Quote:
Originally Posted by Knalus
False logic. A person living during the time you are describing would view two Chinese buddhists as being married, as long as it was a man and a woman. My family and culture were not catholic when what you described happened.
|
You have stated that if they changed the definition of marriage to allow gays to marry, it would not be marriage, but something different. You didn't explain why, of course, but you've done your best to avoid a lot of questions in this thread, so that's not much of a surprise, though it may form a communication problem.
"Traditional" Christian marriage forbade divorce. You haven't actually defined what you
mean by "traditional" marriage, though, even while using it repeatedly, so I'm forced to assume you mean marriage custom that has been passed down generation to generation for a very long time.
"Traditional" marriage, once upon a time, as I said, forbade divorce between a man and a woman, at least as far as Catholicism, and different forms of Protestantism is concerned, which admittedly I'm taking for granted is what we're talking about here, as it's what the Western moral heritage is founded upon. You can go ahead and include remarrying in there, as well.
However, the rules for marriage changed. Divorce and remarriage rights and rules were altered and tweaked. It, however, still remained marriage, even after altering the custom. Marriages done after these changes did not become something different from marriage; they remained as marriages.
So, explain to me why, if marriage is changed again, will what gays participate in not be marriage (because it's a "changed form of marriage), while what you participate in be marriage (yet another "changed" form of marriage)?