays from marriage?Edited by kjsimons, : Removed extranious 'then'Edited by kjsimons, : spelling

I'm having a bit of difficulty answering your question, because 'Civil Union' has a specific legal meaning here since we legalised same-sex marriage, i.e. a same-sex marriage is called a Civil Union here (notice the capital letters).But my original post was distinguishing between the religious ceremony you go through to satisfy your religion's marriage sacrament, and the paperwork you have to sign to satisfy the state that you are married, i.e. the 'civil union' bit of your marriage (notice the small letters). You can do the latter without the former, but you can't do the former without the latter (well, not if you want to be treated as legally married).So to go back to your original question: You don't have to go through two ceremonies, no. But if you're going for a religious ceremony you have to satisfy both your religion's requirements, and the state's. Edited by JavaMan, : Changed 'the government' to 'we'

---

'I can't even fit all my wife's clothes into a suitcase for travelling. So you want me to believe we're going to put all of the planets and stars and everything into a sandwich bag?' - q3psycho on the Big Bang

What?
of course it is you puposefully excluded me so you could spend time with your other friends...what ever the reason.. it is purposeful exclusion.

Are all civil unions marriages? (to the government not religion)

what? of course it is.. exactly the same!
to willfully fail to include someone is precisely the same as purposefully excluding them.how can you honestly say it is different. [/qs]Well, you had to throw that word 'willfully' in there and changed it.But, what I mean is that if you make a law that fails to consider some group, it is not the same as making a law that specifically excludes them.Or like Phat's example, if I invite persons A, B and D to dinner, it is not the same as saying person C cannot come to dinner.