The fact that both groups have had to fight to be counted equally in society is valid; the reasons WHY they have to fight in the first place and how they go about it are what's different.
I think this is still mainly a problem of terminology, people confusing marriage as being both a legal and religious occurrence instead of having two different terms to distinguish between the two. Yeah, I can see religions saying marriage is a man and a woman, or a man and three women, or a man and a man, or whatever the hell they want it to be. I don't care what religions do (as long as they're not actively doing harm), but I do care when people try to force their religions into government and define what the government can do based on their personal religious beliefs. Legal marriage can be defined entirely differently from religious marriage, and both be completely valid. But legal marriage can't be for some and not others, it has to apply to all citizens; religious marriage is free to pick and choose who they allow to marry.
I don't know if government should be involved in marriage at all, but since it is, there needs to be a uniform contract of what it is and what it provides across the books for all of its citizens. I'll refer to mutive's arguments on government and marriage.
I'll have to disagree with you there, I think a lot of the Christian religions took/take hate and fearmongering way too far. Would we have had the Salem Witch Trials and thousands of other persecutions and deaths in the name of religion over the ages if the country was founded by say, Buddhists or something?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-07 04:25 am (UTC)I think this is still mainly a problem of terminology, people confusing marriage as being both a legal and religious occurrence instead of having two different terms to distinguish between the two. Yeah, I can see religions saying marriage is a man and a woman, or a man and three women, or a man and a man, or whatever the hell they want it to be. I don't care what religions do (as long as they're not actively doing harm), but I do care when people try to force their religions into government and define what the government can do based on their personal religious beliefs. Legal marriage can be defined entirely differently from religious marriage, and both be completely valid. But legal marriage can't be for some and not others, it has to apply to all citizens; religious marriage is free to pick and choose who they allow to marry.
I don't know if government should be involved in marriage at all, but since it is, there needs to be a uniform contract of what it is and what it provides across the books for all of its citizens. I'll refer to
I'll have to disagree with you there, I think a lot of the Christian religions took/take hate and fearmongering way too far. Would we have had the Salem Witch Trials and thousands of other persecutions and deaths in the name of religion over the ages if the country was founded by say, Buddhists or something?