Free Republic

Of course. However the church of England merely recognized _celebate partnerships_ and did not call these "marriage". Clergy (or others) living in celebacy has a two thousand year tradition in nunneries, monasteries, as well as ordinary lay communities.

The problem is not with folks (gay or otherwise) who wish to support each other in celebacy, but with those (both gay and heterosexual) who wish sexual freedom without consequences.

The "bad theology" is the first one, which says that marriage is simply a political or social construct that gives "rights" to two folks (a man and woman currently) who wish to live together. It is not. Marriage is the foundation of human society, results in an indisoluable and eternal communion of two people and is integrally linked to the genesis of children (who are also indissoluably, and eternally in communion with their progenitors).

This initial decoupling of marriage from its theological roots initially manifested in the use of birth control, and later was extended to divorce and abortion, and this (heterosexual) perversion was then coopted by gays, (and may well be coopted in the future by polygamists, the incestuous or whatever.

However, the way to deal with this is not by saying that the unmarried should live alone and away from family, and should not be permitted to care for the ill or for orphans, but to agree that marriage is in fact fundamentally linked to procreation, and to make divorce more difficult.

Frankly, my solution would be to limit marriage (and any benefits thereof) to the first marriage between a previously unmarried man and unmarried woman, and to refuse to recognize later "marriages" after divorce. Oddly enough, this is the position of the Catholic church.

Not really. Incest requires sex. Siblings have been living together in chaste fashion in all societies since time immemorial. This is known as "family". I admit that in today's sexually charged atmosphere, the idea that two people could manage to live together without copulating does seem quaint. But the old maid sisters are a staple of fiction, and by no means unusual.

As to the adoption, my sister adopted a young child from a third world country who had already failed two previous attempted adoptions (because of obvious kwashiorkor that the other prospective US parents balked at) and I later coadopted her (legal in Maryland) both because as her aunt we lived in the same home, and I had come to love her, and was generally funtioning as a parent, and because my job offered superior medical benefits, and her care was expensive.

The second adoption, (also of a malnourished third world orphan, though one with fewer medical problems) was done jointly.

As for "infant", I am a physician, and I use the word in customary medical usage. There is no "medical term" for "toddler" because sick children do not necessarily "toddle". The word "infant" is used for children at the youngest of ages, especially those who cannot walk, and after that it is "child". Thus we tend to talk about "neonates" (usually around time of birth, but up to age 3 months) "infants" (usually under one year of age, but up to 3 years) and "child" (usually 3-6, but up to 12 or so). The distinction is important because 2month olds tend to be very similar to 1 month olds in terms of medical illnesses, and much less like 11 month olds, while 1 year olds and 3 year olds are much more alike medically than are 3 year olds and 5 year olds).

If anybody requires further information regarding me, they can find it on my faith journey given below.

http://www.faithwriters.com/websites/my_website.php?id=4100

Peace
Shari