Perry's pastor is right! Mormonism is a cult.

I see--why not, then, extend specific benefits and privileges for any two people who want them, whether there is a sexual relationship or not?

whether there is a sexual relationship or not?

But Mike, some State governments already do that ...... but it is the churches that frowns upon same sex marriages ........ and non-sexual heterosexual marriages of young couples in their early child bearing years.

SheikBen wrote:I see--why not, then, extend specific benefits and privileges for any two people who want them, whether there is a sexual relationship or not?

Good point, SB. Furthermore, why not extend specific benefits to three or a herd who want them?

Is your relationship with your wife only about sex?

SheikBen wrote:Ah but now you are "social acceptance." Why is it your business that someone else "accepts" or "rejects" a given sexual activity?

Because it goes to the heart of pursuing happiness. To advocate denial to homosexuals of the rights enjoyed by heterosexuals and protected by law is to deny equal protection of the laws.

SheikBen wrote:I see--why not, then, extend specific benefits and privileges for any two people who want them, whether there is a sexual relationship or not?

OK. So why not? Marriages are not defined by sexual relationships. They are defined by the willingness of the parties to enter into a legal contract prescribed by the state. It is not necessary for a married couple to maintain, nor even begin, a sexual relationship to remain married 'til death do us part'. And marriage is not necessary to maintain a sexual relationship.

Ziggy,

That, then, is fine. If any two people can enter into a legally binding relationship protected by the government, that is not necessarily sexual in nature (such that I can enter into it with a child, a colleague, a nephew, a grandparent whatever), then I am all for it. Of course, that isn't "marriage," but if it carries the same rights, well and good.