Comments on: On Marriage http://www.whistleandfish.com/2008/05/30/on-marriage/ Howling at the beautiful moon ... Sat, 22 Nov 2008 05:06:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Harry Haller http://www.whistleandfish.com/2008/05/30/on-marriage/#comment-93 Harry Haller Fri, 30 May 2008 23:01:33 +0000 http://www.whistleandfish.com/w0lf/?p=92#comment-93 <p>I’d be the first one to agree that our differences are semantic, and I’m more inclined to want government out of “marriage” because I want government out of all things religious. </p> <p> Now can we talk about taxing churches? </p> I’d be the first one to agree that our differences are semantic, and I’m more inclined to want government out of “marriage” because I want government out of all things religious.

Now can we talk about taxing churches?

]]> By: Jim http://www.whistleandfish.com/2008/05/30/on-marriage/#comment-92 Jim Fri, 30 May 2008 21:52:37 +0000 http://www.whistleandfish.com/w0lf/?p=92#comment-92 <p>Our disagreements are semantic rooted in the word “marriage.” If I understand you correctly, you feel the word is largely religious. I allow it its secular definition. </p> <p> A rose by any other name ... </p> <p> “Gay marriage” is an issue today mostly because of the word “marriage.” Gay couples would like to be “married”; traditionalists believe only heterosexual couples can be “married.” </p> <p> I am neither gay nor a traditionalist, so I guess they’re going to have to battle this one out without me. I don’t have a horse in this race. </p> <p> I do understand that words mean things and the word “marriage” is a lightning rod in this case. As such, I offer that the word marriage needs a prefix: </p> <p> Can’t we call one “religious-marriage” and the other “civil-marriage,” with neither being mutually exclusive or inclusive? Hm? </p> <p> I didn’t think so. </p> Our disagreements are semantic rooted in the word “marriage.” If I understand you correctly, you feel the word is largely religious. I allow it its secular definition.

A rose by any other name …

“Gay marriage” is an issue today mostly because of the word “marriage.” Gay couples would like to be “married”; traditionalists believe only heterosexual couples can be “married.”

I am neither gay nor a traditionalist, so I guess they’re going to have to battle this one out without me. I don’t have a horse in this race.

I do understand that words mean things and the word “marriage” is a lightning rod in this case. As such, I offer that the word marriage needs a prefix:

Can’t we call one “religious-marriage” and the other “civil-marriage,” with neither being mutually exclusive or inclusive? Hm?

I didn’t think so.

]]> By: Harry Haller http://www.whistleandfish.com/2008/05/30/on-marriage/#comment-91 Harry Haller Fri, 30 May 2008 19:30:32 +0000 http://www.whistleandfish.com/w0lf/?p=92#comment-91 <p>Thank you kindly, ma’am. There won’t be much posting for the next few days, as I will be elsewhere celebrating with all my 53-year-old might. </p> Thank you kindly, ma’am. There won’t be much posting for the next few days, as I will be elsewhere celebrating with all my 53-year-old might.

]]> By: Kathy http://www.whistleandfish.com/2008/05/30/on-marriage/#comment-90 Kathy Fri, 30 May 2008 19:20:37 +0000 http://www.whistleandfish.com/w0lf/?p=92#comment-90 <p>Happy Birthday to Youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!! <br /> x0x0x0 <br /> Kathy </p> Happy Birthday to Youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!

x0x0x0

Kathy

]]>