Note - we three children grew up in a loving family.
With the evidence the Royal Commission has unearthed of abuse, my mum and dad would be turning in their graves with much disgust that "any" child could/would be abused by anyone, albeit such child being placed in the care of any institution of whatever faith.

I am so pleased they not around to hear current evidence being broadcast by the Royal Commission into Institutional Child Abuse.

However, I am so pleased these "victims" are now able to relate the trauma's that have affected their lives, and now be able to get justice.

No child asked to be born - however that child didn't deserve to be abused in any way - by whoever, for whatever reason - either.

"In my view there is no reason a same-sex marriage cannot also be a bodily and spiritual union"

Posted by Rhian, Monday, 23 November 2015 11:52am

I fully agree. And such a spiritual union may not be an Abrahamic-religion one

Hi McReal,

Then why not call I just that - a 'union' - end of story ? Why involve EITHER the State OR the churches in the private lives of homosexuals ? Or, of course, live in de facto relationships, like many heterosexual couples do quite happily ?

Admittedly, it's a handy stick to shove up the arses of both State and church authorities, and to blur the distinction between church and State, so of course it would serve Gramscian purposes of 'marching through the bourgeois institutions of the capitalist State'.

But I do think that Church and State should be kept separate: surely that is one of the most fundamental lessons of the Enlightenment ?

Joe

Hi Joe.

Because the norm is 'marriage' - it's also still the ultimate in commitment.

As we know, marriage is both a legislated State event, as well as a church one; probably as a result of pre-Democracy theocracy administration.

We could stick with marriage as a State-sanctioned event; and the religious could have an additional church-sanctioned marriage.

But many religious people seem to think same-sex marriage affects their hetero-marriage or will affect it. I also think religious people are concerned they will see same-sex married clergy; and perceive SSM will be an issue if the Catholic church ever move towards marriage for their priests (many priests are gay; the clergy has been a sanctuary for gay Catholic men -

* http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc.htm

* http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rcc1.htm )

.

Loudmouth - historically, marriage was mostly administered as an exchange of property between men. The Christian church gave it theological support and meaning, blessed marriage in general and individual marriages in particular, and gradually developed ceremonies to convey this blessing. But it was always a theological interpretation and blessing of a secular institution undertaken by the community. Then - in Western Europe at least - the Catholic church took it over in the 12th-13th centuries. There were complex theological and political reasons for this takeover, and it also had perhaps unexpected effects: e.g. the church strongly pushed the idea that the only thing required for marriage is the consent of the two parties; this meant that everyone had the right to marry, against the wills of their families and masters. Eventually marriage came under the jurisdiction of the nation-state, which I think was basically a secularization of church management of it (i'm a bit shaky on the history here). There are good and bad things about marriage being controlled "by the community" (i.e. in practice: by the powerful in the community), by the churches, and by the state. I think there are good reasons for state administration of marriage (with optional church blessing). It definitely doesn't imply a combination of church and state to have state management of marriage, because marriage was a secular institution (insofar as the sacred-secular distinction even exists in ancient times) long before it was church-controlled - in fact long before the Christian faith existed.

Hi Elcalebo,

You're right, in very different types of societies - hunter-gatherers, subsistence farmers, the aristocratic propertied class - women have been traded and exchanged between men, between families and between groups. The political peace was helped that way. In Aboriginal societies, men would lend their wives to others as an act of hospitality and, of course, beat them to death if they ran off. In subsistence economies, such as those in the Middle East and India etc. today, marriage are arranged with young girls to foster harmony between families. And so on.

And of course, all of these political practices had to be sanctioned by cultural religious principles in some way. Culture is almost invariably the veil drawn over male power, the sanctioning of power relations. Perhaps they could teach that in cultural studies, but I don't think they ever will. And religious principles spring out of cultural and political situations. Hence, the subordination of women has almost everywhere been approved by culture and religion. A pox on both of them.

It's interesting to speculate whether monogamy is associated with the principles of the Enlightenment, and - since people form unions which the State has to recognise - this State involvement was a welcome intrusion into religious monopolies. And, as democracy and new-found freedoms displaced obedience to the church/temple/mosque/charlatan, the powers of Church and State inevitably had to be sharply defined, and separated.

Perhaps the mark of a democratic society is the degree to which it can define, and confine, the powers of religious bodies. From the point of view of the State, i.e. the application of the powers and obligations of our elected representatives, monogamous unions between men and women can and must be recognised, and what churches etc. do is up to them - both forms of unions called 'marriage'.

But in order to maintain that separation of Church and State,

[TBC]