Controversial Topic Discussion

That marriage has been held as a sacred act between a man and a woman may be true from your Christian perspective, but there are many more instances of marriage that are non-Christian, and therefor very much not a sacred act from the Christian perspective. That they may be sacred from some other perspective does not at all translate to your Christian perspective, whether they may be sacred from some other religious perspective or strictly secular, as many marriages are. For Christians to try and claim that marriage is as they define it is nothing more than trying to dictate the perspective from which one must view marriage. And, it is doing so without just cause.

In this day, marriage is a legal contract. Its religious roots (if any group can stake claim to such roots, which is arguable as history shows it to be more a social act than a religious one ) are long since lost to history.

There is nothing about marriage that requires procreation. It is a commitment between members of society. I see no reason to exclude any two people from entering into such a contract. The semantic issue, in this instance, is a meaningless one. It is drawing a distinction without a difference.

The thing that is not reasonable about calling marriage a civil union, if it is not a Christian marriage, is that Christians have no foundational claim to marriage. The fact that such an issue is raised seems to be nothing more than one group wanting to dictate what other groups are allowed to do. What good reason can Christians offer as to why they should have sole claim to the term marriage? If they are offended by the way others use the term, should it not be them that decides to enter into a Christian union, instead of a marriage, and allow all other groups to use the term that marriage?