Re: I'm comming out..
Gees Louiees,<br /><br />Let's get to it. What is marriage and why are there benefits from the government associated with it?<br /><br />Marriage is/was considered an assest to the growth of the country cuz it typically resulted in little taxpayers and workers. Thats right-births; impossible to do by a homosexual relationship. <br /><br />What was the condition of the American family when death benefits, survivor benefits, health care benefits, tax deductions and exemptions, were put into place? A SINGLE breadwinner family. Father at work mother at home or maybe a part-time job, she produced and raise children at home. She, the mother is at an economic disadvantage and it was to the benefit of the children to support them economically and foster the production of more of them. The mother now has little work experience, financial stability, etc, while performing lifes most important job. So benefits were provided to ensure her security and wellbeing and recognition of contribution.<br /><br />Present day, we have marriages not specifically directed at the proliferation of humanity or for the benefit of the country, (not necessarily a bad thing) rampant divorce without reason or consideration of those who will suffer, sex without consequences, and a sense of entitlement for a cradle to grave life of free food, cars, money, housing, education, etc. But they are still the primary and BEST means of producing little taxpayers. To remove the benefits afforded those families who still adhere to the traditional way of raising children would be politically intolerable. So the traditional benefits remain in place.<br /><br />Enter a homosexual relationship. THEY CANNOT PRODUCE CHILDREN. At best they can purchase them and if they can do that, we have already lost our compass, but that is another issue. Throw out your theorhetical "IF" as it is fantasy, and apply your legal arguement then it is not a slippery slope, we have fallen off the cliff. You have NO defense against muliple marriages, 3-4-5-40 wives or as many husbands or partners or a mix of both, incest, and all the other vile iterations we intolerant types call immoral. No age protection, as that is an arbitrary age and just like the drinking age can be adjusted as the "tolerant" types see fit. Who is going to pay for all these 10 or 15 wives benefits? This works ok in a communist country or is workable in a socialist country but impossible in a free market economy. The government isn't intended to or capable of supporting every person in every aspect. It is on the way as the communists take over this country one step at a time, but as long as the constitution is in place, the government has a problem.<br /><br />The Right and best answer is to adjust how benefits are distributed to either gay or straight couples and continue to foster the fact that there is as much a difference between gay and straight couples as there are between men and women. Something should be put into place but it will have to be different and specific to the type of relationship.<br /><br />By not realizing the differences and dangers of accepting unnatural behaviors we open ourselves up to the great unintended consequences. The law dictates it. This move will speed our progression into socialism by generations. Entitlements that can't be met without dictatorship.
