Well our government has done it, little Johnny Howard has to do what George W does.
The Australian government is making changes to the family act to set in law that marriage can only be a union between a man and a woman. The opposition here also agrees so they will pass the changes.
Well more closed minds doing more strange things.
I am getting out my pen and paper and writing to my local member today.
we don’t even discuss it, that’s a topic that none even talks about… 🙁
Recenty I’m getting more and more happy that I’m a european girl.
I was chatting with a friend of me on the buss about how Bush and his governement are thinking… pity.. I think people who ain’t straight should be perfectly able to have marriage.
I’m not speaking about having children and having marriage for church.
That’s a no go and another point. 🙂
Here in Spain it seems gay marriages are going to be allowed soon, and I absolutly agree with it. I think that everybody have their right to decide how and with who they want to spend their lives with, and if they want to get married … why not?
Ok well I have recieved replies to my e-mails to my local member and the oppositions leader on law. I will add an entry soon that includes their responses and my opinion of them.
Well, for those that support Gay marriage, there is that one little thing that everyone tries to forget. Marriage is a union, under God between a man and a woman. It is not “bigotry” to believe in the teachings of the bible. It “is” hypocrisy to expect millions of Christians to ignore the teachings of the bible.
I guess thats why so many Europeans want to harm Christianity these days and relegate it to the history books — just like Muslims want to do. Pity.
Thank God for strong leaders such as Bush who are willing to take the “heat” of hypocrits who ignore our history and the very foundation of Western society. They are correct.
Marston, thanks for your comments.
I am not forgetting that in the past marriage was a union of a man an woman. However the fact that this topic is in the public debate in many countries indicates that societies views on that is changing.
The only hypocrisy I could see was if a person publicly stated they were againts gay marriages while they themselves were gay.
As for relegating any religion to the history books, I certainly hope not, however I believe it’s doctorines should change over time, like the doctorines of all religions in the past.
As for other religions trying to destroy christianity, well both Christianity and Muslem are evangelical religions, it is one of their doctorines to “convert” non believers.
Tony
Actually, Marson, the original purpose and doctrine of marriage was set forth to provide union and legal benefit to a man and a woman so that they may procreate. Marriage, in its origin, was designed to preceed child-bearing.
Therefore, because you’re so insistant that we revert back to the origins of marriage, and keep in mind its holy purpose – are you then suggesting that only couples who are able and ready to bear children should be allowed to marry?
Shall we ban marriage for everyone over the age of 45?
Shall we ban marriage for the infertile (either naturally, or sterilized)?
Shall we require couples seeking marriage to sign an affidavit that they agree to their contract requirement to produce children?
And while we’re on the subject, if we’re going to argue that marriage ‘should be what it used to be’, and should be protected within its original rite — should we also ban marriage between men and women of different races? Of different religious backgrounds? Should we bring back the legal rape of women within the confines of marriage, so long as reproduction is the goal, if the woman is otherwise unwilling?
I could go on. Shall I?
Or is it just *this one* change to the institution of marriage that makes you uncomfortable, and therefore the only one we should spend our energy prohibiting?
This reminds me of a sad story from my childhood. A couple that lived down the road from us were denied a Catholic wedding since the lady was infertile.
Several years later, due to better treatments and some luck, they had two children. Then the local priest had the gall to publically lable the kids as “bastards”.
But this discussion is about the current understanding of marriage in our current democratic society. I know that my friends and my believe that marriage is a public and legal statement from two people commiting to sharing their lives together.