Quote:
|
Originally Posted by charby
So you would say that someone who gets married at the justice of the peace is not the same as someone who gets married at a church? Hmmmm. I could understand that beef more than a political one. At least duke it out with religious leaders instead of the gov`t.
So you would propose that they be allowd to get ''married, unionized'' whatever, just not through the church?
|
My thoughts are two-fold. First, there is no reason why the government needs to define marriage. so why do it? Second, if they are going to define marriage, it should be consistent with the traditional definition of marriage, which I have argued has its basis in religion. Again, I premise that with the fact that marriage has traditionally been viewed as a religious sacrement.
The easiest way to get rid of this debate is to eliminate the definition of marriage all together with respect to legislation. Is it really needed?
02-02-2006, 12:36 PM
Linear Mode
