Replies

Two points need to be made, and made again, because the lamestream media are lying about them. 1) Homosexuals are trying to weasel their way into the institution of "marriage" in order to corrupt the language and the institution it represents -- in order to push the theory of "moral equivalence."

The justification of the homosexual marriage argument is that homosexuals "should have the rights that heterosuxuals do." 2) The point that is missed -- on purpose -- is this: Any two people can, for any reason, establish by contract joint and survivor ownership of homes and real estate, and joint and survivor of stocks, bonds, bank accounts, etc.

Any competent banker or competent lawyer can easily tell Adam and Steve how to provide for each other in the event of the death of one -- without taking over the word and concept of "marriage." The people who are claiming this "right" are both lazy and stupid. They already have what they claim they need. And they think that we are too stupid to notice that their central argument is flat-out false.

Did I miss anything?

Congressman Billybob

Latest article, now up FR, "Ah-nold Will Win."

Did I miss anything?

You missed plenty.

First, there are many, many legal benefits of marriage that cannot be had by drawing up the contracts you suggest. Spouses inherit the other's property tax-free, that doesn't happen in the contract environment you describe. Spouses get social security survivor beneifts when one dies, that doesn't happen in the contract environment you describe. A spouse can sue a third party for the wrongful death of the other spouse, that doesn't happen in the contract environment you describe. I could go on, but you get the idea.

And also, why should two people of the same sex have to pay exorbitant lawyer fees to get just some of the benefits that an opposite sex couple can get by paying a $15 dollar marriage license fee?

Any competent banker or competent lawyer can easily tell Adam and Steve how to provide for each other in the event of the death of one -- without taking over the word and concept of "marriage."

Did I miss anything?

Good points. Another is that since homosexuals in general, and men in particular, are wildly promiscuous, the whole idea of monagamous "marriage" is only a politcal ploy for sympathy, appealing to peoples's sense of fairness and justice and sentimentality. They want nothing to do with marriage in any sense of the word. They want to change the world into a bordello that makes them feel comfortable and normal people shoved into the closet.

Meaning that we have to hire crossdressers, can't use the word "homosexual" (as in Britain), employers having to provide benefits to "partners", kids in school learning about fisting and whatnot, "Gay Pride" parades down Main St. USA, being fired if we express the wrong viewpoint about sexuality, etc.

You got it in one. They could and may already live together, own property in joint tenancy together, will property to one another, appoint one another to exercise broad powers under various powers of attorney etc. Prior to the Lawrence decision they could even wantonly engage in gross and septic sexual behavior without interference 99.99999 percent of the time (the cops in Lawrence had to be conned into entering the room where the sodomy was taking place).

What they really want is for the rest of us to tell them they are okay, healthy, good, and normal despite the manifest evidence to the contrary. If they cannot persuade or deceive us into accepting that queer equivalence, they will employ the coercive power of the state to attempt to shut us up.