
Originally Posted by
Lias
The existing de facto laws really covered that already, and I could have lived with those being extended to cover homosexuals. But marriage to me is a religious ceremony of declaring their love before their god(s), and I honestly think the way the civil unions thing was pushed through makes a mockery of it. I also think our divorce laws help make a mockery too.
Marriage (or anything like it) should be restricted to lifelong cimmitments between a man/woman of a religious nature, and defactor/common law status should be for all others. PS: I'm not a christian either.
You are quite incorrect sir - the existing de facto laws did not cover that already.
What do you mean by "of a religious nature" - christian? non christian? christian-like? jedi? should a hindu man and woman not be allowed to be legally married because they don't claim to worship "god"?
Your argument is contradictory. Most heterosexual couples that have chosen to civil union rather than marriage have done so on the basis that they are not religious, if civil union didn't exist they would be forced to marry, which you don't agree with because they are not religious (see the vicious circle).
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be quoted out of context, then used against you.
Bookmarks