Fil Canadien D'Élection (Partie Trois)

[KrazyHorse]

I think they should make it illegal for women who have had hysterectomies to marry.

[Ben Kenobi]

And now the religious basis for denying rights to people who may not be religious is out in the open. Thank you.

Argument from lesser to greater, NYE.

Even the Catholic church

Assumed that if the Catholic church is willing to annul such a marriage on these grounds then so will the civil arrangement.

What bearing should religion have on civil marriages?

I don't think only religious people believe marriage ought to be more than a contract.

[Ben Kenobi]

I think they should make it illegal for women who have had hysterectomies to marry.

Why?

I'm sure they still count as women, do they not?

[KrazyHorse]

Maybe to you they do. To me they're barren brides of satan.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Maybe to you they do. To me they're barren brides of satan.

Stop using the name of S*t*n in vain, you blasphemer!

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I don't think only religious people believe marriage ought to be more than a contract.

I'm sure that more than religious people thought slavery was a grand idea too.

I'm sorry, Ben, but you gotta come up with some better reasons for why a dying man should have his life partner shut out of the hospital room by the bigots who are his estranged family.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


The key is in the word 'persons'.

Marriage, up until now, has always been defined as between a man and a woman. Ergo, by changing the definition, one completely obliterates the original meaning of the term.

Rubbish.


It can be between a man and up to four women in Islam.

It can be between a woman and more than one man in other societies (polyandry is rarer than polygyny, but it still takes place).

It could be between a person and a non-person- in many societies women had no status, were not citizens and had no right to marry of their own accord, nor say in to whom they would be married- even in the supposed birthplace of democracy, Ancient Greece.

It could be between a man and many women (more than one wife, and an associated harem of concubines being a status symbol in some societies).

It could be between a city and the Adriatic sea- Venice.

It could be between children, between an adult and a child, it could be for property, for politics, for money, to produce an heir to the throne, and in certain societies, it could be between men, or male warriors and initiates.

[Flinx]

Oh Ben has heard all that before. There was a recent thread on gay marriage which ended up containing an extensive bibliography of scholarly books discussing the multitudes of relationships which have been recognised as marriage across time and societies including the marriage of two men in the early Christian period.

In Ben’s reality, two men (or two women) cannot love each other except in a platonic friendship kind of way. He considers sexual acts between two men (or two women) to be deviant immoral acts. He therefore thinks that such relationships should not be recognised in any way, whether by the word (and institution) marriage or a new term (and institution) e.g. ‘civil union’

[Flinx]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Preventing Obi Gyn from turning a thread about sump oil usage in Uzbekistan into yet another thread about why gays are sinful, are like paedophiles, and gay marriage is bad, bad, bad, IS more important than food, the meaning of life, and whether you ever get laid again, Imran.


I'd really like it if he took up something useful, like, say, macrame, prison visiting or missionary work in northern Sudan.

But why do good works, when you can spend your time on-line regurgitating 2 000 year old bigotry?

Good point!