Quote:
Originally Posted by BluPhire
@ MysticCat, my responses didn't miss the point, you missed one key statement in my initial argument, which was , "One could argue..." in that respect I got your point, which was the application, but the theory based on how the state operate, you could actually and easily transition from marriage being a religious standard in the United States, to a civil standard just by having the states actually step up and offer MORE options outside of religion. There isn't any new law that needs to be created, nor societal upheaval that needs to be enforced. Just tell people that the reality per recognition by the state, all marriages are pretty much civil unions. We just chose to be lazy and let the religious folks handle it.
|
Sorry, BluPhire, but you did miss my point and you still appear to miss my point, though you're getting closer. I'm not talking about making any societal upheavals, nor did I suggest changing how we do things. And I didn't say we operate under a religious standard or need to transition to a civil standard. I said we confuse and conflate the civil standard and the religious standard -- that's what my use of "entangled" and "intertwined" referred to -- and that the confusion and conflation has consequences when it comes to how we talk about marriage.
Way upthread, Tulip86 asked:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulip86
If dominantly religious countries like Spain, Argentina and Mexico can support gay marriage, why can't the U.S.?
|
My point was that the answer to her question lies, at least in part, in how the countries she mentions draw a sharper distinction than we historically have done between marriage in the religious sense and marriage in the civil sense. My point had little do with how we ought to do marriage, and everything to do with how the way we actually do marriage influences the assumptions we bring when we debate marriage.
Threaded Mode
