Phil0,

I think I see where you're becoming confused. You seem to believe that marriage is sex.

Marriage is the institution in which sex is morally legitimised in our society.

I mean to say, Philo, are you suggesting that every time a bull has sex with a cow (any cow) that their act is somehow consecrated as some sort of God-given form of marriage? Why not the same rules for humans then?

No, we are different from other mammals in that we fashion for ourselves religions and moralities, but they all serve a social purpose above all else. Look at marriage as a socially constructed membrane that acts as a support within society for the nurture and protection of offspring.

Marriage is not biological term

david f. I thought cows were all Hindoos.

Have Christians been in to the paddocks too?

But in that sad union you describe, in line with the full loving nature of gods, the families of both moo-beasts would shun their off-spring and never speak to them again, for ever and ever, amen.

So, are paddock weddings linked to 'pastoral care'? Is this what 'pastoral care' actually refers to?

Philo, I used to live on a farm and I have to tell you that bulls are not too fussy about their 'unions' and, at least when younger, will 'have a go' at their comrades if they feel like it.

A bit like rugby players of today.

Do they hope for a Hindoo daughter cow as a result? I'm not sure about that, never having chatted to a bull about this sensitive issue of pastoral care.

When I got married, in a paddock with no signs of any gods, cows or bulls anywhere, Nature did not grant, or withhold, any form of permission.

Can you elaborate please, just in case I need a document I have failed to pick up?

david f,
The term "marriage" is the sexual union, not the ceremony, it is just that in human marriages they are publicly declared and registered.

Though I, once was a stud breeder and chose the bull and registered the offspring with the stud society. The public declaration is not the marriage, not the certificate of registration they sign with the government. The couple mutually agree to live together exclusively as husband and wife. There is every possibility they may produce children unless infertile, or they interfere in their natural fertility of stop having children. Childless couples do not make null the marriage.

Dear Philo,

You may be interested in reading about non-human homosexuality. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals contains an article on the subject. Quote from article: One species in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of domesticated sheep (Ovis aries).[8][9] "About 10% of rams (males) refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other rams."

>> The term "marriage" is the sexual union, not the ceremony <<

ROFL

I have been 'married' many times, and there are a number of people who would be most surprised to know they are my spouses.

Philo

Please stop with this ridiculous talk. Sex is the sex act, marriage is the ceremony and societal acknowledgement of a couple's devotion to each other.

If your interpretation of Christianity declared the sky to be green instead of blue, you would faithfully argue that we'd all better believe the sky is green - or be damned to hell.

BTW - there are many Christians who do not hold your fundamentalist take on the bible and must cringe whenever you post the nonsense you do.

Poor Philo, poofs everywhere, happily having 'unions' until the cows come home.

Best not let Shadow Minister know about these 'unions', he'll see red.

You seem to protest just a little too much about the 'meaning of marriage', Philo.

Did your marriage break up perhaps? Or did it not produce any children?