Tony Blair was also advised that he should never, under any circumstance, mention God.
I wonder, tongue firmly in cheek, if he received this advice from the Church! The invasion of Iraq was far from Christian!
Is a civil union simply a functional legal/civil secular equivalent of a marriage, including rights of inheritance, parenthood, and such forth?
We're talking functional equivalents and separation of church and state here, making the religious aspect little more than a blessing than a strait jacket on civil rights.
4.Nope. Gay civil unions? Yes. Gay marriage? Church jurisdiction I'm afraid. If they want to be backward then let them. I won't interfere in their affairs if they don't interfere in the state's. Separation works both ways.
May I get some clarification here? Are you saying that Gay marriage should not be allowed, but Gay Civil Unions should?
It could be different for you in your country, but marriages here are a civil matter. You can of course choose to be married in a church but the marriage itself is a civil matter.
I dont think gay marriage should be allowed, civil unions are fine.
It is not necessary to be married in a church, or by a religious leader. You can do it entirely secularly should you wish. I was present when aforementioned Rachael Meads was married, it was a secular (non-religious) ceremony. The legal proceedings certainly are. Blood tests and a small fee (and maybe not even the blood test depending on the state). And no, for professional purposes, her name has not changed. I guess the more a woman does with her life, the less likely she is to just drop it forever for a man's name.
I am sure there are non-Abrahamic religions that would be absolutely happy to do gay marriages. The Buddhists. Peace and love to you.
If the Jews, Muslims and Christians can agree on anything, it is an insult to God to claim that His religion can make room for gay marriage, so I do agree with Zach on that one.
One Muslim Web site the guy writes, [women should not go around almost naked...... why not respect a woman with her clothes on for her intelligence heart and so on?] and a Christian like me is thinking, dang it, that is what we ought to say.
But why does a civil union fall short of a marriage functionally? What doesn't it do? Say God?
Mrs. Meads was married without the aid of an official of God, thank you. I think the entirely legal marriage functions well, there are two daughters, they will probably grow up to become like her, I presume everyone is happy.
So why wouldn't a secular legal civil union work the same?? She probably knows a few people who could benefit from civil unions and certainly wishes their day will come.
A civil partnership has "most" of the same rights as marriage except for the rather critical one of not being able to say the m word which may cause problems in some scenarios.
It is kind of like a midwife delivering a baby instead of a doctor. The doctor would make it traditional. The midwife could also do it. Sometimes there is no midwife, and a recent WJLA (channel 7 Washington DC) news broadcast mentioned a trend of even nobody else around (wtf?).
The baby still comes, usually, barring unforeseen emergencies. Life goes on.
Relationships and family life go on, regardless of who did the ceremony or even if there was a ceremony or not, so long as there is commitment, which I personally respect regardless of what my faith says.
A law could fix that.
I mean, couldn't they make it so like a civil union is as good as a marriage like a GED is as good as a high school diploma (or does the GED fall short of the high school diploma functionally too)?
The mere fact that there is a seperation is a problem. Civil partnerships are "second class marriages". Aside from this, there are still cases where a civil partnership may not be enough - such as some hospitals who will only allow a spouse or other next of kin to visit and define this as "someone who is married".
The religion would only object I think if it were required to bend its own dogma, such as the Christian church having to perform same-sex marriage.
They hang a hell of a lot on
"a man shall leave his mother and father and marry a woman and they shall be one flesh."
I think NiceGuy Pastor would say, look, I'm sorry, my God doesn't let me perform marriages between two men or two women. I wish you well.
--------------------------------
It is not the government's job to do the church's work enforcing morality. Haven't we got enough problems that need the government's attention?
Now, if the government thinks a bunch of nice guys can do a better job at distributing charity than it can, the nice guys still need the government to pay for it all and back them up. You can't depend on generosity to help the needy or pay the government. With that, you have six days to pay your taxes in the United States.
Make your own religion, create your own god, file for a tax exemption, and start marrying whichever two consenting adults you wish, whenever America gets to be a free country to be yourself. That will probably happen when the government is not so married to religion like it is.
Does religion threaten heterosexuals too? Atheists? Feminists? Women? I've read Backlash by Susan Faludi for example. The Christian church in general gets some of the blame for perpetuating the cycle of domestic abuse in rural areas by being silent, and for the underlying theme of male domination.
What the churches do not teach (a dangerous half truth, a lie) is that the father-husband has to serve his wife/children not abuse them. You see it in Ephesians: chapters 5 and 6, everybody submit to everybody please.
He has to listen to his wife, love her, help with the chores to lighten her load, give her a break when she is stressed...... he has to listen to the kids, let them know he cares, hug them, but provide firm discipline boundaries with consequences, to teach that God does the same.
If you think Ephesians lets the husband sit on the Lazy Boy, be a lazy boy, beer up, belch, and watch the Bowl, read it a little more carefully.
Not the Mother Mary. She sacrificed much to have a baby when God volunteered her for it, but she went along with it. She is not a deity. She is a good servant of Jesus, his mother. He is the deity. The saints were all a bunch of nice guys. Saint more loosely refers to any genuine Christian.
Adam was a big boy and can take responsibility for not walking away from Eve when she offered him the fruit.
My brother follows elements of paganism, he believes in a Goddess too. I do not know the details of his worldview. It was ever since about ten years ago when there was a woman with a Goddess Bless bumper sticker in his life.
l-o-v-e his wife as God loves the church - hello?
Firstly, religion can effect all people, it is not just non-heterosexuals that can be "threatened". Any belief or teaching that is against what someone else believes - strongly held, can seem threatening...
Secondly, Mary holds a huge place of respect in Roman catholicism. ( I was brought up as a Byzantine Catholic, so until my church, "joined" the Pope, and then celebrated Easter with the Catholics instead of the ORthodoc Church, MAry, was you said was not such an important figure. That said, read the Bible - that all Christians read (save for a few "books" taken out in the protestant version) Read about the woman in Proverbs - "Her husband puts his confidencce in her and he will never be poor" Read Chapter 31 verses, 10 to 31. The last line is " Give her credit for all she does. She deserves the respect of everyone" (if you don't want to look it up - it tells how she runs a business, does the accounting, makes real estate deals, grows a vineyard etc., ( I sure don't measure up) There are many passages that show how women can be revered adn how smart, strong, and independent the true woman is supposed to be.
Finally, it doesn't have to be "religion" that nurtures a society's male domination attitudes... Right on GuessWHo, the husband in a Christian marriage has a huge promise to make -he basicly has to reaspect and honor his wife as himslef and himself as he would God etc., (paraphrasing)
I grew up a Yankee bred by Yankees, but a similiar selective reading of the Bible legitimized American slavery. The New Testament was written when there were slaves. The New Testament was not written to free slaves in the Roman world, although many were freed out of respect for the idea that we are all slaves equally to the Lord, it was written to save souls. So the NT talks about the servant serving the master, the master providing proper management, encouragement, guidance, motivation, reward, compensation.
But to the extent that we are all equal before God, here's the horrifying suggestion, the slaves and the owners switch places. What's the difference?
Or maybe not have slavery at all. Better idea.
Does religion threaten heterosexuals too? Atheists? Feminists? Women? I've read Backlash by Susan Faludi for example. The Christian church in general gets some of the blame for perpetuating the cycle of domestic abuse in rural areas by being silent, and for the underlying theme of male domination.
What the churches do not teach (a dangerous half truth, a lie) is that the father-husband has to serve his wife/children not abuse them. You see it in Ephesians: chapters 5 and 6, everybody submit to everybody please.
He has to listen to his wife, love her, help with the chores to lighten her load, give her a break when she is stressed...... he has to listen to the kids, let them know he cares, hug them, but provide firm discipline boundaries with consequences, to teach that God does the same.
If you think Ephesians lets the husband sit on the Lazy Boy, be a lazy boy, beer up, belch, and watch the Bowl, read it a little more carefully.
Very good point there. All too often, the Bible is read very selectively to support the idea that it is just the women who should submit to men.