martha
Blue Crack Supplier
I see what you're saying, but you still are 'married,' if you went to a church and had your marriage ceremony as well.
And those who still want to be married, but without a church service?
I see what you're saying, but you still are 'married,' if you went to a church and had your marriage ceremony as well.
Abortion is a good example. The country woke up one fine morning in 1973 to find ending the lives of human fetuses was now legal. No public debate, no vote, just POW.
And those who still want to be married, but without a church service?
Then they can just call it marriage, its doing the same thing, so many people just get so upset over the word.
Heres what I think:
Marriage is a religious ceremony. ..... I believe marriage should be taken out of laws and the governments hands. Instead of marriage, something similar to civil unions should be enacted that gives couples the same benefits of todays marriages. This would include same-sex couples. Then if they want, the unionized couple can go get married wherever it is they worship. I think this would allow a lot more people (including me) to reconcile with their religious beliefs while giving everyone the same rights.
So, you're trying to prevent gays and atheists from being able to marry?I see what you're saying, but you still are 'married,' if you went to a church and had your marriage ceremony as well.
So, you're trying to prevent gays and atheists from being able to marry?
I can't see any other purpose to this other than to discriminate.
The First Church of Atheism was born out of necessity. Created by Paul and Jacki McMaster, the FCA is the first society of its kind. Dedicated solely to ordaining atheists so that they too may perform ceremonies previously performed by religious men. When Paul and Jacki were wed, they hired a non-denominational minister to perform the ceremony. They requested that the ceremony be entirely faith neutral, as they were both devout atheists. To their dismay, the ceremony that the minister submitted for their approval was littered with references to, and direct statements about, god. They pulled out a red pen and started editing, paring down the ceremony into a 2 minute long affair.
For the next year, they would laugh about that story, telling their friends about the “non-denominational” minister who read them their vows in a Friar Tuck shirt, complete with collar. While funny, this also says something tragic about the state of our society when it comes to atheists. Non-denominational means generally Christian. For atheists, this is impossible to accept.
So the couple decided to form a society to provide others with what they did not get for their wedding.
But don't all states have a courthouse option?
Of course it's not "just a word." Why do you think so many social conservatives who never objected to civil marriage before suddenly change their minds when the prospect of extending it to same-sex couples opens up, even though most of them couldn't care less if same-sex couples cohabit and otherwise "do the same thing"? Because they perceive--not incorrectly--that granting official legal recognition of that status would in practice have some effect of extending a social stamp of approval to committed same-sex relationships, even though in principle it would only be the exercise of a right, not a government comment on the social worth of the relationship. That's what the real issue is.Then they can just call it marriage, its doing the same thing, so many people just get so upset over the word.
not a government comment on the social worth of the relationship. That's what the real issue is.
So will his audience(if he still has one) sing along if he changes it to 'He Bangs'?