House of Commons Debates Same-Sex Marriage

[Oneracon]

My opposition to that view is basically that I don't believe in "Separate but Equal". If they're exactly the same, then what's the difference in just going an extra legal step to call both marriage?

The Civil Marriage Act in Canada states the reasoning for creating a gender-neutral definition of marriage, one reason being "WHEREAS only equal access to marriage for civil purposes would respect the right of couples of the same sex to equality without discrimination, and civil union, as an institution other than marriage, would not offer them that equal access and would violate their human dignity"

If the government wants to back out of marriage entirely and give all couples civil unions, and let them call it what they want... then that's great!

But it's either "marriage" for everyone or "civil union/partnernship" for everyone.

My personal preference is Civil Unions for everyone, and leave marriage to the religious institutions.

Fair enough, but marriage existed long before religion.

[Salandriagado]

He wasn't making up the compound arseno-koitai "male-bedder" out of nothing: he was imitating the Septuagint translation of Leviticus. Leviticus says not to shakav "bed" a male, so the Septuagint unusually turns the Greek word for "bed" into a verb for purpose of translating this verse, and Paul is following that usage.

With a feminine declination.

[Tmutarakhan]

My opposition to that view is basically that I don't believe in "Separate but Equal". If they're exactly the same, then what's the difference in just going an extra legal step to call both marriage?

The Civil Marriage Act in Canada states the reasoning for creating a gender-neutral definition of marriage, one reason being "WHEREAS only equal access to marriage for civil purposes would respect the right of couples of the same sex to equality without discrimination, and civil union, as an institution other than marriage, would not offer them that equal access and would violate their human dignity"

If the government wants to back out of marriage entirely and give all couples civil unions, and let them call it what they want... then that's great!

But it's either "marriage" for everyone or "civil union/partnernship" for everyone.

My personal preference is Civil Unions for everyone, and leave marriage to the religious institutions.

MARRIAGE is the legal name for the legal institution. Leave WEDDINGS to the religious.

[Menassa]

Right... so we agree?

Or at least realize we're talking about different things?

No, we're talking about the same thing. You were saying the noun form of sh-k-b couldn't mean "bed" because there exists a different word for that; there are often multiple synonyms.

No, I was saying the Author didn't intend for it to mean bed.