A long-time lesbian couple believe in the sanctity of marriage.

[falcon41]

Isn't it ironic though, that a religious practise is adopted fully by the state?

[GePap]

marriage is not just a religious ceremony. It was part of creating bonds between members of society, as well as trying to regulate sexual relations within the group, and the issues of responsibilities for child rearing.

[Asher]

Originally posted by falcon41
Isn't it ironic though, that a religious practise is adopted fully by the state?

I am not sure how religious it is when you go to city hall and get the paper with no bearing or mention of religion.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by falcon41
Isn't it ironic though, that a religious practise is adopted fully by the state?

I don't know how ironic it is, actually.

Seeing as a religious practice was adopted by religious states, and you'd sorta expect that to happen, so. And a lot of secular states are descendants of the religious ones.

[Ben Kenobi]

marriage is not just a religious ceremony. It was part of creating bonds between members of society, as well as trying to regulate sexual relations within the group, and the issues of responsibilities for child rearing.

And how many of those actually apply in this case?

I would say not a one of these Gepap.

Are they saying that their bond was created by the marriage?

Are they saying that their marriage 'regulates their sexual relations'?

Are they saying that they are marrying for the responsibilities of child rearing?

Maybe you can explain it to me then what civil marriage is all about then.

[GePap]

You are dense, aren't you?

I replied to falcon41, explaining how the concept of marriage is not inherently religious in nature, which also undemrines you assenine assertions on the topic.

Marriage is a tool to regulate interpersonal relations within society, whether that society is religious or secular.

[DinoDoc]

@ MrFun: When will you begin demonstrating for equal rights for polygamists?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ninot
I see Ben's point, strangely enough.

It's the old argument of why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free. They've been getting their milk for 50 years, so what's the big deal of getting married? If they aren't willing to respect one biblical verse, why fight to get married when marriage itself is linked to biblical ideas.

But then again, I very much understand the idea of marriage as a secular entity, and wish for it myself one day

There are hundreds of rights and privileges that automatically go with legally-recognized marriage. Gay and lesbian partners in United States have long been denied these rights and privileges.

The Bible has nothing to do with civil marriage law. In fact, granting gays and lesbians equal marriage protection under federal law will not force synagoues, churches, and mosques to marry gay and lesbian couples. They will be able to get civil marriages.

As to Benny's point about the "sanctity of marriage." Maybe I have chosen the word for part of my thread's title, but I believe that expanding the right of marriage to gays and lesbians will not destroy the sanctity of marriage, even in religious terms. There are religious leaders/individuals in different denominations who are able to reconcile religious values with accepting the idea that gays and lesbians are equally entitled to marriage recognition - those religious individuals do not necessarily see that as destruction of the "sanctity of marriage."

As to the question of whether or not this lesbian couple, other lesbian couples, and gay couples see their relationship as being worthless without equal marriage protection. No, I do not believe any of them see their relationships as being worthless. They have strong, sentimental attachment to their partner in their relationship over the years of commitment in the face of adversity and discrimination.

I cannot believe I had to seriously answer this question - Benny's question was a mockery of the feelings of lesbian and gay couples who have remained committed to their partner over the long-term in spite of the obstacles that had been imposed upon them. Just because they are fighting for equal marriage protection, does not mean they believe their relationship is worthless in the meantime. Just as interracial couples in 1950s did not believe their relationships were worthless as they fought for equal marriage protection.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
@ MrFun: When will you begin demonstrating for equal rights for polygamists?

I do not support polygamy among heterosexuals, or homosexuals.

[Verto]

MrFun, your opinion is ridiculous and doesn't hold up to any kind of actual critical thought. You accuse Ben Kenobi of mocking the "feelings of lesbian and gay couples" who are "committed" to their "partners", this is of course a ridiculous charge, since homosexuals are incapable of understanding or having such complicated emotions like love. Such intense feelings are the exclusive domain of a Husband and Wife. The same mental disorder that causes a person to believe that s/he is a homosexual robs that person of the ability to have such feelings. I am sure I am joined by Ben Kenobi and many others in praying for your recovery from the "Gay Disease", and eagerly await the day you will return to the path of the Righteous.

[Wiglaf]

Gays cannot reproduce. The whole idea that they are entitled to marriage rights is laughable. The whole point of marriage is kids, not jerking off into a pillow or anus. Or can I marry myself ?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Verto
MrFun, your opinion is ridiculous and doesn't hold up to any kind of actual critical thought. You accuse Ben Kenobi of mocking the "feelings of lesbian and gay couples" who are "committed" to their "partners", this is of course a ridiculous charge, since homosexuals are incapable of understanding or having such complicated emotions like love. Such intense feelings are the exclusive domain of a Husband and Wife. The same mental disorder that causes a person to believe that s/he is a homosexual robs that person of the ability to have such feelings. I am sure I am joined by Ben Kenobi and many others in praying for your recovery from the "Gay Disease", and eagerly await the day you will return to the path of the Righteous.

Show me the right way, sir, to repent.

[Ben Kenobi]

There are hundreds of rights and privileges that automatically go with legally-recognized marriage. Gay and lesbian partners in United States have long been denied these rights and privileges.

I'm denied those privileges as well. If me and another person choose to establish 'a relationship', why shouldn't we be entitled to the same privileges?

The Bible has nothing to do with civil marriage law. In fact, granting gays and lesbians equal marriage protection under federal law will not force synagoues, churches, and mosques to marry gay and lesbian couples. They will be able to get civil marriages.

Already happening up here. Christians who are responsible for marriage licenses are being sacked if they choose not to marry gays and lesbians, even if there are other people who can do it. They are not being given provisions to respect their religious beliefs.

As to Benny's point about the "sanctity of marriage." Maybe I have chosen the word for part of my thread's title, but I believe that expanding the right of marriage to gays and lesbians will not destroy the sanctity of marriage,

Yes, it will. What is sacred about marriage if every relationship is considered to be marriage?

There are religious leaders/individuals in different denominations who are able to reconcile religious values with accepting the idea that gays and lesbians are equally entitled to marriage recognition

Yes, and there are religious leaders who believe aliens came to earth and left special crystal shard out there by which we can communicate with them. You can find religious leaders who support all kinds of things.

No, I do not believe any of them see their relationships as being worthless.

Thank you, so why the need? If it's all about the benjamins, then it's hardly 'sanctity of marriage'. It seems consistant to me that you would believe your relationship to be less valuable without marriage if you truly believed in the sanctity of marriage.

I cannot believe I had to seriously answer this question - Benny's question was a mockery of the feelings of lesbian and gay couples who have remained committed to their partner over the long-term in spite of the obstacles that had been imposed upon them. Just because they are fighting for equal marriage protection, does not mean they believe their relationship is worthless in the meantime.

Yadda yadda. Again, I ask the question, if they were serious about the sanctity of marriage, then it is obvious they would have waited to be married. It is blindingly obvious to me that this is all about the benjamins, and hardly anything 'sacred' about all this.

If they were willing to admit that without marriage, their relationships were not as valuable, then I would concede the point, but I've yet to see anyone say this.

Just as interracial couples in 1950s did not believe their relationships were worthless as they fought for equal marriage protection.

You evaded my point.

Where does it say in the bible that miscegenation is a bad thing?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I'm denied those privileges as well.

No, you're not. You can marry your partner and get them.

We've been through this. You're either completely retarded or ****ing with us, and either way you should get lost.

[EPW]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I'm denied those privileges as well. If me and another person choose to establish 'a relationship', why shouldn't we be entitled to the same privileges?

You are entitled

Already happening up here. Christians who are responsible for marriage licenses are being sacked if they choose not to marry gays and lesbians, even if there are other people who can do it. They are not being given provisions to respect their religious beliefs.

Not true

Yes, it will. What is sacred about marriage if every relationship is considered to be marriage?

Have you ever heard of separation of church and State?

Yes, and there are religious leaders who believe aliens came to earth and left special crystal shard out there by which we can communicate with them. You can find religious leaders who support all kinds of things.

Okay

Thank you, so why the need? If it's all about the benjamins, then it's hardly 'sanctity of marriage'. It seems consistant to me that you would believe your relationship to be less valuable without marriage if you truly believed in the sanctity of marriage.

Why shouldn't their relationship be recognized by the state?

Yadda yadda. Again, I ask the question, if they were serious about the sanctity of marriage, then it is obvious they would have waited to be married. It is blindingly obvious to me that this is all about the benjamins, and hardly anything 'sacred' about all this.

If they were willing to admit that without marriage, their relationships were not as valuable, then I would concede the point, but I've yet to see anyone say this.

They do want to be married. People can still have relationships without be married.