Posted on 08/23/2006 8:35:50 AM PDT by sionnsar
Political Correctness ties itself in a knot again.
Sometimes, I just love this country. Ya know?
LOL!!!
Proving that the gays rights laws give them privileges denied to non-gays.
But no discrimination means no discrimination.
Gays can marry.....just like the rest of us....they just aren't supposed to marry someone of the same sex.....sheesh.
I'd like to count my dog as a tax exemption.....and want her on our benefits plan....she's having surgery in a couple of weeks....
The fact that a pale imitation of marriage, just being available, saps the commitment level of esp. men who would like to shirk some of the obligations of a husband (to, e.g., fidelity, procreation, provision for the couple as if for himself). Think, "California guys -- cool, pleasant, and shallow as a mud-puddle."
Anyone who truly feels threatened by gays have some issues of their own which are far more threatening to society than some gays who get some basic rights. No gay couple ever threatened my 40 year marriage and they never will.
Those are old gay-werewolf-disruptor lines. I don't think you're a disruptor, or a gay seminar poster, but those are their lines.
I have an issue or six with "gay marriage", and they all go to 1) commitment, 2) gender-role definition (despite what the genderfems say, who are bucking nature itself), 3) personal and public health (anal sodomy is risky behavior per se, no matter who indulges in it), and .....well, shall I go on?
There are plenty of good reasons for not blinking the paraphilic reality of homosexuality and homosexual desire.
Even accepting that some people are "hard-wired"/"essentially" gay and not amenable to reparative therapy at any level known to current science, nevertheless that is no reason to trash the institution of marriage by redefining it basically out of existence.
Which, by the way, is precisely why more radical gays back the concept of "gay marriage", in order to attack, and they hope destroy, the "norming" institution of heterosexual marriage-for-life.* They hate us. They want our institutions to fail. What could be simpler to understand than that?
*Thus Michelangelo Signorile, in a column he wrote several years ago in The Village Voice.
Gays have "inheritance, hospital visits" etc just like the rest of us....they just need to do it LEGALLY (file the paperwork). AND, as I said previously, they have the same rights to marriage as the rest of us.....to the opposite sex.
PING
Two straight women can marry each other?
you go girl I said all along give the gays marriage rights and you will have people who honestly believe it is okay to marry 9 women or people under 15, and than the medical coverage benefits I said why should they have it but a hetersexual couple that has a long life relationship why should they not get it. Thank you leaders for opening a pandora;s box.
Any man can marry any woman. Any woman can marry any man. No man can marry any man. No woman can marry any woman.
Looks fair to me since we aren't supposed to discriminate by sexual preference.
I don't get to indulge in my sexual preference since Nicole Kidman is already married but I persevere.
She is getting PERFECTLY FAIR TREATMENT. And I'll tell you why:
The reason is: Legally she is ALLOWED to get MARRIED. Gay couples are NOT allowed to get MARRIED. The domestic partner status is a substitute for marriage b/c of the prohibition of gay marriage status.
IF in the future, gays are allowed to EITHER get a DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP OR GET MARRIED & STILL get bene's either way but straight couples still had to be married to get the bene's -- THEN & ONLY THEN -- should she have a case.
The following thing happened in VT. Before the state allowed gays to marry a co (sorry I don't remember which one) gave their gay employees that were in a relationship similar to marriage (there were certain criteria they had to meet - just dating didn't cut it) the same bene's as those straight employees that were married. After VT allowed gays to marry the co decided to retract the bene's to gay couples starting on a certain date if they did not get married by that date but would re-instate them if they did get married in the future. Some gays were upset about that but I thought it made perfect sense & that they should not be mad about the co's decision. But most of the gays I heard comment on it thought so too - that it was "only fair".
During the period that unmarried gays were getting the bene's the co's unmarried heterosexual couples did NOT get the same bene's as them. The co said that since the straight couples WERE ALLOWED to get married the domestic partner bene's weren't justified b/c they were NOT being prevented from getting married.
SO, The reason the co gave for rescinding the domestic partner benefits to gays was the same reason that had been given before to the unmarried straight couples: Since there were no legal reasons the couples could not get married then they weren't entitled to the co bene's.
I agree w/ the co's decision in that matter as I agree w/ the decision to deny this woman (& the like) domestic partnership status.
It's common sense folks but then again who knows what the courts will do since they aren't always known for their "Common Sense".
BTW, I'm a heterosexual in a committed relationship but am not married & hence our relationship is not recognized in employment nor by the state & I/we am not crying discrimination or unfairness since we are legally allowed to marry as where gays are not allowed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.