Will France legalize gay marriage?

[sunbird]

I didn't say church, though, I said religious :3 There's always some kind of mysticism attached (even if the objective reason behind it is property rights), most often in the form of religion of some sort. And religion has developed from an actually progressive to a deeply conservative force in the last, say, two to threehundred years. That makes the idea of homosexuality and marriage within one of the big world religions incompatible.

We have nowadays decoupled the mysticism and the simply practical aspects of marriage, though, which is why I said that we should just shoot for "civil partnership". Let the religious people have their weddings, they'll die out soon enough. While the wedding industry does its darnest to make people believe that they should spend huge amounts on what amounts to a useless ritual, economic necessity will surely put a lid on that. I'll go and say that, at least in Western societies, within the next hundred years civil partnership will be the standard practice, while religious weddings will have become a rare and blown-up party without any real meaning, like the "Christian" weddings they got in Japan. And that's where it belongs, if it comes to me.

Yeah, no. Plenty of non-religious people want weddings and don't see the need for religion to intrude. If you think the two are linked well that's fine for you, but you don't get to decide what other people call their arrangements.

[zemo]

Yeah, no. Plenty of non-religious people want weddings and don't see the need for religion to intrude. If you think the two are linked well that's fine for you, but you don't get to decide what other people call their arrangements.

Well, my point was that the religious people are trying to tie the word "marriage" to a religious setting. So I was arguing that they may have it, civil partnership is really the same for all means and purposes. As for my using the word "wedding", I'd say if it's a wedding without any type of priest or somesuch, it's rather more a party to celebrate the event, which is perfectly fine by me. I never argued that it can't be called a wedding, neither did I propose that my definition of what a wedding constitutes is the only valid one.

Me thinks you mayhaps read a tad bit too much into what I wrote.

[sunbird]

Well, my point was that the religious people are trying to tie the word "marriage" to a religious setting. So I was arguing that they may have it, civil partnership is really the same for all means and purposes. As for my using the word "wedding", I'd say if it's a wedding without any type of priest or somesuch, it's rather more a party to celebrate the event, which is perfectly fine by me. I never argued that it can't be called a wedding, neither did I propose that my definition of what a wedding constitutes is the only valid one.

Me thinks you mayhaps read a tad bit too much into what I wrote.

I'm not quite certain what you wrote. You seem to be tiptoeing around semantics. Where I said wedding also read marriage. I see no reason why religion should have a monopoly on the term or the institution just cause they want to.
Besides, as North Carolina showed, quite a few religions are unhappy enough even with civil partnerships. There is no point conceding anything unnecessary to these people.

[zemo]

I'm not quite certain what you wrote. You seem to be tiptoeing around semantics. Where I said wedding also read marriage. I see no reason why religion should have a monopoly on the term or the institution just cause they want to.
Besides, as North Carolina showed, quite a few religions are unhappy enough even with civil partnerships. There is no point conceding anything unnecessary to these people.

Well then I'll make it easy: Let them have their precious "marriage" and "wedding". If the end result is exactly the same, it doesn't really matter what the alternative is called. And as soon as you can only afix those words to religious activities, bothersome activities, the amount of "real" weddings and marriages will drop considerably.

As for North Carolina, that is a whole other thing. Those are extremists that are never going to be happy. But you'd deflate the majority of the Republicans' "sanctity of marriage" thing if you'd let them have the word, nothing more. That's why the extrmists always lose, they overemphasize symbolism while they lose on the practical aspects.

[sk716]

Well then I'll make it easy: Let them have their precious "marriage" and "wedding". If the end result is exactly the same, it doesn't really matter what the alternative is called. And as soon as you can only afix those words to religious activities, bothersome activities, the amount of "real" weddings and marriages will drop considerably.

As for North Carolina, that is a whole other thing. Those are extremists that are never going to be happy. But you'd deflate the majority of the Republicans' "sanctity of marriage" thing if you'd let them have the word, nothing more. That's why the extrmists always lose, they overemphasize symbolism while they lose on the practical aspects.

The end result is not exactly the same, though. Separate is not equal.