Interesting concept

[Guest]

In respects to gay marriage and equality why couldn't one person adopt the other. That way from the IRS point of view and tax purposes they would benefit. Sounds nuts doesn't it. I thought so. Can't wait to hear response to this if any.

[Guest]

In respects to gay marriage and equality why couldn't one person adopt the other. That way from the IRS point of view and tax purposes they would benefit. Sounds nuts doesn't it. I thought so. Can't wait to hear response to this if any.

Should a Florida millionaire be prosecuted for incest because he adopted his girlfriend? - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/02/should_a_florida_millionaire_be_prosecuted_for_inc est_because_he_adopted_his_girlfriend_.html)

[Guest]

Lets drop marriage and adapt civil unions for all. Marriage is an invention of man anyway.

[Guest]

Marriage is a religious sacrament and is done in a church.

For those done in a civil setting (by a JP or judge), it is a civil union. No difference between straight couples being "married" in a civil setting than a gay or lesbian couple being "married" in a civil setting.

[Guest]

buggy - Yes, and for a few thousand years it meant one man and a variable number of wives, concubines and slaves. Heck, it used to be that, if your brother died, you had to marry his widow and produce an heir (if none had already been produced) and name the dead uncle as the father.

Marriage evolves.

[Guest]

a rose by any other name is still legitimizing and attempting to normalize an unnatural act.

[Guest]

C o y o t e

[Guest]

buggy - Yes, and for a few thousand years it meant one man and a variable number of wives, concubines and slaves. Heck, it used to be that, if your brother died, you had to marry his widow and produce an heir (if none had already been produced) and name the dead uncle as the father.

Marriage evolves.

"a few thousand years"; why don't you go back to men supposedly hitting women over the head with a club and dragging them back to the cave?

Our current laws will suffice nicely for the points of this debate.

The obfuscation of the definition of marriage is ridiculous here.

[Guest]

a rose by any other name is still legitimizing and attempting to normalize an unnatural act.

I want to remind you that it was not too many years ago (1960's) that it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry. Now, there is the child of such a union as President of the United States of America. Evolution happens.

[Guest]

Rubicon: Seriously - I mean this in all sincerity. Please define for me the "unnatural act" that you are referring to. Not a "it's obvious" or "you should know"..

Exactly *what* "unnatural act"? No, I'm not going to jump down your throat. I just don't want to make any assumptions on what's going on in your head.

[Guest]

Rubicon: Seriously - I mean this in all sincerity. Please define for me the "unnatural act" that you are referring to. Not a "it's obvious" or "you should know"..

Exactly *what* "unnatural act"? No, I'm not going to jump down your throat. I just don't want to make any assumptions on what's going on in your head.

If you were to just acknowledge someone's strictly traditional religious view in response to your question, you would know the answer without needing it spelled out.

I know we're all "enlightened" 21st century and all, but seriously.....,,,

[Guest]

Marriage is a religious sacrament and is done in a church.

For those done in a civil setting (by a JP or judge), it is a civil union. No difference between straight couples being "married" in a civil setting than a gay or lesbian couple being "married" in a civil setting.
Buggyone, You are dead on. Marriage should be reserved to a church, respecting that it is a sacrament of the church. Civil unions, whether performed by a JP or an Elvis imitator should grant those involved identical rights.

[Guest]

Is it snowing in Hell right now? BBQMan agreed with me on a post!

See, even a "liberal" can have a good idea now and then - or as my wife says, "even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then."

Thanks for the post. You made my day. I will have to pass this on to RichieLion when I see him at the watering hole next time.

[Guest]

Richie: I *do* acknowledge and respect one's religious views. I've said over and over that no church should be forced to performa a marriage ceremony that conflicts with their teachings. That includes gay marriages. As repugnant as I would find the idea, if a church was to refuse to perform an *interracial* marriage, I'd have to support their right to do so no matter how racist or backward an opinion I would have of that church.

[Guest]

Richie: I *do* acknowledge and respect one's religious views. I've said over and over that no church should be forced to performa a marriage ceremony that conflicts with their teachings. That includes gay marriages. As repugnant as I would find the idea, if a church was to refuse to perform an *interracial* marriage, I'd have to support their right to do so no matter how racist or backward an opinion I would have of that church.

I understand what you're saying. I was only responding to your request for the definition of an "unnatural act".

I don't think you need that spelled out, is all I was trying to say.

[Guest]

What I mean is this - and I'll give examples..

What is the "unnatural act"?

Is it the homosexual sex act? Well, that has nothing to do with marriage.

Is it a man falling in love with another man? I certainly didn't have control over which women I fell in love with. That's just my orientation.

Is it not being able to have children "naturally"?

There are people who want to deny marriage to gays because of the term I've heard - the "unnatural act". But every definition I've ever heard of "unnatural act" just doesn't hold water.

Marriage isn't about sex. It's about love. It isn't about "tradition" because we've changed that tradition DRASTICALLY over the years. We as a society have "evolved" marriage into something better and better (ok, that's MY opinion - but would we be doing that if it wasn't what people wanted?) as time went on.

People confronted me on the issue before I changed my mind. WHY didn't I think gay marriage was ok? Well, the only thing I could come up with is the "yuck" factor. Once I saw that, I realized it was no reason for denying someone the right to get married. It would be like me saying to someone who's unattractive "You have no right to get married because I find you ugly".

I'm trying to drill down into the "why" of it all.

[Guest]

What I mean is this - and I'll give examples..

What is the "unnatural act"?

Is it the homosexual sex act? Well, that has nothing to do with marriage.

Is it a man falling in love with another man? I certainly didn't have control over which women I fell in love with. That's just my orientation.

Is it not being able to have children "naturally"?

There are people who want to deny marriage to gays because of the term I've heard - the "unnatural act". But every definition I've ever heard of "unnatural act" just doesn't hold water.

Marriage isn't about sex. It's about love. It isn't about "tradition" because we've changed that tradition DRASTICALLY over the years. We as a society have "evolved" marriage into something better and better (ok, that's MY opinion - but would we be doing that if it wasn't what people wanted?) as time went on.

People confronted me on the issue before I changed my mind. WHY didn't I think gay marriage was ok? Well, the only thing I could come up with is the "yuck" factor. Once I saw that, I realized it was no reason for denying someone the right to get married. It would be like me saying to someone who's unattractive "You have no right to get married because I find you ugly".

I'm trying to drill down into the "why" of it all.

MARRIAGE is about LOVE?; seriously. Untold numbers of marriages have been arranged, or agreed to, and performed without the ingredient of LOVE in the equation.

MARRIAGE is about procreation, and building family units to better support the livelihoods of all involved. It's about empire building and heirs to carry the family forward.

Let's not get totally sappy about this. I think you've just lived in a free society so long, you've lost track of traditional marriages in history.

The only reason to even consider the "marriage" of same sex couples is because of all the laws that have automatically conferred societal privileges to marriages of heterosexual couples, that homosexual couples covet.

I guess you do need something spelled out. The unnatural act of which you seem confused about is indeed a physical act. An act performed in a way that the body was not designed for. If you need more info than that, I guess I might be persuaded to get into greater detail. Is that really necessary?

[Guest]

To quote Tina Turner (whats love got to do with it)

[Guest]

Richie - I respect you coming up and actually answering the question.

Yes, untold numbers of marriages have been done without love. So the "sanctity" of marriage is in property and wealth transfers and alliances?

Procreation? So marriage should be denied those who can't (or won't) procreate? I can't have kids anymore and neither can my wife - but we married less than 2 years ago.

I have NOT lost sight of "traditional marriages in history" - THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT. The concept of romantic marriage IS a relatively recent development. But if you told someone you were "marrying for money" in this day and age, you'd be looked down upon.

You said it yourself:


The only reason to even consider the "marriage" of same sex couples is because of all the laws that have automatically conferred societal privileges to marriages of heterosexual couples, that homosexual couples covet.


YES! You *do* "get it".

It's not about sex, it's about *all* the rights and privileges that "being married" conveys.

"Traditionally", at various times in history, you couldn't get married if you were poor (no dowry), the wrong race, the wrong religion the wrong sex (women couldn't pick a mate) or even the PARTICIPANT (since if you were getting married, your parents or a matchmaker had picked your mate).

That's why the "tradition" argument holds no water for me. We've redefinged marriage CONSTANTLY since the days of Solomon having hundreds of wives. Today, one's the limit (much to the contrary of Mitt Romney's grandfather's experience).

[Guest]

To quote Tina Turner (whats love got to do with it)

If you are married, your wife may take issue with that quote.