I still want a different word for 'gay marriage'

not if it wasn't on purpose

Well it may not be technically correct, but the point I was trying to make is that you are not legally married in this country without having a signed marriage license, which is the governments, hence civil, recognition of said marriage. Most people think of 'civil union' as a non-religious marriage, but all marriages in this county have this civil component. Some state even have what's called 'common law' marriages in which just living as man and wife for a period of years will get you 'married'.Edited by kjsimons, : sp

I like that more than including gay in marriage.I still think healthcare will be negetively affected though.

When you get married you go and get a license and the government calls it a 'marriage' not a 'civil union', right?...even though, by definition, the marriage is a civil union. Now, if you go down to the court house and get a civil union, does the government call it a marriage?Are there two defintions?

Well I just looked up the Orange County FL Clerk of Court site (http://orangeclerk.onetgov.net/service/marriage.shtml) and they don't make a distinction between civil union vs marriage, they are both marriages.

I don't see civil union mentioned at all.Look at this. Seems the marriage is between a bride and a groom. Can you have a male bride or a female groom?

What, exactly, is the problem with having a male bride?

You mean, other than being a contradiction? dictionarywiki

I think Arach would call that semantics. If men married men then the definition of bride would change. You could then have a have different orders of bride: female and male.In this case, a male-order bride

Well you are not accidentally failing to include them.. you are doing so because you want to... it is your will that they 'not be included'.
how is this different to 'excluding'?

So if it wasn't on purpose did you mean to include me? and it just slipped your mind?I can't see where you are going here.

Badum-tish!

iano writes

quote:

---

In this case, a male-order bride

---

Forbidden

Right they don't mention 'civil union', because it's redundant. Would it be clearer to you if we used the word 'state' or 'government' recognised in place of the word 'civil' perhaps?I know that recently the term is being used to refer to same sex marriages, but in my experience it was in use prior to all this and it referred to non-church/temple/whatever marriages, usually disparigingly.

Thats very bold of you to tell me what my will is (and a violation of forum guidline #10).I mean, did you even read the thread or did you just take one line from the conversation out of context and assume what I must have meant.The definition of marriage does not include gays in it. It wasn't on purpose, it didn't slip the mind, they were just a non-issue. Yes, they are excluded from the definition. But that is different than making an amendment to actively exclude them.I stand by my claim that failing to include someone is different from actively excluding them.