On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:19:52 -0600, Luthien <luthien@no-spam>
said:
>moral code wrote:
>
>> "Lennier" <nospam@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2003.06.28.12.55.51.961746@no-spam
>>
>>>On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:17:07 +1200, moral code wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>A man and woman of full age and fully understanding the implications,
>>>>responsibilities and expectations of their decision, solemnise their
>>>>relationship before witnesses, and being prepared to found a family,
>>>>
>> bear
>>
>>>>testimony to this fact at the temple/church/synagogue,
>>>>
>>>LOL - the FACT that the majority of persons do not get married in a
>>>"temple/church/synagogue" seems to have escaped you.
>>>
>>>In other words, you are speaking a theory that is total bullshit!
>>>
>>
>> No, I am speaking about REAL marriage - the religious ceremony upon which
>> the secular humanists have taken a liking to, and have come up with a Civil
>> Union ceremony equivalent that they also call "marriage".
Your first definition never says "religious". If I understand you
correctly, any pair of unbelievers could get married in Old St Pauls
(which anyone may hire) and be married in your eyes, while a religious
couple would be living in sin if they got the Archbishop of Canterbury
and/or the Pope to marry them in St Peters Square. Sounds like
something you'd shovel to me.
>> I don't know why the secular humanists have taken a liking to this
>> particular religious ceremony (particularly the insistance from homophiles
>> to join in) - perhaps they don't want to feel like they are being left out -
>> wannabes perhaps?
Perhaps it's got nothing whatsoever to do with your lot and everything
to do with how they feel about each other and their life together.