[eastsider]

Perhaps I simply don't understand the purpose, other than mutual self-gratification, served by same-sex "unions," but I don't understand why same-sex "couples" can't simply use existing laws, such as wills, powers of attorney, etc., to provide for each other.

[Celtjew Libertarian]

They can, but it has to be done piecemeal. Marriage/Civil union is the package deal. Individual items are probably also easier to challenge in court.

[longtermmemmory]

I don't understand why same-sex "couples" can't simply use existing laws, such as wills, powers of attorney, etc., to provide for each other.

_ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _ _


Because the homosexual movement is not interested in providing for each other, the homosexual movement is interested in normalizing same sex sex. They are interested only in normalizing their ability to pursure and recrute new members in their fetish. Its a lifestyle of selfgratification. Enforceable cohabitation contracts would be valid in all states. Vermonts domestic partner "thing" is enforcable in none (recognition was struck down in NJ, CT, and GA)

Homosexuality is not an immutable trait. It can be and has been changed in individuals. While there are arguments, there is no proof in humans. The issue of sexual behavior neutral alternatives to "couples" needs to be adressed and publicised. It exposes the hipocracy and real agenda of the homo-agenda.