"Alan Liefting" <aliefting@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EFD1AC2.4010202@no-spam
> I find the term partner to describe the other individual in a de facto
> marriage to be a little vague and impersonal. This has bothered me for
> some time since I am in a de facto marriage.
Partner is probably a euphamism for sex partner, so it aptly describes the
reality.
Marriage and de-facto are mutually exclusive terms.
Marriage is a religious ceremony declaring the commitment and unity between
a man and a woman in holy matrimony, and is the secure foundation for
raising a family. Could also be termed "paid in full" with ownership papers
to prove it.
A de-facto relationship could variously be described as "try before you buy"
or "shoplifting". Self-indulgence without any commitment. I think the term
in current use, is "a bit on the side".
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:44:28 +1200, Absolute wrote:
> Marriage is a religious ceremony declaring the commitment and unity between
> a man and a woman in holy matrimony, and is the secure foundation for
> raising a family.
No - this is not the case.
There are several countries around the world - notably Canada and The
Netherlands - where "Marriage" is defined as "The union of two persons to
the exclusion of all others."
Note the gender nonspecific language.
Lennier
--
I specifically DENY Xtra, and Telecom NZ Ltd, and all other subsidiaries
of Telecom NZ Ltd, the right to use the contents of this digital
communication for any purpose whatsoever, whether in whole or in part -
regardless of how it is stored or transmitted through Xtra's network.
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:21:25 +1200
Absolute wrote:
> "Alan Liefting" <aliefting@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EFD1AC2.4010202@no-spam
>
>
>>I find the term partner to describe the other individual in a de facto
>>marriage to be a little vague and impersonal. This has bothered me for
>>some time since I am in a de facto marriage.
>
>
> Partner is probably a euphamism for sex partner, so it aptly describes the
> reality.
>
> Marriage and de-facto are mutually exclusive terms.
>
> Marriage is a religious ceremony
No, it may or may not be accompanied by religious ceremony, but itÅ› not
the religious part that makes it a marriage, it´s the official
form-filling bit that matters!
declaring the commitment and unity between
> a man and a woman in holy matrimony, and is the secure foundation for
> raising a family. Could also be termed "paid in full" with ownership papers
> to prove it.
>
> A de-facto relationship could variously be described as "try before you buy"
> or "shoplifting". Self-indulgence without any commitment. I think the term
> in current use, is "a bit on the side".
Wrong again.
A quick shag or a one-night-stand does not constitude a de facto
relationship.
As for raising a family, you may be shocked so please brace yourself
now: I have heard of married men, sometimes even married women, who
have shot through on their partner and kids, leaving the wedding photos
unwanted on the mantlepiece. Astounded? I thought so.
A L P
>
>
>
>
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:35:20 +1200, Absolute wrote:
> All it provides, is an example of how far some people will go to pervert
> truth in an attempt to legitimise their behaviour.
Truth is that which is, in contradistinction to that which is not.
There ARE Gay persons. There ARE Gay persons who have married - note the
word "married" - other Gay persons.
It is true that there are Gay marriages.
Such relationships do exist. Many of them have been together for decades
despite no public or societal support.
It is remarkable that those relationships have survived for so long given
the opposition to their existance that exists in some quarters.
It stands to reason, therefore, that those relationships must indeed be
very robust.
It is noteworthy that in the USA, more than half of all marriages by
heterosexuals end in divorce within 5 years.
One could add, that it is in fact the Conservatives who are perverting
"Truth" by attempting to prop up institutions which most people (certainly
true in the USA) have lost faith in and have abandoned.
Lennier
--
I specifically DENY Xtra, and Telecom NZ Ltd, and all other subsidiaries
of Telecom NZ Ltd, the right to use the contents of this digital
communication for any purpose whatsoever, whether in whole or in part -
regardless of how it is stored or transmitted through Xtra's network.
"A L P" <bluebird2@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3efd4227@no-spam
> Absolute wrote:
> > "Alan Liefting" <aliefting@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3EFD1AC2.4010202@no-spam
> >
> >
> >>I find the term partner to describe the other individual in a de facto
> >>marriage to be a little vague and impersonal. This has bothered me for
> >>some time since I am in a de facto marriage.
> >
> >
> > Partner is probably a euphamism for sex partner, so it aptly describes
the
> > reality.
> >
> > Marriage and de-facto are mutually exclusive terms.
> >
> > Marriage is a religious ceremony
>
> No, it may or may not be accompanied by religious ceremony, but its not
> the religious part that makes it a marriage, it´s the official
> form-filling bit that matters!
Marriage is a religious ceremony.
The fact that many people in today's society wish to emulate this religious
practice does not in any way diminish from it's implications, requirements,
or origin.
Should people not wish to take part in this religious ceremony, there are
other options such as external or registry-based civil unions (also known as
a wannabe marriage - ideal for the non-religious who want to receive secular
recognition), or there are de-facto relationships for the heathen.
> declaring the commitment and unity between
> > a man and a woman in holy matrimony, and is the secure foundation for
> > raising a family. Could also be termed "paid in full" with ownership
papers
> > to prove it.
> >
> > A de-facto relationship could variously be described as "try before you
buy"
> > or "shoplifting". Self-indulgence without any commitment. I think the
term
> > in current use, is "a bit on the side".
>
> Wrong again.
>
> A quick shag or a one-night-stand does not constitude a de facto
> relationship.
I was not commenting on the high-risk selfish behaviours of the sexually
promiscuous predators when making that statement.
De-facto relationships are an example of self-indulgence without commitment,
and are well described as "try before you buy" or "shoplifting". Eating the
goods without paying for them first.
> As for raising a family, you may be shocked so please brace yourself
> now: I have heard of married men, sometimes even married women, who
> have shot through on their partner and kids, leaving the wedding photos
> unwanted on the mantlepiece. Astounded? I thought so.
Even worse, are all the families being brought up without both parents in a
secure environment due to the fact that there are too many people who wish
to indulge their pleasures without taking responsibility or making a
commitment.
Lust is never a foundation for a family.
"Lennier" <nospam@no-spam> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.06.28.07.45.14.940584@no-spam
> On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:35:20 +1200, Absolute wrote:
>
> > All it provides, is an example of how far some people will go to pervert
> > truth in an attempt to legitimise their behaviour.
>
> Truth is that which is, in contradistinction to that which is not.
>
> There ARE Gay persons. There ARE Gay persons who have married - note the
> word "married" - other Gay persons.
I also hear that recently there were two dogs that got "married".
Clearly such "marriages" are a sham, designed to appease the politically
correct
liberals, and the militant homophile sector.
Such "marriages" aren't worth the paper they are written on.
In a vain attempt to masquerade as legitimate, they attempt to emulate a
religious practice that is designed to confer rights to a married man and
woman as the foundation of a family unit, for their own purposes.
The homophile propagandists are well known for taking words and symbols that
have positive meanings to use for their ends (the word gay, and the rainbow
symbol, for example).
Secular civil union does not equal religious marriage, regardless of the
attempts by the liberal secular humanists to make it look like real
marriage, give it equality to marriage, or call it marriage. It is a fraud
and a fake.
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:44:28 +1200, "Absolute"
<interesting.article@no-spam> wrote:
>Marriage is a religious ceremony declaring the commitment and unity between
>a man and a woman in holy matrimony, and is the secure foundation for
>raising a family.
Though that description matches fairly thinly, my own religious
convictions, it does not match the law of New Zealand, nor the
understanding of those with different religious convictions, and is
thus a useless description for discussion here.
Oddly, the Marriage Act 1955 and its subsequent amendments do not seem
to define marriage itself.
I think that for a secular society, I would regard marriage as a
formal and legally binding commitment between two consenting partners,
before someone authorised by the community or the state to solemnise
such commitments, to a relationship that is intended to be permanent
and exclusive, and to have consequences and obligations in respect of
joint property and the guardianship of any offspring from the union.
(Or something like that).
My own religious perspective adds some fairly rigorous restrictions
which I would apply to my own conduct, but I think the state has no
business going there, hence the gender neutral nature of my
understanding above.
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:15:10 +1200, Absolute wrote:
> I also hear that recently there were two dogs that got "married".
Really? Which State? Which registry office? Under which law did they get
married?
Lennier
--
I specifically DENY Xtra, and Telecom NZ Ltd, and all other subsidiaries
of Telecom NZ Ltd, the right to use the contents of this digital
communication for any purpose whatsoever, whether in whole or in part -
regardless of how it is stored or transmitted through Xtra's network.
"A L P" <bluebird2@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3efd4227@no-spam
> No, it may or may not be accompanied by religious ceremony, but its not
> the religious part that makes it a marriage, it´s the official
> form-filling bit that matters!
>
Indeed. Technically you are right. But I happen to think that's
arse-about-face, really. Partnership, union, whatever legal name you may
wish to put on it, to me should be what's legally recognised, however that
legal recognition is stipulated.
Marriage, OTOH, I see as between two people. Some people see it as relgious,
some people see it as spiritual but not religious, others see it purely as
intensely personal. But I believe it is between two people and the state has
nothing to do with it.
Me, I see it as spiritual and as distinctly different from partnership -
distinctly different from life partnership indeed - and I am annoyed that
the state and legality have taken it as their own. In the way I view it,
there are a hell of a lot of wannabe marriages out there, but very few real
ones.
But hey, that's just my ridiculously idealistic, unmarried, POV.
"Absolute" <interesting.article@no-spam> wrote in message news:3efd2a20$1@no-spam
>
> "Alan Liefting" <aliefting@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EFD1AC2.4010202@no-spam
>
> > I find the term partner to describe the other individual in a de facto
> > marriage to be a little vague and impersonal. This has bothered me for
> > some time since I am in a de facto marriage.
>
> Partner is probably a euphamism for sex partner, so it aptly describes the
> reality.
>
> Marriage and de-facto are mutually exclusive terms.
>
> Marriage is a religious ceremony declaring the commitment and unity between
> a man and a woman in holy matrimony,
Wrong. In New Zealand law, marriage is a civil contract between two people, witnessed by the State.
The fact that some people like to have a little bit of superstition involved does not alter that
fact.
Plonk! Killfiled.
Calum
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 05:54:31 -0600
Absolute wrote:
> A de-facto relationship could variously be described as "try before you buy"
> or "shoplifting". Self-indulgence without any commitment. I think the term
> in current use, is "a bit on the side".
>
>
A bit on the side refers to extramarital affairs, whether that be
defacto or not.
Absolute wrote:
.
>
> The homophile propagandists are well known for taking words and symbols that
> have positive meanings to use for their ends (the word gay, and the rainbow
> symbol, for example).
The word GAY was coined in the 60's, it means GOOD AS YOU!
>
> Secular civil union does not equal religious marriage, regardless of the
> attempts by the liberal secular humanists to make it look like real
> marriage, give it equality to marriage, or call it marriage. It is a fraud
> and a fake.
Try blabbing that in a court of law, you will be laughed rightout of the
door.
"Miche" <micheinnz@no-spam> wrote in message
news:micheinnz-B0FBCA.21151028062003@no-spam
> In article <3efd2a20$1@no-spam>,
> "Absolute" <interesting.article@no-spam> wrote:
>
> > Marriage and de-facto are mutually exclusive terms.
>
> "De facto" stands short for "de facto marriage", or "marriage in fact".
> Legal marriage could, if you wanted, be called "De jure marriage", or
> "marriage in law".
De facto:
Exercising power or serving a function without being legally or officially
established
Sums it up really...
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!
Lennier
--
I specifically DENY Xtra, and Telecom NZ Ltd, and all other subsidiaries
of Telecom NZ Ltd, the right to use the contents of this digital
communication for any purpose whatsoever, whether in whole or in part -
regardless of how it is stored or transmitted through Xtra's network.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 00:17:07 +1200, moral code wrote:
> Marriage is a religious ceremony.
No - it is not.
It is a social state.
In the middle ages through even until only a couple of centuries ago in
some parts of Europe all that was required for a marriage was for the two
persons to agree to live together as husband and wife as per their
families wishes. And, if they had not produced a child after one year they
were free to go their separate ways.
It was OPTIONAL for the couple to go to a church afterwards for a
blessing.
Lennier
--
I specifically DENY Xtra, and Telecom NZ Ltd, and all other subsidiaries
of Telecom NZ Ltd, the right to use the contents of this digital
communication for any purpose whatsoever, whether in whole or in part -
regardless of how it is stored or transmitted through Xtra's network.
"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".
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?
De facto:
Exercising power or serving a function without being legally or officially
established.
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 19:35:20 +1200, "Absolute"
<interesting.article@no-spam> said:
>
>"Lennier" <nospam@no-spam> wrote in message
>news:pan.2003.06.28.05.58.32.809891@no-spam
>> On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 17:44:28 +1200, Absolute wrote:
>>
>> > Marriage is a religious ceremony declaring the commitment and unity
>between
>> > a man and a woman in holy matrimony, and is the secure foundation for
>> > raising a family.
>>
>> No - this is not the case.
>>
>> There are several countries around the world - notably Canada and The
>> Netherlands - where "Marriage" is defined as "The union of two persons to
>> the exclusion of all others."
>>
>> Note the gender nonspecific language.
>>
>> Lennier
>
>All it provides, is an example of how far some people will go to pervert
>truth in an attempt to legitimise their behaviour.
>
>Such "civil unions" are a sham, designed to appease the politically correct
>liberals.
So what, in your view, is/are the essential element/s that
distinguish/es a marriage from a civil union? And what makes it/them
essential?
(Bearing in mind that biotechnology is rapidly removing the
impediments to any couple having their own biological children.)
Absolute wrote:
>
> "Alan Liefting" <aliefting@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EFD1AC2.4010202@no-spam
>
>> I find the term partner to describe the other individual in a de facto
>> marriage to be a little vague and impersonal. This has bothered me for
>> some time since I am in a de facto marriage.
>
> Partner is probably a euphamism for sex partner, so it aptly describes the
> reality.
>
> Marriage and de-facto are mutually exclusive terms.
>
> Marriage is a religious ceremony declaring the commitment and unity
> between a man and a woman in holy matrimony, and is the secure foundation
> for
> raising a family. Could also be termed "paid in full" with ownership
> papers to prove it.
Marriage is absolutely not a religious ceremony. My marriage didn't invoke
any gods, pixies, goblins of other superstitions.
Allistar.
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:15:10 +1200, "Absolute"
<interesting.article@no-spam> said:
>Secular civil union does not equal religious marriage, regardless of the
>attempts by the liberal secular humanists to make it look like real
>marriage, give it equality to marriage, or call it marriage. It is a fraud
>and a fake.
Only because you say it is. This reminds me of the person sells
something and is given a counterfeit note. They then buy something
using the counterfeit note. So in what sense, for them, was it
counterfeit?
A couple marry, is happy, raise children, grow old and die. Was their
marriage fake? What if they were both men (or both women)? What if it
was learnt after their death that both were (wo)men? What if it was
never learnt and their secret went to the grave with them?
On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 22:35:57 GMT, hugh@no-spam (Hugh Young)
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 06:01:05 -0600, Luthien <luthien@no-spam>
>said:
>
>
>>The word GAY was coined in the 60's, it means GOOD AS YOU!
>
>Nonsense. It has had a double meaning (brightly coloured,
>showy/dissolute) since 1637 and probably earlier.
The OED lists examples as far back as the 12th century and it has
variants in German French and Italian from that period.
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:11:25 -0600
Ashley wrote:
>
> Me, I see it as spiritual and as distinctly different from partnership -
> distinctly different from life partnership indeed - and I am annoyed that
> the state and legality have taken it as their own. In the way I view it,
> there are a hell of a lot of wannabe marriages out there, but very few real
> ones.
>
> But hey, that's just my ridiculously idealistic, unmarried, POV.
Who are you to judge what other peoples marriages are?
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:18:43 -0600
moral code wrote:
> "Lennier" <nospam@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.06.28.09.34.10.714831@no-spam
>
>>On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:15:10 +1200, Absolute wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Secular civil union does not equal religious marriage,
>>>
>>Who was speaking of "religious" marriage?
>>
>
> Marriage is a religious ceremony. The mere fact that the secular humanist
> society also finds it appealing doesn't mean that it is no longer a
> religious event.
What religions in particular are you referring to?
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:19:52 -0600
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".
>
> 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?
>
> De facto:
> Exercising power or serving a function without being legally or officially
> established.
>
>
>
And "common law" is defined as what?
"Luthien" <luthien@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EFE4ACD.2050901@no-spam
> Ashley wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Me, I see it as spiritual and as distinctly different from partnership -
> > distinctly different from life partnership indeed - and I am annoyed
that
> > the state and legality have taken it as their own. In the way I view it,
> > there are a hell of a lot of wannabe marriages out there, but very few
real
> > ones.
> >
> > But hey, that's just my ridiculously idealistic, unmarried, POV.
>
>
> Who are you to judge what other peoples marriages are?
>
Reading what Ashley wrote, there is no judgment on other people's marriages.
She describes her own vision of marriage.
"Sue Bilstein" <sue_bilstein@no-spam> wrote in message
news:lssLa.57106$JA5.1014295@no-spam
> "Luthien" <luthien@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3EFE4ACD.2050901@no-spam
> > Ashley wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Me, I see it as spiritual and as distinctly different from
partnership -
> > > distinctly different from life partnership indeed - and I am annoyed
> that
> > > the state and legality have taken it as their own. In the way I view
it,
> > > there are a hell of a lot of wannabe marriages out there, but very few
> real
> > > ones.
> > >
> > > But hey, that's just my ridiculously idealistic, unmarried, POV.
> >
> >
> > Who are you to judge what other peoples marriages are?
> >
>
> Reading what Ashley wrote, there is no judgment on other people's
marriages.
> She describes her own vision of marriage.
>
To clarify, when she talks about "wannabe marriages", she makes it clear
that this is how they seem from her own POV.
I should add I agree with her description of this POV as "idealistic" and
"unmarried".
"Luthien" <luthien@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3EFE4ACD.2050901@no-spam
> Who are you to judge what other peoples marriages are?
Point out the judgement, please. Or is it that you believe any POV that you
disagree with is judgemental.
In which case ...
"Lennier" <nospam@no-spam> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.06.29.03.44.03.431495@no-spam
> On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:36:42 +1200, Ashley wrote:
>
> > In which case ...
>
> In which case what?
>
Try extrapolating. I'm sure you can do it.
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:36:42 +1200, Ashley wrote:
> In which case ...
In which case what?
Lennier
--
I specifically DENY Xtra, and Telecom NZ Ltd, and all other subsidiaries
of Telecom NZ Ltd, the right to use the contents of this digital
communication for any purpose whatsoever, whether in whole or in part -
regardless of how it is stored or transmitted through Xtra's network.
"moral code" <moral.code@no-spam> wrote in message news:3efd8641@no-spam
>
> "Lennier" <nospam@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.06.28.09.34.10.714831@no-spam
> > On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:15:10 +1200, Absolute wrote:
> >
> > > Secular civil union does not equal religious marriage,
> >
> > Who was speaking of "religious" marriage?
>
> Marriage is a religious ceremony. The mere fact that the secular humanist
> society also finds it appealing doesn't mean that it is no longer a
> religious event.
Wrong. Most definitely wrong. Here in New Zealand, as elsewhere, marriage is a contract between
two people witnessed by the State. Marriage laws vary in different countries, and even vary between
states in the same country. For example, in Scotland, you are married in one of three ways, one of
which just happens to involve a church with the reading of bans and a religious ceremony. The
others are just as legal, just as de jure. One is the promise of marriage followed by intercourse,
and the other is to live with each other as partners. There are no other qualifications. All three
types of marriage in Scotland are de jure. Nothing de facto about it.
The fact that some people prefer to mix superstition with a contract is little to do with the actual
contract.
What you are putting across as the "truth" is nothing more than your POV, and your belief. It has
nothing to do with the legalities, or legal standing, of marriage. The fact is that marriage is
indeed a legal contract between two people witnessed by the state. It even states that in in the NZ
Marriage Act 1955.
Calum
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 15:58:00 +1200, "Calum Bennachie"
<bennachie@no-spam> wrote:
>
>"moral code" <moral.code@no-spam> wrote in message news:3efd8641@no-spam
>>
>> "Lennier" <nospam@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2003.06.28.09.34.10.714831@no-spam
>> > On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:15:10 +1200, Absolute wrote:
>> >
>> > > Secular civil union does not equal religious marriage,
>> >
>> > Who was speaking of "religious" marriage?
>>
>> Marriage is a religious ceremony. The mere fact that the secular humanist
>> society also finds it appealing doesn't mean that it is no longer a
>> religious event.
>
>Wrong. Most definitely wrong. Here in New Zealand, as elsewhere, marriage is a contract between
>two people witnessed by the State. Marriage laws vary in different countries, and even vary between
>states in the same country. For example, in Scotland, you are married in one of three ways, one of
>which just happens to involve a church with the reading of bans and a religious ceremony. The
>others are just as legal, just as de jure. One is the promise of marriage followed by intercourse,
>and the other is to live with each other as partners. There are no other qualifications. All three
>types of marriage in Scotland are de jure. Nothing de facto about it.
>
>The fact that some people prefer to mix superstition with a contract is little to do with the actual
>contract.
>
>What you are putting across as the "truth" is nothing more than your POV, and your belief. It has
>nothing to do with the legalities, or legal standing, of marriage. The fact is that marriage is
>indeed a legal contract between two people witnessed by the state. It even states that in in the NZ
>Marriage Act 1955.
>
>Calum
>
Calum
an interesting side effect of this is in Scotland, BTW I am Scottish,
bastardry is no barrier to inheritance. I never really noticed this
until i saw an article about the Marquis of Queensberry or was it
Queensferry cant remember, whose oldest son was from a previous
relationship and not of the Marquis' [then] current wife (his first
one).
seems that absolute's [how appropriate] thoughts on this subject are
more about bigotry and preferential thinking
kind regards
bill
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 19:35:30 +1200, Miche <micheinnz@no-spam>
wrote:
>In article <vt3tfv8080hu21aj7lfdju45smeic7vece@no-spam>,
> Bill Ramsay <bill.ramsay@no-spam> wrote:
>
>> an interesting side effect of this is in Scotland, BTW I am Scottish,
>> bastardry is no barrier to inheritance.
>
>If you mean being born outside of marriage, the same is true here.
It used to be said that some were bastards as an accident of birth.
Others were self-made men, thus relieving the almighty of a dreadful
responsibility :-)
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 09:56:53 -0600
Hugh Young wrote:
> 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.
>
>
You left the wrong nick at the top of your posting..