Replies

The same rights and liberties are available to everybody. The idea that married people get some sort of special break is not true. Nor is the idea that homosexuals, being unable (or unwilling) to marry a person of the opposite sex, somehow have some financial disadvantage. Rights of inheritance, the ability to visit somebody in the hospital, and familial relationships can be established without marriage by the use of legal methods already in existence, such as adult or virtual adoption, trusts, corporations, partnerships, etc.

That is what is in dispute, isn't it. They say they want the same liberties as everyone else. You say they want to destroy marriage as an institution. My understanding is that they do not believe that the legal options already in existence are fair. Trying to prove that their real agenda is to destroy the institution of marriage will take more than hatred - it will take real evidence.

There's plenty of evidence. The pro-gay contingent in ECUSA have published quite a lot of stuff. . . which I read when I was still an Episcopalian and trying to get a handle on exactly what their intentions were. They want to take over the church and silence all those who oppose their view of marriage as available to all. Like "open communion" destroys the meaning of the Eucharist, this destroys the meaning of what marriage is.

If you go and read the websites of the GLBTQ activists groups, it's all there. I don't spend my time there, have better things to do.

And WRT liberties and legal rights, it doesn't matter what they SAY they believe . . . they can say they believe anything. What matters is what is available to them as a matter of law. That's not arguable or a matter of personal opinion. The law varies somewhat from state to state, but it is clear that in this state you can set up whatever legal relationship you like between adults. My dad is a lawyer, and he helped the two ladies next door get their domestic situation regularized. It wasn't difficult. In fact, it's so easy to set up that the local activists clearly have something else in mind when they're claiming that they don't have the same rights and liberties as everybody else.