From: Chris Ho-Stuart <>
Newsgroups: aus.religion,aus.religion.christian,nz.soc.religion
Subject: Re: Attempt by Homosexual activist to silence a Christian speaking
Date: 23 Apr 1999 01:39:07 GMT

In aus.religion.christian Graeme <> wrote:
[snip]
> What must not be forgotten here is that marriage is not a Christian
> institution, it is a divine institution for both people who are
> non-Christians and Christians alike. It is a civil matter, not a
> religious matter. Christians weren't married in Churches until the
> Romans  Catholic church started the practice. In the New testament 
> times marriages were conducted in homes.

Just want to chip in and say -- this is an EXCELLENT point.

Regardless of what churches, governments or societies mandate, human
beings have, it seems, a deep seated tendency to form stable pair
bonds that persist often for a lifetime; but in any case over
many years. Furthermore, people tend to give their first loyalty
to their partner and (when relevant) to any children that they
share. This loyalty tends to be stronger than any other loyalty
that may exist to organizations or groups or principles.

I make no comment on whether this is good or bad; divinely ordained
or instinctive or both; I merely observe it is so.

Churches, governments, and societies often seek to regulate this
human tendency; and often they depreciate it.  Various Christian
churches over time have spoken in depreciating terms of this human
tendency and of the consequent phenomenon of marriage. There is
some precedent in Paul's letters for seeing marriage as a kind
of unfortunate tendency granted to us in our weakness; but better
avoided by those able to do so.

But regardless of what churches, governments, or societies would
like, humans carry on forming these bonds.

On "divorce" there is another relevant human tendency.  Humans tend
to feel relatively little obligation to others outside of their
own bonded unit for its maintenance. The bond is maintained from
loyalty and love of the partner; if perchance the bond breaks it
leads to enormous hurt; but the individuals concerned will break
the bond on their own authority, without reference to any overseer.

Churches, governments and societies attempt in various ways to
define, restrict, regulate and control these human tendencies.
In a relatively few cases are they content to simply recognize
the phenomenon.

But the fundamental phenomenon which they attempt to regulate
exists distinct from their codes.

I love the Quaker marriage service. Beter than any other, it
demonstrates a recognition of this intrinsic aspect of being
human without imposing upon it. (And this surely is appropriate
if you believe the human tendency is a consequence of God's divine
ordination manifested directly in own human psyche rather than in
some set of definitions!)

In a Quaker wedding, the couple simply stands during the service,
and announce their vows directly to each other in the presence of
the congregation, without any need of an official intermediary.

My brother was married in this way; before myself and other
witnesses who were privileged to attend the service.

Cheers -- Chris Ho-Stuart