Replies

As long as she's not still a minor, quite frankly I don't see how it's any of my business, no matter how screwy I think it is. The government has no business engaging in social engineering by defining marriage in any way - it's a religious institution.

Agreed on the minor, but minors can't married anyway. The gay factor doesn't apply. I was using the father/daughter combination as a blood relative example.

According to my tax form, married is a government classification so they must be able to define it. The biggest reason gays want the ability to be legally married is so they can get benefits through their partner’s employer. No one is stopping them from living together and playing house.

According to my tax form, married is a government classification so they must be able to define it.

I got a better idea - let's get rid of the income tax too. :)

The biggest reason gays want the ability to be legally married is so they can get benefits through their partner’s employer.

This is an argument in favor of civil unions for any two individuals, as a government institution separate from the religious. I'm undecided on this, but lean in favor of it. However, I think employers and insurance companies can make the decision about who is covered under their benefit plans.