Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
i voted no. marriage is a religious union
|
No, it was a civil union far before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
marriage is very symbolic, between a man and a women.
|
Or between two people, why should your version of the symbolism be enforced on everyone else?
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
but if two homosexual partners want to spend the rest of thier lives together, thats fine, whats wrong with just being common law or joining in civil union, aside from the church.
|
You mean what's wrong with forcing a group of people to be treated differently than everyone else for no good reason? Maybe we should have a different word for interracial marriages too?
What do you mean aside from the church? What if the church wants to marry them? The church should be prevented from doing so? Religious homosexuals want to make their vows before the eyes of God, their family, peers, and their society too just like everyone else. Why do you want to restrict their religious freedoms to match your own beliefs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by calgaryrocks
the trouble here for me is if we start changing the terms of the symbolic union of marriage, it opens up a can of worms and the symbolism loses its value. although divorce also lessens the value of it. so if homosexuals can get married, then what about marrying several wives? or marrying a dead person, or a ghost or an animal?
|
Why does the symbol lose its value? It gains value because it's inclusive of more people in society.
Slippery slope arguments aren't very convincing.