----- Original Message -----
From: Ian Skinner
To: CF-Community
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 10:07 AM
Subject: RE: CNN Breaking News
My feeling on this is that there should be two definations. One that I'll
call Mariage for traditional sake, is a religious/spiritual union that is
done for personal reasons. Each church and person can decide for themselves
wether gender of the parties matters or not. This should have not civil or
leagal standing.
The second I'll call a Civil Union for the sake of Vermont's precident.
This is a civil contractual joining that would have cival and/or leagal
standing. The gender of the parties should not matter in this defination.
Thus each person who decides to make a commitment to another human being can
decide to do one or the other or both. And for goodness sake leave your
choice out of my choice.
As far as polymigimay goes. If all parties enter into the union openly and
with full knowledge and consent, then who cares? It is a rather prostant
centric view point to say mariages have always been between one man and one
women. There have been are still are many culturals that allow more then
one spouse. Albeit, I can only recall examples allowing one man to have
many wives, but I'm not sure the other way has never happend.
Ian
Confidentiality Notice: This message including any
attachments is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and
delete any copies of this message.
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
