(Fifth in a series in recognition of New York City’s “Gay Pride Week”)

I’ve never been a member of any minority that I know of but I can now better empathize with the discrimination some minorities claim to suffer. Any discriminatory action must be painful to endure but when its source is the government of the United States it is not only painful but infuriating.

A recent article on The American Spectator, “Friends with Benefits,” by George Neumayr reveals the essence of that discrimination in a quotation from the Washington Post, “Barack Obama’s presidential memorandum that decrees in these dark days of recession new ‘benefits to partners of federal workers. . . . [the memo] does not cover domestic heterosexual partners.’ “

If you happen to be a heterosexual worker, you get didleysquat, nothing, nada, zilch in new benefits. They are reserved for homosexuals in the employ of our government.

The tipoff should have been the word “partners,” the preferred term for gay lovers who are, usually, shacking up. As Neumayr writes, “Heterosexual sinners need to hire better lobbyists, or hope that Obama soon finds in his impressively massive heart a new and richer understanding of their attempts at semi-committed love:” http://spectator.org/archives/2009/06/19/fiends-with-benefits.

A GAO employee, a lesbian and ordained “minister” Candy Holmes, told the Post she wants “to believe this is the beginning of equality.”

I must be missing something here…
(Read the rest at http://genelalor.com)

In fact for example many Muslims in the
West already have multiple wives whether
some readers like it or not. They have
the full blessing of their faith whether
you like it or not.

However, with my concept they will never
get legal status as their arguments are
religion based and the government would
not have its two people civil union policy
based on religious arguments.

Base it on the human need for a companion
if you will. Everyone has the right to
shelter but not the right to be given
four houses. I don’t have the right to
deny someone the need to enjoy life with
someone else with the same rights I have.
Freedom cuts two ways-somethings you may
like, others you may not agree with.

At one time in certain places a record of
baptism filled the role of a birth certificate-
not any more.

The US is not a religious institution that
can grant or control sacraments.
If you wish to merge government and religion
try a theocracy like Iran instead. Myself
I’ll take the US.

“Obviously, one of the main reasons for promoting gay marriage is the political aspect; It’s pandering and profiteering off another special interest group.”

I’m afraid I can’t buy that. Promoting gay marriage is promoting equal rights. Courts and legislatures are coming to realize this is an issue of Constitutional protections. Pandering and profiteering is not confined to those promoting the franchise.

Peace.

DS

Even polygamy has a stronger basis than same-sex marriage. But watch the stink if you point this out–most same-sex marriage backers suddenly get all squeamish about polygamous marriage, bestiality, child brides, etc.

No I meant exactly what I said, but I agree that you have a point. Along with that I am observing that sexual orientation by young people has become a plaything, where moving in and out of sexual attraction to the opposite or same sex is becoming the fashion for young people. Of course the ever ready corrupting adults are more than willing to go along and in fact profit from it.

As I said the road signs are vanishing, and marriage becoming more than a man and woman joining together is another example of another road sign vanishing.

This generation will pass before any direction is no direction (what does it matter), and in the meantime we will have passed along our willingness to buckle under pressure because we lacked the ‘balls’ to stand up for an institution that has served this society well. And we also lack the ‘balls’ to let the judicial system know that their place in our society is not to redefine words to suit them or others, or force states to comply with those redefinitions to please citizens that are not included ‘by definition’.

The joining of a man and woman should not become a adjective to describe a kind of marriage because at it’s core it is a man and woman.

Finally, if the marriage success rate is in the fifty percent range, it may not be ideal, but if the chances of winning the lottery were that high the whole country would be playing.

Your stance on “theocracy,” Chuck? Don’t make me laugh. — gus3

This is the wrong topical thread to discuss your stupidity. Or maybe it’s much, much worse than merely being ’stupid’.

Let’s discuss this on a more apropos thread HERE!

Looking forward to this. I need to a ‘pleaseant diversion’ to clear the mental sluices while writing code today.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. -- Proverbs]

Because the number of men and women is roughly equal, and neither men nor women much want to share, polygamy has not been very prevalent in societies that recognize it. Basically what happens is a few very rich men have more than one wife, and the impact on society isn’t that huge; though probably there are far more polygamous marriages than there would be gay ones.

Sorry, I thought you were missing our point when in fact I was missing your point. You see marriage as primarily a social or legal contract, I see it as primarily a religious one. I’m not sure which one, social or legal, you see it as though; I’m guessing social because of your references to the definition of marriage. If it was primarily a legal contract the government would be the definer.

>>>Please tell me in what way a “civil union” would differ from a marriage contract?<<<

If it’s a legal contract, then any two or more people of whatever sex could simply have draw up a contract and wills to share funds and inheritance etc. and be married. Then there is no difference from a civil union and gay marriage has been available as long as strong contract law.

If it’s a social contract, then the name is the essential part. Homosexual couples who want marriage rather than civil unions see that instinctively. A civil union does not confer social legitimacy, only legal equality. As society as a whole does not recogize same-sex marriage, homosexuals see the government definition as a lever to change that. If the government definition is gone, the lever is gone. You also want to use the government definition as a lever to keep it our way.

I see marriage as primarily a religious institution; to me same-sex marriage can never take place regardless of what institution says it has. I do not think prayers to the saints are appropriate, and state sanctioning cannot make it so. That state sanctioning was the case in most European countries when Protestants (protestors) founded this one. Though to a religious person the government cannot truly change God’s law, yet it is enormously better to live in a place where they do not attempt it; their only tool in the end is the gun. Therefore I will fight people imposing a government definition of marriage that happens to match mine just as I do opposing definitions or as the Founders fought imposition of prayer.