(November 20, 2013 at 10:17 pm)Faith No More Wrote: No, the religious and civil aspects are not entangled. Marriage can be a completely secular endeavor, however, some people choose to add religious aspects to it.If they weren't entangled then it wouldn't be an issue at all. Your second part is actually what I was advocating. I guess I'm left with calling heterosexual religious ceremonies biblical- or covenant-marriages.
DT, are you just stupid or a true hater. I repeatedly said that being attracted to people of the same sex, among many other temptations, does not make someone a pervert. Acting on those desires does. Heterosexuals that practice S&M are perverts, because those practices also undermine conjugal love putting in its place power relations. Perversion is not limited to any particular gender identity.
(November 20, 2013 at 10:17 pm)Faith No More Wrote: What you are proposing is allowing your religion to hijack the term simply because you object to allowing a certain minority perform a union and label it that term.You're right. I am getting pissy about semantics. I just don't believe the term marriage makes sense apart from a religious context. You do.
I do not hate ex-felons, but I condemn their lawlessness. Likewise,I was just hoping people with your opinion could at least try to understand the distinction between hating people and disapproving of their practices.