The Dignity of Marriage

[Rhiannon]

"At age 90, I am lucky to be in an era where the Supreme Court has strengthened what President Obama calls 'the dignity of marriage' by recognising that matrimony is not based on anyone's sexual nature, choices or dreams.
"It is based on love."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36127215

[Shaker]

Hear hear.

[floo]

I am not exactly sure what our long married is based on, but we have kept it going for 47 years in August, and haven't murdered each other yet, so must be doing something right.

[Leonard James]

"At age 90, I am lucky to be in an era where the Supreme Court has strengthened what President Obama calls 'the dignity of marriage' by recognising that matrimony is not based on anyone's sexual nature, choices or dreams.
"It is based on love."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36127215

Splendid! Love has nothing to with gender.

[Shaker]

To add poignancy to this story, the BBC are reporting (and at time of writing are still updating) that the editor of the first LGBT magazine in Bangladesh has been hacked to death.

[Hope]

Splendid! Love has nothing to with gender.

But then, does marriage merely have to do with love?  Aren't there other elements - such as respect?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

But then, does marriage merely have to do with love?

who has said that marriage is merely to do with love?

Aren't there other elements - such as respect?

Yep, but I seem to recall a verse in Corinthians that arranges them in order of priority.

Incidentally, even if there are other things, then they can equally be displayed by all people regardless of the sexuality of the people involved.

[Shaker]

But then, does marriage merely have to do with love?  Aren't there other elements - such as respect?

Respect may well be a necessary condition in marriage, but hardly a sufficient one.

[Rhiannon]

The things that matter - respect, compassion, fairness, selflessness, to name but a few - are all facets of love. When we talk of a marriage based on love we talk of one where mutual respect is a given. A marriage with 'love' but no respect is actually one that isn't loving at all.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

The things that matter - respect, compassion, fairness, selflessness, to name but a few - are all facets of love. When we talk of a marriage based on love we talk of one where mutual respect is a given. A marriage with 'love' but no respect is actually one that isn't loving at all.

10/10

[Shaker]

The things that matter - respect, compassion, fairness, selflessness, to name but a few - are all facets of love. When we talk of a marriage based on love we talk of one where mutual respect is a given. A marriage with 'love' but no respect is actually one that isn't loving at all.

Conversely, a marriage with respect but no love seems a rather formal, stiff business arrangement that few would regard as a marriage worthy of the name.

[Rhiannon]

Yes, that sounds like the kind of marriages people had in the past where class, aspiration and 'not being left on the shelf' mattered over personal fulfilment. The results were often disasterous.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Civil partnership equality for all.

[Shaker]

Civil partnership equality for all.

I agree, Vlad.

[Rhiannon]

Me too. Think it's a great idea.

[Nearly Sane]

Me too. Think it's a great idea.

Add me in, but I'm far more concerned just currently about people being macheted to death because of being gay, atheist, the wrong faith.

[Leonard James]

Add me in, but I'm far more concerned just currently about people being macheted to death because of being gay, atheist, the wrong faith.

I just started a thread about it.

[Rhiannon]

Add me in, but I'm far more concerned just currently about people being macheted to death because of being gay, atheist, the wrong faith.

Yep, in agreement with that one.

Didn't Welby argue something along the lines of marriage equality within the CofE  leading to more persecution of gay people in Africa?

[Sassy]

We are living in the age of illusions.
Or should that be delusions.

Marriage is for a man and a woman. It isn't about sexuality, that is true. It isn't about sex.
It is about God saying a man will cling to his wife and the two will become one.
So marriage is about a man and a woman.

There is now different beliefs about marriage and for legal purposes there is also a marriage for same sex couples.
But only in the legal sense of the piece of paper. They can never be married in the original sense of one man and one woman coming together and being one in Gods eyes.

Without God marriage is just a piece of paper but is has not heart, soul or definition.

Most people do not marry because they do not believe a piece of paper means anything.
Again homosexuality raised under a banner of 'The dignity of marriage' and shows the atheist have the real problem with homosexuality not the believer.

Whoopee do! How is homosexual marriage and a piece of paper different from heterosexual marriage and a piece of paper?
So how is the dignity of mariage only dignity if about homosexual marriage?

I am not surprised that we do not have many homosexual members.  All this forum ever does is single homosexuality out as a soap box or a band stand display.

[floo]

We are living in the age of illusions.
Or should that be delusions.

Marriage is for a man and a woman. It isn't about sexuality, that is true. It isn't about sex.
It is about God saying a man will cling to his wife and the two will become one.
So marriage is about a man and a woman.

There is now different beliefs about marriage and for legal purposes there is also a marriage for same sex couples.
But only in the legal sense of the piece of paper. They can never be married in the original sense of one man and one woman coming together and being one in Gods eyes.

Without God marriage is just a piece of paper but is has not heart, soul or definition.

Most people do not marry because they do not believe a piece of paper means anything.
Again homosexuality raised under a banner of 'The dignity of marriage' and shows the atheist have the real problem with homosexuality not the believer.

Whoopee do! How is homosexual marriage and a piece of paper different from heterosexual marriage and a piece of paper?
So how is the dignity of mariage only dignity if about homosexual marriage?

I am not surprised that we do not have many homosexual members.  All this forum ever does is single homosexuality out as a soap box or a band stand display.

As has been said many times, you make very silly assertions without the slightest shred of evidence to back them up. You attribute stuff to god with no evidence it even exists, let alone what it thinks on any topic.

[Harrowby Hall]

Sass

The historical purpose of marriage has little to do with sex - as such.

The purpose of marriage was to restrict and control the transfer of property, to control inheritance. Hence, the first duty of a wife was to produce an heir so that property could be kept within the "bloodline" the easiest way to do this was to control the sexual opportunities available to the wife. Two men together or two women together could not produce an heir.

The nasty hand of religion only came into marriage at a rather late stage when it was used to effect social control. Credulous people (and there are still some around) could be frightened into submission by being told they were offending the King of the Fairies in the Sky.

What other people choose to do with contents of their underwear should be of no interest to anyone else. And if two people want to celebrate their affective relationship by making a public declaration of this relationship then why should anyone else, including the King of the Fairies, be in the least bit bothered?

[Brownie]

I just started a thread about it.

I saw that Len, read it when I was up during the night.  It was so awful I didn't know what to say which would be adequate (I am saying inadequate stuff now).

Regarding love, respect etc, I would have thought they go hand in hand when it comes to a relationship like marriage.  Respect is a facet of love, you wouldn't necessarily want a personal relationship with someone you only respect, however if you truly love someone you will respect them.  I think Rhi said much the same, above.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Sass

The historical purpose of marriage has little to do with sex - as such.

The purpose of marriage was to restrict and control the transfer of property, to control inheritance. Hence, the first duty of a wife was to produce an heir so that property could be kept within the "bloodline" the easiest way to do this was to control the sexual opportunities available to the wife. Two men together or two women together could not produce an heir.

The nasty hand of religion only came into marriage at a rather late stage when it was used to effect social control. Credulous people (and there are still some around) could be frightened into submission by being told they were offending the King of the Fairies in the Sky.

What other people choose to do with contents of their underwear should be of no interest to anyone else. And if two people want to celebrate their affective relationship by making a public declaration of this relationship then why should anyone else, including the King of the Fairies, be in the least bit bothered?

I suppose that makes a change from the usual lectures about what the ancient Greeks got up to.

If two people want to get married in the House of God, then yes it is the business of his believers as to who those two people are.

[Rhiannon]

But many believers want gay couples to be able to marry in church. Gay believers want to marry in church. And there are clergy who want the right to be able to marry them.

[Gordon]

If two people want to get married in the House of God, then yes it is the business of his believers as to who those two people are.

The problem there though is that, here in the U.K. anyway, marriage is a civil institution: if you aren't married in civil terms then you aren't married in the legal sense, where those conducting religious marriages are also, concurrently, carrying out a civil legal process.

As such it can never be an issue for believers in isolation since marriage in the legal/civil sense isn't a religious status.