Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/26/2009 9:37:47 AM PST by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Steelfish

This makes sense to me. Why should a same-sex unmarried couple living together get govt. benefits when a heterosexual couple living together can’t. Fair is fair.


2 posted on 12/26/2009 9:40:51 AM PST by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Steelfish

If the govt is supposed to stay out of the bedroom, then the govt should not consider the sexual behavior of any person when it comes to providing or mandating employment benefits.

No benefits for roommates or boarders. Only for husbands or wives. Every one is free to get married. Marriage is a long-defined thing. The only requirement is that a married couple gives the appearance of being able to procreate - something that homsexual couples can’t do. Interestingly, two homosexuals CAN get married (a homosexual woman can marry a homosexual man) as long as they are not the same gender. So there is no discrimination. Just a logical societal preference for procreation by those who are committed to eachother.


5 posted on 12/26/2009 9:45:55 AM PST by Notwithstanding (Wer glaubt ist nie allein. Who believes is never alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Steelfish

Sorry. Unwed normalsexual couples aren’t a specially-privileged “victim” group established by the government so as to give them public funds and collect campaign contributions.


6 posted on 12/26/2009 9:52:31 AM PST by Leftism is Mentally Deranged
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Steelfish

Of course. Once marriage is left open for redefinition, anything goes. The sky is the limit. With disastrous, absolutely disastrous, as in children are going to suffer mightily, consequences.

Which is why we must fight to defend real marriage at every level.


11 posted on 12/26/2009 10:13:16 AM PST by Marie2 (The second mouse gets the cheese.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Steelfish

This is logical to me. In fact, an unwed heterosexual couple is far closer to a definition of marriage than a “union” of two homosexuals. This is what gets me about the ELCA’s position on homosexual clergy. If an unmarried male clergyman lives with an unmarried female, he can be defrocked for immorality; however, if a male clergy lives with another male, that is perfectly acceptable. Welcome to the world of Bizarro!


14 posted on 12/26/2009 11:08:22 AM PST by Nosterrex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Steelfish

Unwed Opposite-sex partners kind of like a dog and a leg.


15 posted on 12/26/2009 11:19:59 AM PST by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Steelfish

The shack-ups are perfectly correct.

BTW: If two men or two women apply for benefits as a couple, does the government send someone to spy on them to make they’re having sex? That they live in the same domicile?

And what about Monosexuals? Is the government saying that sex with ANOTHER PERSON is somehow more WORTHY, more MORAL, of GREATER VALUE, than sex with oneself??? What about Separation of Church and State???


17 posted on 12/26/2009 1:38:18 PM PST by Arthur McGowan (In Edward Kennedy's America, federal funding of brothels is a right, not a privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson