Just messin, but, there are no legalities until the marriage license is signed and witnessed in front of some sort of government official right?
The priests represent the officials in the wedding, of course the licence is sent to governmental records for approval. The priests' role is the same as the officials' in civil marriage, to get the papers to the correct authorities. And of course the religious role, too.
The Lutheran (Protestant) and Orthodox churches are kind of governmental authorities here, the same applies for christening being official.
Also, in Norway all the church employees are state officials.
I like it how Christians see gays as a different kind of human species.
When watching porn, and 2 girls go at it, do you guys turn off the film?
Do I? Weird, I thought the two women living almost next door were humans.
There's no need to label me as a racist.
Having a personal hatred for Russia and Russians doesn't count. 
Of course not. Some people however, do.
Yet all meanings must be based on earlier forms - just as all knowledge is based on earlier knowledge. We forget the earlier knowledge at our peril - it means forgetting the value of the present knowledge.
Of course, but archaic definitions really are archaic. "Marriage" in Modern English (as the English language from 18th to early 21th century) is and always will be between a man and a woman only. What its derivative in "Future English" (as the Modern English derivative that is currently forming, when it's no more Modern English) is, is yet open.
However limiting the thought to only the English word meaning "marriage" leaves the same problem for other languages, in which it might not be explainable by the word's roots. It'd be just easier to call the whole "marriage" a "(civil) union" as that word doesn't possibly limit it in, any language's equivalent of it wouldn't as long as there is one. If the civil union as for all sexual orientations is implemented, that is.
If not, the marriage should remain as is.
I'm still curious why those who object to the word to be used to join people of the same gender into a contract don't object to it being used to join together descriptive nouns to make a third, like a blend of spices, musical styles or literary forms. Isn't that more insulting to the institution of holy matrimony?!11one!
Its use in
law is to what I object. It's contradicting to use a word in an occasion it's not valid. Especially when it comes to law. Law has to be as clear as possible.
The symbolic usage of "marriage" isn't a really good argument, as the usage of it in the case we're discussing is not symbolic.
I'll just requote the first thing I said in this post.
"Well, you can get married but you can't call it that because you're gay."
I'd like you to imagine the situation was something else.
"Well, you can get a degree but you can't call it that because you're black."
You tell me why the first one isn't discrimination but the second one is. Or perhaps neither are?
Both are. But that example would go differently:
"Well, you can get a degree of physics but you can't get it if you study just literature."
A gay can marry, but he can't marry another man. He has to do it with a woman (with current laws).
Same way a straight man can't marry a man.
Is that discrimination or not? I'd call it merely
equal injustice, if even that.
Uhh... the discussion is (now, apparently) about an English word.
Yeah, but it doesn't necessarily have to be in English. You can try this argument in German with a native German speaker and see if you accidentally mix up a word slightly changing what you mean (like I used "and" from "either/and" while I meant to use "or" as in "both/or"). That would really be good for everyone who can use their native language, to understand that some people have to translate their arguments to a language foreign to them.
This is off topic, however and completely unnecessary to the main thing.
Though I imagine some who are already married (like me), some about to get married or those people already fiercely protective about the word "marriage" and who say things like "NOT Adam and STEVE!" a lot would have a massive tantrum about it.
People could call it whatever they want, just that in law it would be a civil union. I see the point, of course I would like to get married instead of "make a civil union" with my girlfriend when its time comes (and I understand why gays would like to use the same word even though it's contradicting), but law must be as clear as possible. Of course people could and highly possibly would still call it marriage nevertheless. Law and official issues need be clear of possibilities of misunderstanding because of definitions.
But isn't it funny how much power a word has? Virtually "marriage" and "civil union" are the same, but I can see the masses demonstrating against the change.
EDIT:
At one point the word "gay" used to mean "happy" and wasn't expanded to include homosexual men. Ergo, definitions aren't set in stone.
Yeah, but you shouldn't go changing them purposefully, to avoid confusion.
Oh, and in Scotland some elderly people still use "gay" in the meaning of "happy", the change of its definition makes it a bit odd to hear it still being used in its old definition. People can get confused.
).
