> TIME in our society's history and law.
> Marriage - religious union between man and woman. 2000+
> years old
> Marriage - religious union of multiple woman to one man
> (old Mormon practice, among others) 150+ years old
check your facts man.... way older than the previous which you sited
at 2000+ years... it's pre-christian. Mormon's are afaik the only
christian sect (their claim to christianity - others disagree - in
either case their a cult in the classic sense of 'hidden') who
accepted polygyny (but not polyandry - one woman and many men - I'm
sure it's been practiced somewhere, or we wouldn't have named it :)
I disagree with the practice of polygyny on the grounds that it's
unfair to the women who should be allowed to practice polyandry as
long as men are allowed to practice polygyny. :) But it really only
got started because at the time women were perceived as property not
as people, so there's a whole massively warped world-view that goes
along with its origin to explain why it wasn't egalitarian at the
time.
> Marriage - civil union between man and woman. 100+ years
> old
Although all the currently recognized documents which describe the
union don't describe it in this way. They describe it as being between
2 persons, hence the debate.
> Marriage - civil union between two people. 10+ years old
> I think you are about 100 years too late to put this genie
> back in the bottle.
> Marriage by civil ceremony are the overwhelming majority
> of marriages in this country at this time. So if you were
> to take the "standard" definition for marriage today in
> our culture, it would be a civil commitment ceremony
> recognized by the state, not a religious ceremony of any
> sort.
The awful, unfortunate truth.
s. isaac dealey 954.927.5117
new epoch : isn't it time for a change?
add features without fixtures with
the onTap open source framework
http://www.sys-con.com/story/?storyid=44477&DE=1
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
