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.

Originally Posted by DDoug

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

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

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.

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

C o y o t e

Originally Posted by djplong

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.

Originally Posted by rubicon

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.

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.

Originally Posted by djplong

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.....,,,

Originally Posted by buggyone

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by djplong

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.