RE: Same sex marriage
March 19, 2012 at 4:02 pm
(This post was last modified: March 19, 2012 at 4:19 pm by StatCrux.)
(March 19, 2012 at 3:56 pm)NoMoreFaith Wrote: So you don't mind if they have a religious civil partnership in a more tolerant church then?
A while ago you were dead against it, and wanted them to be banned from having a religious ceremony in a quaker or unitarianist church.
If it remains a civil partnership and some other Church wishes to perform a religious ceremony without it being recognised as a marriage then why not? sure. That wouldn't affect the institution of marriage and would be a good compromise.
(March 19, 2012 at 2:41 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: You still haven't told me why they should necessarily be different, except for children, which is a fallacy since some gay couples have children through means other than adoption and some straight couples never do or can't.
I refer you to my earlier post re why different and children etc
No, I want to call a union between a man and a woman a marriage, and a union between same sex couples a civil partnership. You asked why they are seen as different? Well for one a union between a man and a woman has procreative and natural family possibilites same sex unions do not. This has noting to do with obscure instances of infertility or adoption of children, i'm talking about the undeniable principle that in general male-female couples are procreative which leads to natural families, this in itself is a major distinction between marriage and civil parnerships.