[PLUG-TALK] Freedom to Marry Week, continued

Michael Robinson plug_1 at robinson-west.com
Sat Feb 14 00:20:43 UTC 2009


On Fri, 2009-02-13 at 11:14 -0800, MJang wrote:
> Folks, 
> 
> Here's another story which illustrates why same-sex couples should be
> allowed to marry:
> 
> http://straighttalkonmarriage.blogspot.com/
> 
> ******
> "We are just like you and your spouse except for one thing. Richard and
> Jeffrey cannot marry. We are not entitled to bereavement leave from work
> if our partner dies. We are not entitled to draw the Social Security of
> the deceased partner, or to automatically inherit a shared home, assets,
> or personal items in the absence of a will. We are not covered by laws
> and policies that permit people to take medical leave to care for a sick
> spouse or for the kids. We are not considered next of kin for the
> purposes of hospital visitation and emergency medical decisions. We
> cannot file joint tax returns and are excluded from tax benefits and
> claims specific to marriage. In addition, we are denied the right to
> transfer property to one another and pool the family's resources without
> adverse tax consequences."
> ******
> 
> Marriage is important for people who are committed to each other.
> Denying that right is discrimination, pure and simple.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mike

Following your logic Mike, I should be able to marry: my dog, my cat, 
my horse, my brother, my sister, my etcetera.  Marriage is a more than 
a sign of being committed to someone's well being.  It's discriminatory 
to reduce the meaning of marriage for all the people who got into 
male female marriages in accord with both natural law and God's law 
to being merely a special form of friendship.  As far as all these
rights argument that some GLBT activists and you are screaming about,
civil unions are already available and their are wills as well
that can specify who can make major health decisions for you.  Why
should two men or two women be extended special benefits when they
cannot have children naturally on their own?  They are going to be
rich, not poor like the average family that will spend over a 
million dollars caring for a child.  As far as the property argument,
the desire to share property is a desperate attempt on the part of
many gays to stay together.  Join property ownership doesn't work
forever as glue.  This statement is blatantly abusing the meaning 
of the word family.  Family in this context merely means people
that care about each other who are not blood related.  Gays do
not have to care for children unless they adopt which they should
not be allowed to do IMO because it is not fair to children to
deprive them of a strong male and a strong female role model.




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list