question regarding marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter shadow_fire
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
shadow_fire,

Really I would say that if you don’t plan on getting married anytime soon, there’s no use in worrying this much about a possible situation in the future. Cross that bridge when you get there.
 
Thanks for all the responses! 😃

There were a few questions asked so I’ll address them.
1.I’m 16 in 4 days (not planning on getting married soon.)
2.I live in Canada
3.I’m a male
4.Religion is not important in the least to me.

btw someone said that people are only truely married if its opposite gender and catholic then stated “just gods opinion…” I think you should express yous own opinion without labeling it as Gods. We don’t know what his/her/its opinion is or if God truely exists. Your free to believe as you wish, but its seems rather short sighted on your part to claim to know the opinion of a controversial omnipotent being without hearing from God yourself 🙂
Um…statement #4…then why are you on a catholic forum?? I think it might just be a little important to you. Consider that. God Bless.
 
If you are in Canada even before the new laws regarding same sex marriage came into being, gay couples could go to the United Church and have a cermony. The United Church also has gay priests as well. Ive herad but am not sure but there is some Lutheran Churches too. Not THE Lutheran but probably a offshoot.

Which makes it less than accurate that a law was needed in order to do so.

It certainly does not help a gay couple income tax wise to be married, it would be more profitable to claim as singles. Even common law is dinged like married. So once more there was no advantage.

And when it was voted for in Paraliment the members were told to vote the party line or risk getting kicked out of the liberal party. Im not kidding :o its a shame on us.

Sorry about a little bit of thread derailing but it is to do with marriage.

Also Shawdow fire religion or specifically God is grouped into marriage as it was Gods idea that a man and woman should become one.
 
@Exoflare
Would it be short-sighted for someone to say they spoke to a leprechan?
I’m sorry but theres as much proof to god as there is to the super natural.
I don’t care if you believe in god or not in fact I don’t exactly know
there isn’t one but calling me short-sighted for not believing that
someone here has talked to something that has had no core evidence does
not make someone short-sighted it makes them unfaithful in THAT belief
and to some extent a realist these are my beliefs not any of yours so I
don’t care if you disagree or poke at them because I really do stand by them.

@Exoflare…again
I just want to know out of curiosity…is there anything wrong with that?

@Maryj
At first I came here as just a joke but I remain here amazed at the
different views everyone has…also I’m still trying to figure out
what is going through some neo-catholics heads.

@kittychan
Glad most of your post was relevant and not just attacking me.
I don’t really care about the money/income tax if I’m getting married
when I’m older its because of love.
Hows it a shame that gays can get married? people should have equality.
I’m pretty sure the idea of marriage (or another term instead of marriage
like union or something) can into existance before some guy wrote the bible
and claimed to know what god said. (Hey maybe he did know what god said
maybe he didn’t I’m not passing judgment on that taking into consideration
that I’m in
a Catholic forum surrounded by people that seem to want my rights stripped
from me)
 
=shadow_fire;2190792
@kittychan
Glad most of your post was relevant and not just attacking me.
I don’t really care about the money/income tax if I’m getting married
when I’m older its because of love.
Hows it a shame that gays can get married? people should have equality.
I’m pretty sure the idea of marriage (or another term instead of marriage
like union or something) can into existance before some guy wrote the bible
and claimed to know what god said. (Hey maybe he did know what god said
maybe he didn’t I’m not passing judgment on that taking into consideration
that I’m in
a Catholic forum surrounded by people that seem to want my rights stripped
from me)
I was pointing out the money and a tad of history for background. There was no unequality to start. I cannot understand why gay people said it was better for the law to be passed because they had more advantage before the law was passed. ie taxes which wait for your paychqs and really Im not trying to be a snotty adult please believe me, but I guarantee you your opinion will change on taxes. 😃

So if there was no real advantage and the charter of rights takes care of anything else it was all fine. Then you have to ask the question Why?

Why do gay people require to be married in any church of their choosing? Take a Baptist church for instance they have read the scriptures and agree with the Catholic church that marriage is a man and woman. In fact Muslims agree to this as well.

You would not go to a skate park and insist on go karting ( cant think of something else right now 🤷 ) Let skaters do their thing and go kart where they have it set up to do so.

Thats why there is a arguement. Churches are being potentially forced to agree with what they dont. Any club should be able to have its own rules.

As for who wrote the bible, there was more than one guy 😉 but it really did take awhile for everyone to decide which ancient writings should be included in what we know today as the bible. So it really wasnt a throw together it really was studied, argued and worked out and agreeded upon. 👍

Different churches may disagree on how to do some things but they do agree on the bible.
 
**I was pointing out the money and a tad of history for background. There was no unequality to start. I cannot understand why gay people said it was better for the law to be passed because they had more advantage before the law was passed. ie taxes which wait for your paychqs and really Im not trying to be a snotty adult please believe me, but I guarantee you your opinion will change on taxes. 😃

So if there was no real advantage and the charter of rights takes care of anything else it was all fine. Then you have to ask the question Why? **

At least in the US, this is about much, much more than taxes. See religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm where it discusses the approximately 1400 legal benefits to a civilly recognized marriage. In Canada, do all of these benefits also apply to couples who are not legally married? I don’t see guarantees to most of them in the charter of rights
laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html#garantie

**Why do gay people require to be married in any church of their choosing? Take a Baptist church for instance they have read the scriptures and agree with the Catholic church that marriage is a man and woman. In fact Muslims agree to this as well…

Thats why there is a arguement. Churches are being potentially forced to agree with what they dont. Any club should be able to have its own rules.**

Again, perhaps it is different in Canada. I believe that it is legal for a person who is divorced to get married without seeking an annulment in Canada. Is the Catholic Church required to provide a religious marriage for such a couple? If not, why would you then expect that the Church would be forced to marry same sex couples in a religious ceremony? Since same sex marriage is now legal in Canada, do you have evidence of lawsuits or other legal measures being taken against specific churches requiring them to provide a religious marriage for those couples against their will?

In the US, we are fortunate enough to have separation of church and state, so no church here is or could be forced to perform a religious marriage ceremony for anyone they did not wish to. Baptists regularly refuse to perform weddings for couples who are legally free to marry–if the girl is pregnant, the couple is living together, interfaith marriages, etc. The Catholic Church is likewise not required to provide a religious marriage ceremony for those who are divorced, interfaith, etc. Likewise, a religious body cannot be forced not to provide a religious marriage for anyone they wish, but that does not make it legally binding. A religious marriage is only legally binding in the US if the person performing the marriage is licensed to do so by the state (“by the power vested in me by the state of … I pronounce you man and wife”).

It is really two entirely separate questions–civil vs religious marriage. In the US, it is civil marriage that is being sought. It is the religious marriage that is subject to the “club rules” and rightly so, in my opinion.
 
@Kitty chan Gay people just want to be able to get married just as you can its not all aobut
the money.
I can understand the church not wanting to marry gays if its against there beliefs
but gays should be able to get married outside the church.
I know the bible was thought out well and such but I’m just illustrating a point
that it was written by a human and that catholicism is just a theory like
any other religion and that when a person discriminates others over
something as unproven as a theory then society really has some problems.

@KarenNC Highly intelligent post I enjoyed reading it. Doesn’t Canada also
have a seperation between civil and religious marriage? or is that just the
U.S?
 
but gays should be able to get married outside the church.
If they were content with that maybe, but they aren’t. They want to redefine marriage for everyone.

I threw the following together several months ago on My Space and feel it could be useful here to align Christian thought on the acts of homosexuals versus the person and the stance they are called to take in regard to their state in life.

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation “God made them male and female.”

Gen. 1:27 "Because of this, a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife,

Let me explain why Jesus said this:

Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, (Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10) tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.

They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarily. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.

Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

This being said: The desire to (and rightfully so) to treat these peoples with respect, compassion, and sensitivity is just. The problem arises in calling it marriage in the same sense of the marriage between a Man and a Woman. Some seek to redefine the traditional term of marriage which would defile the sacrament as it has stood for millennia.

The term marriage currently is reserved for the traditionally ordered union. The problem morally arises with the fact that Gay Union caries no legal rights or benefits as does traditional marriage. This however is easily overcome without calling it marriage. It has already been done in several states that afford gay couples the same legal benefits as traditionally married couples without defiling the tradition and its norm.

The need of these couples to want this disordered Union to be called Marriage does an injustice to those in the traditional form of union. You see, just getting the legal rights doesn’t satisfy them. They seek to redefine marriage as it should be for anyone.

Without moral guidance, next bestiality advocates will want to marry their pets just as the NAMLA is promoting sex with children by pedophiles. This has already been proposed and heard of just as a lack of respect for life has led to the pursuit of euthanasia.

If we continually sacrifice our moral principles in the pursuit of acceptance and tolerance we will eventually fall from the same collapse of moral principle.

Homosexual persons are called to chastity just as we who are not predisposed in this way are. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

1Co 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Then taking the members of Christ, shall I make them members of a harlot? Let it not be!

Or do you not know that he being joined to a harlot is one body? For He says, “The two shall be into one flesh.” Gen. 2:24
But the one being joined to the Lord is one spirit.

Flee fornication. Every sin which a man may do is outside the body, but he doing fornication sins against his own body.
Or do you not know that your body is a sanctuary of the Holy Spirit in you, which you have from God, and you are not of yourselves?

You were bought with a price; then glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are of God.

Luk 20:34 And answering, Jesus said to them, The sons of this world marry and are given in marriage.

Mar 10:6 But from the beginning of creation “God made them male and female.”

Gen. 1:27 "Because of this, a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife,

I pray Jesus bless and preserve us from deception.

I truly believe if we always seek our fathers will we shall be sustained even in times of confusion. It’s in these times we must be patient and pray for we are being called to truth.

Sincerely with all my love in Christ Jesus.
 
**Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, (Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10) tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.

They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarily. Under no circumstances can they be approved.**

No one I have seen is asking any church that holds this position to be legally required to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone. There is ample precedent to show that changes in the legal aspects of marriage in the US (can’t speak for other countries) has not and does not force such change on religious organizations. Interracial marriage is one example that was forbidden by law until relatively recently (look up anti-miscegenation laws).

There are a great many legally sanctioned marriages that also “close the sexual act to the gift of life.”

Actually, it is fully possible currently for any same sex couple to receive a religious marriage if they so desire (and many do). There is no bar to any religious group that wants to to marry anyone to anyone else, but that does not make it binding legally. This is about the legal benefits and responsibilities that are conferred by the state.

**Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. **

For instance, unequal treatment under the law?

**Some seek to redefine the traditional term of marriage which would defile the sacrament as it has stood for millennia. **

Why? In what exact way does it defile? What specific ill effect does the legal recognition of the right of John to receive survivor benefits from Joe with whom he has lived in a monogamous committed relationship for 30 years or any other of the legal benefits of marriage have on Jane and Carl’s marriage?

The threats to heterosexual marriage are divorce, infidelity, domestic violence and a culture that glorifies promiscuity and lack of personal responsibility, not the desire for two people of the same sex to live in a monogamous lifelong committed relationship.

The term marriage currently is reserved for the traditionally ordered union. The problem morally arises with the fact that Gay Union caries no legal rights or benefits as does traditional marriage. This however is easily overcome without calling it marriage. It has already been done in several states that afford gay couples the same legal benefits as traditionally married couples without defiling the tradition and its norm.

The problem is that the term “marriage” has specific legal meaning on a federal as well as a state level. Now, I would be perfectly happy to see the state and the church totally separate on the issue of who is married, as one is a civil contract and one is a religious one. Require everyone to have a civil marriage for the legal end of it and a religious marriage as they so desire.

**The need of these couples to want this disordered Union to be called Marriage does an injustice to those in the traditional form of union. You see, just getting the legal rights doesn’t satisfy them. They seek to redefine marriage as it should be for anyone. **

Well, in the US at least, there is still not an equivalency in legal rights as the federal government does not recognize civil unions as equivalent to marriage and so the legal federal benefits are not automatically conferred.

In what way would this “redefine” marriage for a heterosexual couple? It will still mean exactly what it has always meant for them.

Without moral guidance, next bestiality advocates will want to marry their pets just as the NAMLA is promoting sex with children by pedophiles. This has already been proposed and heard of just as a lack of respect for life has led to the pursuit of euthanasia.

This argument (and the one based on Scripture) was also used against interracial marriage. Denmark has had same sex marriage since 1989. Are folks there staging protests so that they can marry their dogs?
 
Doesn’t Canada also have a seperation between civil and religious marriage? or is that just the
U.S?
Sorry, you will have to ask someone more familiar with Canadian law. It is not something I have studied.
 
Without moral guidance, next bestiality advocates will want to marry their pets just as the NAMLA is promoting sex with children by pedophiles. This has already been proposed and heard of just as a lack of respect for life has led to the pursuit of euthanasia.

This argument (and the one based on Scripture) was also used against interracial marriage. Denmark has had same sex marriage since 1989. Are folks there staging protests so that they can marry their dogs?
I doubt that as inter-ratial marriages have always been legal and MORAL.

NAMLA or the notion of Euthanasia was proposed as rights either.

This is not about discrimination or prejudice, Its about MORALITY!

Good for Denmark, they may not be sanctioning beastiality YET.
Let them join the ranks of such states of liberalism like VT and NJ.

To legally sanction the union will never make the disordered act of sodomy or whatever females do Morally ordered now will it?

To remain Moral in the line of Gods design of how he created Male and Female in no way is to prejudice the person with the disposition to same sex attaction because they cry foul.

The war of the flesh with the spirit that Paul speaks of is NOT native to the homosexual either. All are called to control their faculties. To give license to the denial of Gods Moral design which would defame the santity of that Moral design is depraved.

The legal rights arguement doesn’t hold water because thats no longer the case. If its only that a couple complains they cannot have the legal benifit of marriage, that is no longer true, so whats the problem?

By the way, the Church wont sanction a same sex marriage. Just because heretical organizations do so is hardly significant. What is significant is they are excluded from communion.
 
Thanks to those who answered my question like valient Lucy and also cred to those who spoke respectively.

Do you think some of you could tone down on the preaching and such though? I’ve been stressed enough as it is with my friends talking about going around with swords slicing apart homosexuals (including myself) and bombing san fransisco to exterminate the “gay problem” and not to mention the stress I feel around my family them not knowing and the constant thought lingering in my head of “if they knew” so I REALLY don’t need reconfirmation of the fact that a whole religion seems to be against me…honestly I’m asking for help since I don’t know too much about marriages then everyone seems to be listing reasons why I’m immoral.
Tone down the preaching???

What else did you expect to find on a Catholic web site?

If religion doesn’t matter at all to you, why did you come to a religious forum for this question?

Why not just look up the law in Canada?

But I do admire your optimism, that you “Are going to marry a man”. Good luck. I’ve been looking for a man too the last few years. They aren’t as easy to find as you may think 😛
 
Thanks to those who answered my question like valient Lucy and also cred to those who spoke respectively.

Do you think some of you could tone down on the preaching and such though? I’ve been stressed enough as it is with my friends talking about going around with swords slicing apart homosexuals (including myself) and bombing san fransisco to exterminate the “gay problem” and not to mention the stress I feel around my family them not knowing and the constant thought lingering in my head of “if they knew” so I REALLY don’t need reconfirmation of the fact that a whole religion seems to be against me…honestly I’m asking for help since I don’t know too much about marriages then everyone seems to be listing reasons why I’m immoral.
The Church isnt saying that your immoral. Its saying the ACT of homosexual union is disordered. Since that act is contrary to the designs of God as the norm defined by scripture and tradition then that ACT is immoral.

The Church also defines adultery and fornication between heterosexuals as immoral.

The ACT of the sins of the flesh outside of its intended faculty is what is immoral. We are called to mortify the very thought.

Take it from me who has experienced familial brokenness in multiple ways this morification is actually in our best interest. As odd as that may sound the gratification of the urges outside of the intention of the faculty only serves to cause us harm.

How the Church instructs its members to view the situation is as follows, from the Catechism:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. This goes for heteros too.

As a heterosexual male I am called by the Church to moritify my heterosexual appetites as well.

If or because I might fall to lusts of the flesh I am commiting an immoral act as well if its only for the sake of selfish gratifications, outside of marriage, or negligent of an orderly love for my spouse by denial of openness to procreation. There is no difference between which orientation I am.

If I do fall and try to correct myself and repent of the sin I am promised life everlasting for the fruit of sin is death.

The Church is my help and sustinance in the labors toward the point of being able to sin no more.

Though it defines what sin is for me it is never against me or you either. Only God is our judge. He and the Church are always welcoming with open arms.

God is unchanging. He is the center. We must covert to him. He will not change for us.
 
I doubt that as inter-ratial marriages have always been legal and MORAL.

No, they have not, at least not in the eyes of the law in the US. The first anti-miscegenation law was passed in what became the US in 1661, and the last one was repealed in 2000 (in Alabama when the voters repealed a portion of the state constitution forbidding blacks and whites from marrying). In 1967, interracial marriage was illegal in 16 states in the US. In that year, the Loving vs. the Commonwealth of Virginia case was tried. A white man and his African American/Native American wife were married in DC as it was illegal for them to marry in VA.

"When they returned to Virginia, the newlyweds were arrested and put in jail for breaking the law. Before dawn one morning, police officers barged into their bedroom, shined a flashlight on them, and demanded to know what the couple was doing. Mr. Loving pointed to their framed marriage certificate on the wall, but the officers informed them that the D.C. license was not legal in Virginia.

At the trial, the Virginia judge gave the Lovings a choice: they could spend one year in jail or move to another state. In his opinion, the judge said:

Almighty God created the races, white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix (16). "

See oah.org/pubs/magazine/family/cruz-berson.html

answers.com/topic/miscegenation

The legal rights arguement doesn’t hold water because thats no longer the case. If its only that a couple complains they cannot have the legal benifit of marriage, that is no longer true, so whats the problem?

The federal government of the US does not recognize same sex marriage even when performed in a country or state allowing such legally in terms of legal benefits. No state is required to acknowledge as legally binding or valid a same sex marriage performed in another state or country where such is legal.

By the way, the Church wont sanction a same sex marriage. Just because heretical organizations do so is hardly significant. What is significant is they are excluded from communion.

And no one is arguing with their right to do just that. The Catholic Church is not required to allow divorced people who have remarried a different spouse without an annulment to receive communion. There is no state law as to who the Church can and cannot offer communion, no should there be. It is not a religious issue.
 
I am assuming you are advocating same sex marraige and a re-definition of the deisgns of God for people to be male and female to something more autonomous.

If you devoid morality from state law what are you left with?
 
I am assuming you are advocating same sex marraige and a re-definition of the deisgns of God for people to be male and female to something more autonomous.

If you devoid morality from state law what are you left with?
I am saying that I see no logical basis for denying the legal benefits of civil marriage to a same sex couple who are choosing to commit themselves to the same responsibilities as a heterosexual couple. I see no logical basis for the claims that doing so would cause harm to heterosexual marriages.

This has nothing to do with “redefining” males and females or with redefining heterosexual marriage in any way.

I see no reason to base state or federal law on the morality preached by a specific subset of a specific religion when the US was founded on the separation of church and state, freedom of religion and equal treatment for all.
 
I am saying that I see no logical basis for denying the legal benefits of civil marriage to a same sex couple who are choosing to commit themselves to the same responsibilities as a heterosexual couple. I see no logical basis for the claims that doing so would cause harm to heterosexual marriages.

This has nothing to do with “redefining” males and females or with redefining heterosexual marriage in any way.

I see no reason to base state or federal law on the morality preached by a specific subset of a specific religion when the US was founded on the separation of church and state, freedom of religion and equal treatment for all.
Specifically what rights are the same sex excluded from?

The case for the harm done to heterosexual marraige is self evident regardless if you see it or not.

Do you see the abortion of a baby as someone other than the childs right to live as well?

Just as an infant has a right to live the married have a right to protect the God given sanctity of their unions.

As a verteran of service to the defense of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights I tell you that your notion of seperation of church and state was never made in the intent you propose to be devoid of morality in lieu of liberal tolerance.

Its intent is to protect the Church. Though Jefferson was agnostic he studied scripture as law just the same.

The letter of seperation of Church and state does not presuppose the secular immorality that you think it does.
 
Specifically what rights are the same sex excluded from?

See post #26 in this thread. Follow the links, as there is not space for the close to 1400 specific legal benefits conferred on someone who is legally married in the US.

**The case for the harm done to heterosexual marraige is self evident regardless if you see it or not. **

If I don’t see it, it’s apparently not self-evident. I would be glad to have you explain it in detail, however, particularly using very specific, concrete examples.

Do you see the abortion of a baby as someone other than the childs right to live as well?

And exactly what has that question to do with same sex marriage?

Just as an infant has a right to live the married have a right to protect the God given sanctity of their unions.

Again, please give me specific examples of how same sex civil marriage threatens the “God given sanctity” of any heterosexual union.

**As a verteran of service to the defense of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights I tell you that your notion of seperation of church and state was never made in the intent you propose to be devoid of morality in lieu of liberal tolerance.

Its intent is to protect the Church. Though Jefferson was agnostic he studied scripture as law just the same.

The letter of seperation of Church and state does not presuppose the secular immorality that you think it does.**

In what way does same sex civil marriage threaten the Catholic Church any more than any other civil marriage that the Catholic Church does not sanction (for instance, that between divorced individuals)? This is not a religious issue, it is a civil law issue. It would in no way abrogate the Catholic Church’s right to deny membership to anyone they so chose, just as other civil laws do not.

Jefferson was very aware of and supported the protection of the right of all to their own religious belief, even those of non-Christians, rather than the enshrining in federal or state law of the beliefs of a subset of a particular religion. He was indeed trying to protect people from having to submit to the morality and rules imposed by other religious bodies without their consent.
 
Wait…is someone on this forum actually agreeing with me that homosexuals should have equality?..holy **** its a birthday miracle!!

Sorry I haven’t responded as much though guys I’ve been busy with bday and school and such.
 
How old are you?
The original poster did not say how old he is. However, he did say that he is a gay man who is looking to “marry” another gay man.

In Canada, the “marriage” laws allow something like “homosexual marriages” which allows two severely deluded gay men to think they are “married”. God has sent them great delusions because there is nothing like gay “marriage”.

In the United Kingdom, there is the CIVIL PARTNERSHIP ACT and the MARRIAGE ACT. The former is for same-sex couples, atheists, and agnostics, while the latter is for religious people. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has said told his fellow citizens that marriage is a religious term and only can be used within religious rites. Irreligious unions (such as “gay marriage”) will be called Partnerships to prevent offending sensibilities.

So, if you are a Canadian, I am sure you will be angry that the definition of “marriage” has been corrupted by the godless Liberal government that was recently ousted by God who gave victory to the Conservatives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top