posted July 31, 2003 04:38 AM         

Here's some info...
A report from the Church of England has said that "commited relationships" are as good as marriage. Is the church going to far or merely reflecting changing public attitudes towards marriage?

And here's the article........

Bishops Back Divorce in Shock Church Report

A CHURCH of England report has declared that divorce can be a good thing - if it brings unhappy marriages to an end.

A study by the church's Doctrine Commission has said marriage can shelter abuse, stifle personal development and cut families off from the rest of the world.

It reads: "An increasing number of people have lived through difficult and painful divorces, to which there sometimes seems no realistic alternative."

The report, called Being Human: A Christian Understanding of Personhood, is the church's latest attempt to make itself more relevant to contemporary society - and also gives support to unmarried couples.

It praises committed relationships and says sex should be celebrated as "a wonderful gift from God".

And the report recognises that the church needs to change with society if it is to remain relevant.

It says that, in light of society's changing attitude towards sex and relationships, "a merely nostalgic or conservative reaction is out of the question".

And it argues that people need ever greater wisdom to deal with modern pressures such as power and money.

The report says that marriage has changed considerably over the centuries, claiming that it has not always been seen as an ideal.

posted August 02, 2003 06:14 PM         

Here in the U.S. they`re trying to ban same sex marriages. I thought with the Uranus influence, the issue would be going the other way. Mr. Bush is backing the ban. I didn`t catch if it was becuase of bibical/religous reasons, but if it is, what about seperation of church and state?

Jwhop, ya there? Whats up with this issue?

posted August 03, 2003 09:10 AM         

Many married people live faulty lives. Everybody knows.

posted August 04, 2003 01:35 AM         

The basic laws in most countries are taken from their religious laws. I'm unaware of any religion sanctioning homosexuality and surely not homosexual marriage. The fact there are many agnostics and atheists in the US doesn't overcome the fact that a large majority have some kind of exposure to religion, usually as children and the moral foundation of countless generations. Point is that even among agnostics and atheists there isn't going to be a unified front for acceptance of homosexual marriage, let alone amongst those who identify themselves as believers in some religious faith.

The Supreme Court decision on the sodomy law in Texas set off a chain reaction on both sides. Gay groups saw it as sanctioning further erosion of laws against homosexual activity of all types. Those on the other side of the issue are simply outraged, both at the court decision and gay groups attempting to (as they see it) push their agenda down their throats.

There are all kinds of bits and pieces of this issue, for and against but many feel that if 2 men or 2 women can "legally marry" then there isn't anything or any reason to prevent mothers marrying sons, fathers marrying daughters, polygamy or any number of other arrangements.

There is a very strong undercurrent of negative feelings against gay marriage, in this country at least. Many people blame them for spreading HIV/AIDs into the heterosexual population making the disease everyone's problem. There isn't much discussion out in the open about that because gay groups attack it as homophobia. That doesn't mean it isn't in the thought processes of the general public though.

There's also the issue of raising children in a homosexual setting. Little Johnny may be reading books in school about Marks 2 dads and Sally may be finding out about Molly's 2 moms but heterosexual parents are outraged that their children are being propagandized by teacher's and teachers Unions, including the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, who openly support the full agenda of the gay rights groups. Parents naturally feel the schools should teach their children to read, write, add, subtract, multiply and divide and leave the moral instruction to the parents.

An even more serious problem for homosexual groups is that they almost universally and openly support the activities of NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Love Association. http://www.nambla1.de/
This is in the intro to their website: NAMBLA's goal is to end the oppression of men and boys who have mutually consensual relationships. Imagine the furor if there was a heterosexual men's group advocating sexual relationships between grown men and young girls. The fact is that minors cannot have consensual sexual relationships with adults. It's called statutory rape.

It isn't much wonder that a majority of the population consider the homosexual community degenerate. Further, having gay men insist on being Scout Masters in charge of young boys and suing the Boy Scouts over the issue isn't helpful to their cause.

I would say if there's a Massachusetts court decision legalizing gay marriage in that state, then there will be a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman and it will pass because voters will keep changing their Congressional representation until Congress gets the message. Because states have reciprocal agreements with each other and state courts take judicial notice of the laws of other states, it would tend to legalize gay marriage across the board. That's the reason the case was brought in the most liberal state in the US.

Lastly, most of what the gay community "says" they want can be accomplished without legally sanctioning gay marriage.

Just scratched the surface of the issue in general but it's a very explosive issue and it's about far more than gay marriage.

The words, "separation of church and state" doesn't exist in the Constitution. Further, the framers of the Constitution and other government officials permitted church services to be held in the chambers of the House of Representatives for many years and Thomas Jefferson permitted religious organizations to use Federal buildings to hold meetings including church services. One of the 1st things that happens in both houses of Congress before daily business is considered is a prayer.

The 1st Amendment simply states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Notice, the Amendment prohibits Congress from "establishing" a religion. In other words, there will be no "official religion of the United States" established by Law as there was in England at the time.

Hi Cat, how are you doing?

jwhop

posted August 04, 2003 03:58 PM         

If you`re not married, that just leaves ol cupid out there scouting around for your soul mate

I knew "seperation of church and state" isn`t in the constitution, but I`m getting confused as to where it came from and how it`s enacted

My theory is the (any!) president should seperate him/herself from religious matters. I still view marrage as a spiritual (religious if you will) union and laws shouldn`t apply; except in the case of incest.

I should be able to marry a rock if I want to (oops, guess I did once ). That union sould be as holy and honored as a man/woman union.

I don`t know jwhop, I`m still bent cuz helmuts are required for bikes out street riding . I sometimes feel the powers- that- be simply want their beliefs to become ours. Laws are good and necessary, but to say who can marry who . Guess I`m just not seeing the larger picture!

Hi Cat , lots of lite for your meeting Even got my toes crossed!

posted August 05, 2003 02:48 AM         

There are no laws "enacted" relating to "separation of church and state". There are Federal and State judges who seem to want to find that language in the Constitution even though it isn't there. It starts with some claim that a particular religious event has offended someone. Such as a manger scene in the city park at Christmas, followed by a lawsuit against the city. Or that the Pledge of Allegiance offends those who do not believe in God. Must tell you that a Federal judge ruled the words "one nation under God" unconstitutional. That judge spent the next few months trying to backpedal away from his own ruling. Federal judges serve during good behavior. Time for the Congress of the United States to begin deliberations on what Judicial good behavior really is. In my opinion, a Federal judge who fails to uphold the Constitution in rulings from the bench or finds so called rights that are not granted in the Constitution cannot be said to be serving during good behavior and should be impeached by the Congress.

In the United States, marriage is legally a civil event and not a religious one. An application for a marriage license is granted by government and that makes it a civil event authorized by the state. A divorce is granted by a court, again a civil proceeding. In as much as a couple wish to have a church wedding or a minister performing the ceremony, it could be viewed as being sanctioned by the church and ministers are authorized by the states to perform the ceremony. In the Catholic faith, many priests will not perform the ceremony or permit the marriage in the church if certain conditions are not met by the couple.

So, when the President speaks out about marriage, he's speaking of the civil aspects of marriage and the laws pertaining to the couple and the obligations of the individuals involved and how it will impact the layers of laws pertaining to the rights of those involved in the civil marriage contract.

I also dislike, resent and rebel against the nannies in government who can't find their own as*ses but think they are better equipped to decide what's best for the rest of us. I decide, and when our thinking diverges, I ignore them and do as I think best Most of the nanny laws cannot be sustained by cities or states in the face of citizens determined to resist them in court. I was once issued a warning for having vehicles on the front lawn in Pomona CA. I went to the next city council meeting and made the council members who passed the ordinance and the mayor look like the fools they were. The other people who were there and the local news paper reporter loved it. Think my last remark was that if they thought they'd had a bad night tonight to wait till I got them in a court of law. The vehicles complained about were my daughters bicycles. I never, ever in all the years we lived there saw another "compliance officer" near our property and I told my daughters to leave their bikes on the lawn until it was time to put them in the garage for the evening.

I think some may have the impression that I'm a big fan of government. Not!

You mentioned having the feeling that the "powers that be" wanted their beliefs to become ours. But in the instance of gay marriage, it's the other way around. The institution of marriage has existed all through recorded history----as a union between a man and a woman---without exception. Now, we have gay activists who wish to overthrow the institution of marriage by redefining it. If marriage is a religious event as some believe, not one religion sanctions gay marriage---to my knowledge. Further, the written laws, cannons and rules of behavior for every religion I'm aware of condemn homosexual practice. Found in the Book of Leviticus is specific language calling for the death penalty for homosexual activity. So, I can't see any way gay marriage could possibly be sanctioned as a religious ceremony.

Now, if you still want to marry a rock, I have an assortment in my back yard. If you wish, I'll paint smiley faces on them and ship them to you. You can take your pick or marry the whole rock pile if it pleases you.

Hi Cat, I'm pulling for a good result for you at your meeting and good luck too.

posted August 06, 2003 07:35 PM         

That move is likely to split the Episcopalian Church. There's talk from around the world of withdrawing recognition of the American Church. It may even split the American Church.

posted August 06, 2003 09:45 PM         

Actaully the Tarot has the answer, the High Priestess was the one to celebrate Isis and the Mother Goddess, she was the mystical and spiritual one. This is what makes the church very reluctant, perhaps they know if women become priests again, the world will change drastically and have followers turn from the male oriented dogma. Do you notice that all societies that are happy and content have women being treated equally?

You know what, I just thought this, but what if Mary Magdalene had become a High Priestess and had powers just like Jesus, could this be why the church surpressed her? Same goes for Mary the mother of Jesus?

Has anyone read Jesus and the Essenes? I haven't, but I heard it was explaining Jesus in a whole new light, showing him in his truthful form.

posted August 06, 2003 11:38 PM         

The Apostle Paul is credited with writing Corinthians.

1 CORINTHIANS
14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

14:35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

posted August 07, 2003 04:56 PM         

Yes nanny laws, perfect choice of words. Hard as it might be to swollow, they`re here to stay.

I agree with your post. Well, with the exception of incest. That is for the good (in my onion!)of all as it corrupts the gene pool.It is obvious in our four leggeds being interbred and endangering the health and temperment. It would have the same effect on two leggeds. In MI, I believe you can marry your 4th cousin legally. I don`t know how or where they draw the line but, who for gods sake, would want to marry their mother? I`m not being naive;I just can`t fathom it. But, it doesn`t take marriage for blood relatives to co-habitate, so law or no law it sadly happens and will continue.

Episcopalian gay priest but no women; it is a mans world after all