Or are you actually suggesting that we change the definition of marriage (horrors!) to mean a legal partnership about money and assets and I can marry my sister?
And then...how is this better for society? Or any of us individually?
And wouldn't this common law relationship be government-regulated? So that's keeping the government in. Unless....marriage goes to the churches and the rest of us are left out without it.
I'd really like you to address this specific issue.
Yeah if this better marriage involves incest (sister-sister or father/ son marriages) this whole thing has really gone over the deep end
The civil service, would be called whatever that person wanted. If two gays wanted a service and called it marriage that would not be anyone's business but their own. They would own it. The Government would not be involved and therefore no one would have the right to interject their opinions into the union.
That somewhere was the courthouse. You know- the government.
But married people can have sex. So you've opened the gateway to incest in your utopia. Oh- and you've entirely changed the entire definition of marriage to now make it WILDLY unbiblical.......... And here I thought the whole initial objection was with changing the biblical definition of marriage. And who again is keeping the records of these couplings and uncouplings? If not the government, who? SPCa?
I know. I don't understand it.
Bonita -- is there still marriage? A romantic union of two people?
By the way, your scenario actually means putting MORE government into marriage, not less.
To be fair, it was Gloria and not Bonita talking about the definition of marriage, but how is this new scenario in which you can "marry" anybody better than what we have?
Why not take your legal, government-dictated rules and SEPARATE them from marriage? You can keep your ideal of being able to name anyone the person who speaks up for you if you're ill, gets your stuff if you die without a will, etc., without taking away marriage? Do you not think marriage is helpful to society?
Anyway, this scenario as you have spelled it out doesn't remove government, it increases its involvement in all types of relationships. It also creates a nightmare for the courts resolving disputes when friends have a falling out, people change their minds, etc.
I really can't see how this would benefit anybody.
The only real problem it solves is that you'd be able to add someone to your insurance who isn't your spouse or common-law partner. I can't see anything else it accomplishes as you can already create legal documents that cover the rest of these needs.
And I don't see how it's connected to marriage.
And again, in this scenario, do you keep your marriage or must you give it up?
Can two gay people be married and call it being married?
I do not think I have the energy to keep doing this right now. I never said (and do not believe) that laws should be based solely on the Bible as everyone is going to interpret the bible differently. You are lumping everyone that believes that the Government should not be involved in marriage into one large group when even though I can not explain myself very well, I am sure my reasons are different than Gloria's or RG.
And you haven't explained what happens to actual marriage (couples in love) in it.
I am trying to understand your pov but I can't because you keep leaving me hanging on the same issues.