Gretzky

Originally posted by mememe at 2005-10-23 11:47 PM:
婚姻制度本身就係一個法律上既關係﹐神聖與否則見人見智

But marriage/union of man and woman exist in tribal groups (many in North Africa, South America and PNG) that have no civil laws wor.

The 'holiness' of a marriage is not about organized religions. it is about how one people group/culture perceives and defines marriage/union of man and woman.

Take away the organize religious factor, I think we can still say marriage/union btw. a man an woman 'holy'. I think the sociologists here would back it up.



I looked at the issue (legalization of homosexual marriage) much more than a moral and ethnical struggle. It has a lot to do with the rise of religious humanism and relativism in our post-modern world, and the politicans are 'forced' to play with the trend here....this is very similiar to the cloning issue back in the late 90s...and of course, cloning is much more sensitive and one-sided since it affects the essence and very existence of mankind.

Gretzky

Originally posted by mememe at 2005-10-23 11:47 PM:
單單因為自己價值觀或信仰跟同性戀有衝突就要求政府用法律禁止其他人行使佢哋既權利就顯得有0的霸道。

Agree with you.


The society we live in is not a monotheistic society. Religions have their ABSOLUTE right to protest the legalization of gay marriage, but I don't think we can stop the gov't. In a sense, the gov't has to look after everyone's rights (including homosexuals). How can temples/synagogues expect a non-religious rulership to establish laws that protects their views?

Having said that...religious groups have the rights to be concerned about this...what if one gay couple shows up at a temple/synagogue and demand the monk/rabbi to officiate their marriage (remember common law gives monks/pastors/rabbis rights and responsibilities to officiate marriages)? If the officiator says no, he/she would do so againist the law, if he/she says yes, he/she would violate the very doctrines in the respective group.

And that is the fine line in this issue...can the legistlative body of the countries (Canada/US/HK/Netherlands/Spain) draws up a law that protects the automony of the religious sects yet gives the homosexuals their rights in marriage?

I don't know if we can really do that....