quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
I have no problem with a gay union that is clear and distinctive from marriage.

I WOULD have a problem with a legal standard that forces Christians to hire and provide benefits to gay individuals, whose lifestyle Christians clearly don't agree with.
These are just my thoughts. . .

Christian faith doesn't have a monopoly on marriage. Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists all have marriage rites and customs.

Like here in Australia, lots of countries also have Civil marriage ceremonies, which have been performed for decades now.

Non-Christian marriages have been performed all over the world in some form or other. Are all of these somehow illegal or less worthy than a Christian marraige? I would like to think not. Is a Protestant (Church of England) marriage less worthy than a Catholic, Muslim (* see quote below) or Jewish wedding? Once again, I would like to think not.

In the past Protestant weddings have been declared illegal. For example, the Catholic Queen Mary of England (the daughter of King Henry VIII, whose actions brought about Britains split with the Catholic church in the first place) declared the whole Protestant faith illeagal. Was she right in her beliefs and actions?

* "Although Muslims pray to Allah, this is in fact the same God worshipped by Christians and Jews by a different name. Allah is an Arabic term comprising two words: Al which means 'the' and Illah which means 'God'. To Muslims, the name Allah is preferable to that of God. . .it has no male or female gender, and it cannot be pluralised in the same way that 'God' can become 'gods'."
K. Farrington. History of Religion. p. 132

In relation to Dave's second paragraph. The purpose of a democracy, like England, Canada, New Zealand, the United States and Australia (where I am from), is to represent all of its citizens, despite their heritage, beliefs and customs. This is also covered my governement legislation.

Though all of the above countries historically have a leaning (some more than others) towards Christian faith, they are not Religious States. Therfore the laws and services of these countries should have to benefit all of the population, not just Christians.

We can elect our representatives of our respective governements every 3 or 4 years. However, we do not have a say in where every cent of the taxes we pay, go towards. Though it would be nice sometimes [nyah hah]

So what am I trying to get at with all this. Later this year I will be getting married. My fiance is Vietnamese. Her family are Buddhists, though she does not practice her faith as much as her mother would like. I was baptised Anglican (Church of England), though I do not practice this religion. Therefore getting married in a Christian Church (to me) would seem hyprocritical and an insult to the Church.

I do not practice a particular religion, because I can not believe that one set of people's values out-weigh the others.

I can not walk up to someone and prove or disprove their faith. I can not say which is the true God or in the case of some religions, Gods. Also as has been noted Christian/Catholic/Jewish/Muslim faiths are all interrelated (and we haven't even mentioned Orthodox or the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints), yet their "differences" have caused so much conflict through the ages in their God's name. Who is right and who is wrong? They all have sacred texts and scriptures. They all have "right" on their side.

Having said that I like to think there is a higher being (or even higher beings), who helped shape this little Universe of ours.

On the morning of our wedding day later this year, we will perform the Buddhist marraige ceremony (mainly as my future in-laws will be coming to Australia for the wedding). However, this will not be legally recognised in Australia. That is why we will be having a Civil marriage ceremony later in the day. The later ceremony will make our marriage or our union or our partnership or our life-long commitment to each other legal in the eyes of the Australian government (which will then be legally recognised in the rest of the world).

So if I am not religious, why am I getting married? Is it for economics?

No. In Australia lots of couples do not see the need to be married. That is their right. They can still have children and still claim defacto relationship benefits from the government.

Then why marriage?

Because I [humina humina] LOVE [humina humina] the woman I am going to marry!

We want to declare to our family, our friends and to the world that we love each other so much, we want to spend the rest of our lives together as husband and wife. To help realise each others dreams and to be there for each other in the difficult times. (All that, plus we then get to stay in the same hotel room when we go back to Vietnam [nyah hah] ) The only way to do this is through marriage (though everyone has options on how they get married - religious or civil).

So if my fiance and I can get married in a Civil ceremony because we love each other, why can't homosexual couples? And why can't they call it marriage?

Unfortunately, if a homosexual couple wish to have a Church wedding I can see problems. Obviously the Church's beliefs are going to out-weigh that of government legislation. Even if it technically goes against the "spirit" of anti-descrimination legislation.

Once again just my thoughts. . .