So if that were so, then if I wanted to pass on my estate without death duties, I could marry my son and pass on my estate to him."

Makes sense. If Simba had married Mufasa, there's no way Scar would've been able to usurp the throne.

He doesn't go on a rambling. He actually brings up an interesting point. And you know, somewhere, some rich guy would take advantage of that loophole. You know that to be true, yes? Yet the article goes on to say, he's right, but we are sure nothing like that would ever happen, so they lost me then. If he goes full-on hate-mongering, I apologize for standing on the, "not so bad" side of the line. DRTFA.

But here's a question. If marriage is a religious ceremony, can atheists not get married?

That Cardinal Borgia, I tell ya...

Jeremy Irons?  Strange?

You have no idea.

This is the guy who said, iirc, that women should view a nice slap on their ass as a compliment.

Please, please, for the love of all that is holy: RTFA before you chime in.

-kthnxbye

Methinks Mr. Irons never came back out of character from those Cronenberg films.

Jeremy's iron.

That headline is three words too long

Mangoose: He doesn't go on a rambling. He actually brings up an interesting point. And you know, somewhere, some rich guy would take advantage of that loophole. You know that to be true, yes? Yet the article goes on to say, he's right, but we are sure nothing like that would ever happen, so they lost me then. If he goes full-on hate-mongering, I apologize for standing on the, "not so bad" side of the line. DRTFA.

But here's a question. If marriage is a religious ceremony, can atheists not get married?


Irons is really just talking out of his ass about something that was already covered in the Civil Partnership Act of 2004, which he would know if bothered spending five minutes looking it up.

"First, there is the range of persons within prohibited degrees of relationship with whom it is not possible to enter a civil partnership.46 This range is the equivalent to that for marriage, but with the necessary changes of gender47

47 E.g. a man cannot marry his mother or sister and cannot enter a civil partnership with his father or brother. "

He brings up a point that is being quietly discussed in circles around the country - especially the among polygamy crowd.

I'm all for Gay marriage - should have happened a long long long long time ago.  However, when you open up the definition of "marriage" to new interpretation, you always get more than you bargained for.

With that said - consenting adults should be able to whatever consenting adults want to to as long as nobody loses and eye and everyone is home by ten.

Call him stupid all you want, but you're missing the bigger discussion in America about that discimination of those who don't fit into a certain religious mold.

bradkanus: He brings up a point that is being quietly discussed in circles around the country - especially the among polygamy crowd.

I'm all for Gay marriage - should have happened a long long long long time ago.  However, when you open up the definition of "marriage" to new interpretation, you always get more than you bargained for.

Gee, I had no idea widening the definition to include "any two consenting adults who have no legal bar against marriage" would open the floodgates to polygamy and turtle farking. Your concern is duly noted.

Ed Grubermann: bradkanus: He brings up a point that is being quietly discussed in circles around the country - especially the among polygamy crowd.

I'm all for Gay marriage - should have happened a long long long long time ago.  However, when you open up the definition of "marriage" to new interpretation, you always get more than you bargained for.

Gee, I had no idea widening the definition to include "any two consenting adults who have no legal bar against marriage" would open the floodgates to polygamy and turtle farking. Your concern is duly noted.

Uh... how would that happen?  We're talking about the supreme court here - they don't "widen definitions" nor do they write law.  I know you think you sound smart here, but you're not really familiar with what is actually going on here.

Nobody said anything about "turtle farking," so I'm a little confused as to why you brought that up.  Is that something you think about?

barneyfifesbullet: You know how some people are. Draw a line and they have to cross it.

The fun thing about gay marriage will be seeing everything happen that many have sworn will never happen.

People trying to marry three other people, their pets, their car, a tree, whatever. Churches and other places of worship getting bullied and sued if they don't don't start marrying gay people immediately. It's going to be a real mess. Which, is what liberals usually do to anything.

Yes - in a way liberals are always trying to create a "protected class" of people and they get all pissy when people they didn't intend to put in that class want to join.

bradkanus: Ed Grubermann: bradkanus: He brings up a point that is being quietly discussed in circles around the country - especially the among polygamy crowd.

I'm all for Gay marriage - should have happened a long long long long time ago.  However, when you open up the definition of "marriage" to new interpretation, you always get more than you bargained for.

Gee, I had no idea widening the definition to include "any two consenting adults who have no legal bar against marriage" would open the floodgates to polygamy and turtle farking. Your concern is duly noted.

Uh... how would that happen?  We're talking about the supreme court here - they don't "widen definitions" nor do they write law.  I know you think you sound smart here, but you're not really familiar with what is actually going on here.

Nobody said anything about "turtle farking," so I'm a little confused as to why you brought that up.  Is that something you think about?

Again, just how would allowing same-sex couples to marry count as a slippery slope? There are laws baring incestuous marriage, which Mr. Irons is so concerned about, as well as polygamy, which you seem to be so concerned with.

As for turtle farking... you're smart and you've been around here for a while. You figure it out.

Ehrmagod! But if a bunch people in the UK start to inbreed... how will we be able to tell them apart from their royal family.

OK lets try this again

The CIVIL Marriage license is a civil contract, this civil contract limits the  number of said participants to 2.  The State has a vested interest in limiting the number of participants since the  said contract has to be dissolved by the State, additionally the  contract is structured so that neither party can gain a majority of control of the  contract, adding additional participants changes that since participants can work in unison to gain control.  This has been evidenced by polygamous marriages, yet their supporters have come forth with no sound remedy for this issue, when that does occur then perhaps we can talk.

Now as for incestuous marriages,due to the  inherent issues of coercion to enter one by a familial member this is not allowed, this is also why an adoptive parent cannot marry their adopted child even though there are no biological issues involved if they  breed.  Additionally a child has a familial relationship that grants them certain rights and privileges such as inheritance hospital visitation etc.  I do not see a legitimate argument that will override the issues of coercion in these cases  The same criteria also applies to pedophilia marriage as well as a minors inability to give consent to enter into the  contract.

Now as to the  Turtle Farkers, well when your turtle can swear before a Judge and tell that judge that it wants to be your
"partner"  then we can discuss it.
.

barneyfifesbullet: You know how some people are. Draw a line and they have to cross it.

The fun thing about gay marriage will be seeing everything happen that many have sworn will never happen.

People trying to marry three other people, their pets, their car, a tree, whatever. Churches and other places of worship getting bullied and sued if they don't don't start marrying gay people immediately. It's going to be a real mess. Which, is what liberals usually do to anything.

I predict you will be as right about this as you were about, say, the election.

Scar, you're dead to me now.

How about "Whatever occurs between consenting adults is none of the government's business"

Sound good?