[Oscar The Grouch]

darkpuppet,Mar 24 2006, 05:46 PM Wrote:it gets pretty muddy... you can assume, I guess that religion has been around longer than law, that people made rules based on belief systems before they made rules based soley on the societal needs, but societal needs usually dictated that belief structure.

In this case, your definition of the institution of marriage was defined after 0BC and before 30 AD., but wasn't enforced as a relious rule until about 100AD, and then not written into law until a much later date.

But marriage itself has been in societal laws since at least 3000BC, and up until the catholic definition took hold, homosexuality wasn't forbidden, and in some cases even encouraged.

But homosexuality was forbidden because it was seen as immoral, and hence written into law...  as I've mentioned, it keeps changing depending on societal needs. 

Nowadays, science has shown that homosexuality is very much a part of nature, and society is starting to change it's laws to prevent discrimination based on outdated beliefs.

I look at it as objectively as I can in that society's needs have changed, therefore nonsecular law should most definitely allow it.  I think churches should as well, but that's a leadership I don't vote in... so until their doctrine comes inline with my own personal beliefs, it's a teaching I disregard in my own religious practice.

I cannot in good conscience deny people the right to enjoy a life-long, recognized bond with their partner based on a belief that really has no bearing on my life or represents no threat to society.

remember religion is a part of human behaviour, it's does not dictate human behaviour.
[right][snapback]176813[/snapback][/right]

Puppet, don't forget about the Old Testament and Judaism to which Christianity is based upon. That goes to about 2000BC, not including Genesis.

I do agree that homogenous reproduction does exist in nature, however not within mammals as far as I know.



ZTW:

Long ago it was the church that dealt out the marriage certificates and kept records (most still do today). The civil law had no involvment with marriage whatsoever.

If it wasn't for the church, there would have been no "marriage". Therefore, it should have remained a religious appointment, not one that could have been done by the courts.

I think its about time I bring up the Canadian Charter of Rights....

May I direct your attention to the first line in the Charter...

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.

"God" in this term, from what I believe we can all gather, refers to the supreme being within Christian, Judaic, and Islamic religions. From my understanding, none of them support a homosexual marriage.

Go down the charter and you can clearly see there is nothing within the charter pertaining to a separation of church and state (similar to that the US uses within their Consitution). Now I'm not sure, but I believe that Canada has no Constitution or document pertaining to a moral division of church and state to this effect.

Therefore, by the explanation above, shouldn't Canadian law at least reference religious context?

Makes good sense to me... Till last year though when the Liberals changed the law in July.

Edit: Constitution Act of 1982 whereby the Charter of Rights are defined.