Answers to Homosexual Civil Marriage or Civil Unions

Friday, July 15, 2011

Allegedly, people of homosexual behavior are just as capable in forming partnerships which contribute to the local, State and Federal economies, as any other type of couple, and therefore should be recognized by the government as a unit cell of society.

1 comment:

Little manAugust 10, 2011 at 4:17 PM
Certainly, any friendship or cohabitation, constitutes a partnership which contributes to the economy. But the law cannot possibly base any distinction between partnerships on the basis of behavior which is protected by the Right of Privacy. Couples may "say" they prefer the homosexual lifestyle, but that cannot be verified. Aside from criminal acts, no one cares to regulate lifestyle, or curtail freedom of speech (or religion).

Blood-related couples can also contribute to the economy, specially if one person works. That is not to say that they can contribute to engendering children, as a couple. Though they can adopt children, it is not the same as engendering children.

At least one State categorizes the homosexual partnership under the State law called: Reciprocal Beneficiary Relationship, through which homosexual partnerships can achieve legal status, but time is needed for the law to develop fully. It is not going to develop into the expected legal privileges, if homosexual partnerships keep pushing for being included in civil marriage, as if they fit that category.

But partnership types that do not engender children, or should not engender children for genetic reasons (blood-related couples), are free from the expenses and sacrifice of engendering children. Therefore, they have an economic advantage over types of partnerships which do engender children. They can (and have) become politically powerful, and make civil demands against the will of the majority.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

INTRODUCTION:

We wouldn't know about "homosexuals", unless they told us about it.

Couples of homosexual behavior are two individual citizens who can enjoy their right to privacy in the USA. When they decide they have a right to civil marriage they might start the discussion by saying they are "different", but then demand to be treated "equally" and allowed to enter the State or Federal institution of marriage, though that was developed to support and control opposite-sex relationships, through a long history of Congressional consideration. They don't qualify, but believe it is possible to simply add themselves. They will say, it doesn't really affect anyone else.

But wait! What we see is not the singling out of homosexual relationships, but indeed all adult same-sex relationships added to the definition of marriage in some States, at the State level. From there, they now question why they are not given Federal recognition, and the old debate regarding the Constitutional powers to the State vs. Federal government rises up again.

Whether at the State level or at the Federal level, it is not logical to add them to the definition of marriage, for it invalidates that definition. It substitutes their viewpoint, leaving the idea of natural civil marriage obsolete.

People of homosexual behavior commonly make the word "homosexual" word, an adjective, into a noun, when actually the concept refers to a certain type of behavior, thus an adjective. Whether the behavior is deviant or not is a matter of morality, and the US Constitution and all State Constitutions allows for freedom of religion (or morality).

The people of homosexual behavior also tell us we are an "heterosexual", a noun. We are? Who invented this division? How can it be ascertained? Can people change over time in these two categories? Is it caused by trauma, rather than choice, or genetics?

These questions would be limited to psychological studies, were it not that they've become political. Now, couples of homosexual persuasion require us to believe them - that there's this alleged natural separation of people into heterosexual and homosexual, as nouns. But they don't tell you there are other ways of looking at the scientific data. We are actually all capable of homosexual behavior, because it is a behavior, and there are few rules against friendship.

That theoretical separation is a paradigm, and paradigms in society change with time. This paradigm will always try to become the rule; and in this case it attempts to become the rule of law. At the State level, it has gained ideological converts, as modest people are easily confused about something which cannot be a topic of open conversation at the dinner table, and because they are naturally compassionate, or permissive. But compassion and permissiveness should not override logic.

(Continued in the Footer:)