Quote:
Originally Posted by Larv
I'm all for legalizing same-sex domestic partnerships. But I guess you want me to redefine my definition of marriage to include "gay marriage." So, my nagging philosophical question is: Why do I need to alter my orthodox Middle Ages" definition of marriage when I already support legalizing full-on domestic partnerships for gays.
|
Because your personal definition is really moot. Others define it differently than you, so whose interpretation should we go with? Can we settle the dispute with rock/paper/scissors?
As Zythryn rightly pointed out, marriage hasn't been a religious term for quite some time, as evidenced by the fact that atheists have been getting married for quite some time, and all without challenge by the religious folks with "orthodox definitions." The term marriage was usurped by the state long ago, and its meaning has shifted greatly through changes in our society. Further, the "orthodox definition" comment is silly when shown in light of the fact that the church itself performed same sex marriages as far back as the 1100s.
Why call it by something different, when it's not? It's the state recognized union of two people who love each other, and has nothing to do with the genitals those two people are required to have.
Nobody is forcing you to change your personal definition, so that's a bit of a strawman. However, the argument here is primarily that you are being prevented from forcing that same
personal definition on to others.
