.

Dear Josephus,

.

You wrote:

"The marriage ceremony and celebration contains many symbolic examples ...".

According to historians, marriage evolved about 20,000 years ago, well before the advent of the current major religions. It predates recorded history.

The way in which it is conducted and its rules and ramifications have changed over time, as has the institution itself, depending on the culture.

Each religion has elaborated its own rituals and these usually vary from one denomination to another within the same religion.

Marriage, of course, is a social union and a legally binding contract, whether oral or written or both. In the Western world, it can be performed in a secular civil ceremony or in a religious setting, or both.

However, There is no civil marriage in many Middle Eastern countries like Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Libya, Mauritania, as well as in Indonesia, Iran and Israel, among others; all marriages are conducted by religious authorities, and are registered by civil authorities only after having been registered by authorities of officially approved religions.

In most European countries there is a civil ceremony requirement. Following the civil marriage ceremony, couples are free to marry in a religious ceremony. Such ceremonies, however, only serve to provide a religious recognition of the marriage, since the state's recognition has already been given. In some of these countries (e.g. Belgium, the Netherlands and Turkey) most couples marry without any religious ceremony.

Civil weddings are usually quite simple and involve no ritual apart from the tradition, if the couple so desire, of placing a wedding ring on the finger of the bride and, possibly, on the finger of the groom as well.

In some cultures, wedding rituals can be quite elaborate, involving betrothal ceremonies one year in advance of the actual wedding which lasts several days.

In view of the evolutive history of religious ceremonies over the centuries, it can be anticipated that those religious communities which accept gay marriage would adapt their ritual as deemed appropriate.

.

.

Dear onthebeach,

.

You wrote:

"It is hip to ... promote something that irks Christian churches and undermines that cultural inheritance from Europe and from England in particular ..."

Our cultural heritage is all you say it is but it is a little broader and a little deeper than that. It is not just Anglo-Celtic.

Australia is not the British Isles. It is a vast continent. Our mental structure is not the same as that of people who live on a small island. It has evolved over eight generations into a different perspective.

We are not in Europe. We are in Asia. We are the descendents of the white slaves deported from the UK as free labour to develop this British colony - those whom we euphemistically call "the first settlers" - whose arrival we celebrate on Australia Day. Those who continue to be resented by the aborigines for having deprived them of their fatherland - white victims forced upon black victims.

We raped them and had children. We gave their children to white families and it became a vast melting pot. The gold rushes brought new waves of immigrants to Australia, mainly from our Asian neighbours.

After the second war, 6.5 million migrants from 200 nations brought immense new diversity, and we Australians became increasingly aware that we were not just Anglo-Celts but also of other origins and cultures, particularly Asian.

In 2011 China replaced the UK as the number one supplier of immigrants. In 2012, India replaced China.

They did not come empty handed. They brought with them, as we did for our predecessors, the aborigines, new sources of cultural inheritance.

We are no longer all Christians. We no longer all have that genetic attachment to the British Crown.

Times are a changing and we, Australians, are changing with them. Our principal trading partners today are China, Japan, USA and South Korea, in that order.

Let's face it: we are orphans, lost in the Pacific Ocean - with fond memories of our lost inheritance - unless, of course, our Anglo-Celt ancestors got kicked-out without one !

.

' According to historians, marriage evolved about 20,000 years ago, well before the advent of the current major religions. ' Beleive that you are likely to believe the gw fantasy. Next we will be being told that apes and man married in defense of bestiality.

WHAT IS IT HOMOSEXUALS WANT BY MARRIAGE?
1. To be legally recognised as partners?
2. To be recognised as partners by Centerlink?
3. To have their sexuality recognised as marriage by a contract of the State?
4. To have a ceremony in a Church?
5. To have access to IVF?
6. To have the right to adoption?
7. To have the right of surrogacy?
8. To be recognised as married by society?
9. To have their partners recognised equally with married spouse?
10.To have their sexuality recognised by the Church? as legitimate?

All this given and they are still not equal as they cannot produce children of their relationship. They are not biologically able to actually marry to produce another human.

Dear Runner,

.

You wrote:

[' According to historians, marriage evolved about 20,000 years ago, well before the advent of the current major religions. ' Beleive that you are likely to believe the gw fantasy. Next we will be being told that apes and man married in defense of bestiality.]

I guess it's just another instance where reality surpasses fiction.

Who could have imagined that man first felt the need to pacify the mating process, by inventing monogamy and marriage before turning his attention, several thousands years later, to sorting out the chaotic stockpile of gods he had imagined, by inventing monotheism ?

It must have been a question of priorities. First things first. And as we all well know, there is a time for everything.

But, quite frankly, I don't think it's all that important. Sometimes harsh reality is simply too tough to face, so why should we ?

Don't worry, Runner. You just carry on believing whatever it is you prefer, that you can live with, and fits in with your world view. Illusions were made for that.

It's no skin off anybody's nose and you can rest assured I'm not going to let the cat out of the bag ! Who cares ?

.

>>All this given and they are still not equal as they cannot produce children of their relationship. They are not biologically able to actually marry to produce another human.<<

I'm confused Josephus. My brother has a vasectomy so he and his wife cannot produce children of their relationship. They cannot produce another human unless they decide to create a Lavis's Monster. But that doesn't sound like them. I definitely remember their wedding even if I can't remember all of the reception. It was in a church with the traditional vows and the priest pronounced them man and wife etc.

Are they married or not?

I'm also confused when you say 'marry to produce another human'. If marriage is the biological activity required to produce another human - although I'm pretty certain it's not - then how did all the SINGLE teenage mums pushing prams around my town come to be impregnated?
Parthenogenesis?

Cheers,

Tony