The marriage "Saviours"

[Reverend Blair]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

Marriage is a secular institution, Canucklehead. Biologists and anthropologists point to monogamy and/or serial monogamy (not to mention affairs on the side) as a solid evolutionary strategy. Such strategies would have been recognised in even the most primitive tribes and enforced by the leader. As such it likely predates all religion and certainly predates any modern religion.

 

[Jay]

Harem

 

[peapod]

Jay, no one can predict the future. Could you please show me where any homosex has been a threat to society? There are plenty from the hetrosexual bunch tho. Your fears are based on something that "might" happen, based on what evidence?

 

[Canucklehead]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

The pending legislation is very clear that religious institutions will not be forced to perform SSM. Trying to say otherwise is being less than honest.

I agree with this portion of your statement. It would appear we agree on the main issue of homosexual couples, we are simply viewing the issue from different angles on the same side of the coin.

Biologists and anthropologists point to monogamy and/or serial monogamy (not to mention affairs on the side) as a solid evolutionary strategy. Such strategies would have been recognised in even the most primitive tribes and enforced by the leader. As such it likely predates all religion and certainly predates any modern religion.

Agreed. However, we are now blurring the lines in an unrealistic way simply to support a viewpoint. Monogomy in 'those days' was aimed at preventing procreation of direct relations as that type of procreation leads to 'defective' offspring which could not survive, or be too much a burden on the clan. It can not be accurately applied to a situation where procreation is an impossibility.

 

[Jay]

Jay, no one can predict the future. Could you please show me where any homosex has been a threat to society? There are plenty from the hetrosexual bunch tho. Your fears are based on something that "might" happen, based on what evidence?

People can predict the future, it has already happened. Look it up.

I'm predicting that people will do what Vanni said earlier.

Bets anyone?

 

[peapod]

People can predict the future, it has already happened. Look it up.


Could you please tell me where I might look this revelation up Jay, I am interested.

 

[Twila]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

I just wanted to pull this back to the definition of marriage.

What about a hermaphrodite wanting to marry? What if the hermaphrodite is living female and wants to marry a regular man? But being that the hermaphrodite is neither would it be acceptable to change the definition to "2 people" for this purpose?

 

[Reverend Blair]

Harem

That's a different strategy...one that most likely only came about in our species with the advent of paternalistic religions.

Monogomy in 'those days' was aimed at preventing procreation of direct relations as that type of procreation leads to 'defective' offspring which could not survive, or be too much a burden on the clan.

Doesn't matter, it shows that marriage, as sanctioned by the state or group, predates religion. Therefore any argument related to religion or religious-based traditions becomes irrelevant when discussing state-sanctioned marriages.

 

[Jay]

People can predict the future, it has already happened. Look it up.


Could you please tell me where I might look this revelation up Jay, I am interested.

The internet.

 

[Canucklehead]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

I just wanted to pull this back to the definition of marriage.

What about a hermaphrodite wanting to marry? What if the hermaphrodite is living female and wants to marry a regular man? But being that the hermaphrodite is neither would it be acceptable to change the definition to "2 people" for this purpose?

Yes because it's the parents' choice to decide upon sex for the birth certificate, which may or may not be correct choice. The child may be raised a particular sex only to find out at puberty they are more inclined to the opposite. (through hormones,actions,desires or physical appearance)

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

It's far too soon to push for this but I look forward to the day 'marriage' is removed from our law books and placed back in the hands of the church, where it belongs.

...and I look forward to the day when our government cracks down on churches for descrimination and hate crimes...

And this is exactly why I do not trust this "it won't affect the church’s right to marry who they want" BS.

And if this doesn't fit into the commi line of thinking I don't know what does.

And let’s not be fooled into believing the NDP isn't full of these sorts of people and that the left isn't bent on the destruction of the Church.

"He that hath no sword, let him sell his coat and buy one". Were going to need it in the future, but they will see it comming and start to ban guns and keep lists of people who have them....

*sigh*

Alright, first of all, if a church discriminates against a group of people for any reason, or promotes hatred towards groups because of what's written in their magic book of lies, then I think that the church should be held accountable and should be charged with hate crimes and violations of the Human Rights Act...

If a teacher in a school teaches their students that homosexuals, or women, or Muslims or any other minority is an inferior group, then they would be held accountable, and the school and the teacher would suffer consequences...

Yet the church is allowed to spew whatever venom they wish, under the protection of the Charter, because we can't discriminate against their freedom of religion...that's bullshit...

The church, as an institution has been protected for far too long, on the basis of their religious freedoms, and should be made to pay for the damage that they cause to our society...

I'm not saying that religion should be abolished, just held accountable like any other public institution would be...

...and your most holy bible should be acknowledged by the state as hate literature, for promoting a wide variety of intolerances...

...and, just so you know, I think the gun registry is bullshit too...

 

[peapod]

I actually don't have time for this anymore. I have to much on my plate, I have work to do and emma dibbs is coming. So far I have read nothing that changes my view that this is about nothing more than homosex. I am kinda lucky that way, I never have that picture in my head

 

[galianomama]

I have to much on my plate, I have work to do and emma dibbs is coming.

ah...too much on your plate eh pea? more than a few mushy peas eh??? ha ha...yeah, you have way too much on your plate, you fiendish pig. yikes, i better go now while i can.

 

[galianomama]

just an aside pea, but is one of those 'mushy peas' by any chance named sean???hmmmmm, like in sean connery i presume? 8O

 

[Canucklehead]

Doesn't matter, it shows that marriage, as sanctioned by the state or group, predates religion. Therefore any argument related to religion or religious-based traditions becomes irrelevant when discussing state-sanctioned marriages.

Marriage and monogamy are not synonomous. Marriage is permanent devotion to one mate out of spiritual belief it is the right thing to do. Monogamy has no such restriction and simply refers to sexual relations with one person. Marriage has changed to be all but meaningless, what with a 50% divorce rate in North America but historically speaking it was meant to be a lifelong institution. Monogamy was only for the duration of the current relationship.

We're really starting to split hairs here :roll:

 

[mrmom2]

Marriage has changed to be all but meaningless, what with a 50% divorce rate in North America but historically speaking it was meant to be a lifelong institution :roll: Maybe to those who are not married canuck but it certainly is'nt to me and my wife :)

 

[Canucklehead]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

Mrmom2,

That is so refreshing to hear And I didn't mean to all people but many people these days think "oh well, if it doesn't work, we'll just divorce" like it's nothing. I may not buy into religion but i know what commitment and compromise mean. Divorcing at the first sign of trouble, or someone else "better" coming along, shows a real lack of it. imho

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: The marriage "Saviour

The divorce rate has risen as people live longer and as gender roles change though. The traditions of marriage have changed with it.

The point remains the same though...marriage is not a religious institution, it is a societal institution implemented by government. The only reason that churches are involved is because they were, in the past, as much political forces as religious ones. They no longer, nor should they, dictate governmental policy. As such they and their various doctrines of intolerance have place in discussion of ssm.

Not splitting hairs, just looking back at history.

 

[MMMike]

Re: RE: The marriage "Saviour

Marriage should more aptly be defined as " the union of two persons as condoned by the church to which the couple belongs" Marriage is after all a religious ceremony which was concocted by the church eons ago.
It's far too soon to push for this but I look forward to the day 'marriage' is removed from our law books and placed back in the hands of the church, where it belongs. Unions can be used to describe couples of all orientation, both religiously and sexually. If a couple wishes to have that union deemed a marriage, subject to the rules of their particular religious sect, then by all means, pop by the local church/synagogue/mosque and have them do the honours.

I second that motion. I don't know about the history of the term "marriage", but in today's usage it is mainly a religious ceremony to acknowlege a "civil union". Let them have the term "marriage", with all the tradition and meaning they ascribe to it. Civil unions can be the term reserved for civil purposes. The homos have equal treatment under the law, and the religious right keep their precious "marriage". Win-win, no??

 

[Jo Canadian]

:lol: The only ones winning here I see are the lawyers:

-They're paid to fight for/against the issue

-And if it is becomes legal then they have a new demographic for divorce cases