In the UK, we don't have a separation of church and state where marriage is concerned (or where anything's concerned, technically, as the queen's the head of the church of england! Weird, I find that), in that you can get legally married by a C of E vicar/priest (though not a catholic one, or at least, not without some extra document signing on top of what you have to do in the C of E I believe).
I did not know this. For some reason I thought the UK had better laws or a more open policy than the US did in this regard. But that may just be Canada?
Also didn't realize you still went by the rules established during Henry the VIII'th time - when the Anglican Church got established and the King/Queen of England made the rules, not the Pope. Pretty sure it was Henry who ousted the Pope/ Roman Catholic Head of the Church from England the first round (because he wouldn't let him divorce Catherine of Aragone - at least I think it was that wife). His daughter brought the Pope/Catholicism back (Bloody Mary), with Elizabeth exiling him/Catholicism again.
It was less about faith and more about who had the power - I think. Who controls what people may or may not do.
In an ideal world, I'd like to see a change to various religions that would make them less stuck in a kind of biological determinism that seems akin to I Tarzan You Jane. Men and women are different, sure - as is everyone. There may be some trends of qualities in men and women, but we're all human, and all different from and similar to one another in a variety of ways.
Agreed. I think a lot of religions have not been allowed to evolve past rudimentary concepts. They are still, unfortunately, in their infancy, relying on dogma that dates back hundreds and in some cases thousands of years.
Biological determinism ignores a lot of things - like the fact that a good percentage of heterosexual couples have to resort to artificial means and devices in order to have children. My cousin certainly did. And many people who have children naturally, can't take care of them or are destructive to them.
Sure the theory makes sense if you are a nomadic tribe living in a desert, isolated, with the only hope of extending your tribe through well biological determinism. But it falls apart in modern society. And sure, you can say that things were better back then - but if you read history - with a clear realistic eye - they truly weren't. Women were property. People died before the age of 30. Most children died early. Many woman died in childbirth.
I think a lot of religions subscribe to a sort of nostaligic amensia - life was better way back when. We had better values. People loved each other more. If we can go back to those days...but, if they bothered to pick up a history book or read a geneological record - they'd discover this is not true. Women had no rights. People were enslaved. There was more death. More disease. And the problems they rant and rave about? Still existed, in some cases far worse than they do now.
no subject
In the UK, we don't have a separation of church and state where marriage is concerned (or where anything's concerned, technically, as the queen's the head of the church of england! Weird, I find that), in that you can get legally married by a C of E vicar/priest (though not a catholic one, or at least, not without some extra document signing on top of what you have to do in the C of E I believe).
I did not know this. For some reason I thought the UK had better laws or a more open policy than the US did in this regard. But that may just be Canada?
Also didn't realize you still went by the rules established during Henry the VIII'th time - when the Anglican Church got established and the King/Queen of England made the rules, not the Pope. Pretty sure it was Henry who ousted the Pope/ Roman Catholic Head of the Church from England the first round (because he wouldn't let him divorce Catherine of Aragone - at least I think it was that wife). His daughter brought the Pope/Catholicism back (Bloody Mary), with Elizabeth exiling him/Catholicism again.
It was less about faith and more about who had the power - I think. Who controls what people may or may not do.
In an ideal world, I'd like to see a change to various religions that would make them less stuck in a kind of biological determinism that seems akin to I Tarzan You Jane. Men and women are different, sure - as is everyone. There may be some trends of qualities in men and women, but we're all human, and all different from and similar to one another in a variety of ways.
Agreed. I think a lot of religions have not been allowed to evolve past rudimentary concepts. They are still, unfortunately, in their infancy, relying on dogma that dates back hundreds and in some cases thousands of years.
Biological determinism ignores a lot of things - like the fact that a good percentage of heterosexual couples have to resort to artificial means and devices in order to have children. My cousin certainly did.
And many people who have children naturally, can't take care of them or are destructive to them.
Sure the theory makes sense if you are a nomadic tribe living in a desert, isolated, with the only hope of extending your tribe through well biological determinism. But it falls apart in modern society. And sure, you can say that things were better back then - but if you read history - with a clear realistic eye - they truly weren't. Women were property. People died before the age of 30. Most children died early. Many woman died in childbirth.
I think a lot of religions subscribe to a sort of nostaligic amensia - life was better way back when. We had better values. People loved each other more. If we can go back to those days...but, if they bothered to pick up a history book or read a geneological record - they'd discover this is not true. Women had no rights.
People were enslaved. There was more death. More disease. And the problems they rant and rave about? Still existed, in some cases far worse than they do now.