9/24/2008
Fun With Domestic Partners! (Or... "Gay" Marriage, let there be Chaos!)
The University of Florida at Gainesville recently generated some controversy when in order to receive benefits from a new health plan, employees have to pledge that they're having sex with their domestic partners before qualifying for benefits. This was apparently designed to keep mere roommates from applying. After the news was reported nationwide the school announced it will “modify” its affidavit requirements. Requiring a declaration of a sexual relationship IMHO, has civil liberty and legal complications by the bushel, if you're going the demolish the tradtional concept of marriage, why require sex? That's just another limitation, like the sex of the partners!
In our new open liberal "we accept everybody” society, please explain something to me... Why do you have to have sex to be married or Domestic Partners? Some married couples don't have sex, like the couple on TV the other night (the guy weighed 700lbs, but that's another blog) ...and if the sex (like "Gay" marriage) of the partners is no longer an issue, why should such a "relationship" be limited to two people? Since the male/female aspect is now irrelevant, isn't it unfair that these "unions" be limited to only two people? (are we being “twoist” …is it time to stamp out the prejudice of "duoism"!). If we are going to rid ourselves of the old, outdated and traditional “chains” of male/female marriage, we are going to have to throw it all out and start over! But start where? All bets are off as any attempt to limit the definition is arbitrary and begs a challenge. Think what this will do for the polygamists, “fundamentalist” Mormon sects in the west will demand recognition for sure. Could this soon dissolve into chaos?
I will sue so my 5-piece dance band or my 25 member fraternity can declare ourselves "domestic partners" (we love each other)...and gain all the benefits of (what was once) holy matrimony? We will demand that all of us be covered under ONE family health insurance program.
Also, what if my sister is a widow and I'm divorced (so there is NO sexual connection in our relationship), why should we be prevented from pooling our families and getting ALL the benefits of marriage, if we declare ourselves "Domestic Partners"? Think about Aunt Bea and Uncle Charlie, they were vital "domestic partners" to their households (I am assuming there was no sex). In the headlong rush to destroy our Judeo-Christian roots advocates of "Gay" marriage and the like are opening a MAJOR can of worms (No pun intended). They say "we just want to do what’s fair”, but notice when you try to please everybody, you usually just screw it up for everybody.
In our new open liberal "we accept everybody” society, please explain something to me... Why do you have to have sex to be married or Domestic Partners? Some married couples don't have sex, like the couple on TV the other night (the guy weighed 700lbs, but that's another blog) ...and if the sex (like "Gay" marriage) of the partners is no longer an issue, why should such a "relationship" be limited to two people? Since the male/female aspect is now irrelevant, isn't it unfair that these "unions" be limited to only two people? (are we being “twoist” …is it time to stamp out the prejudice of "duoism"!). If we are going to rid ourselves of the old, outdated and traditional “chains” of male/female marriage, we are going to have to throw it all out and start over! But start where? All bets are off as any attempt to limit the definition is arbitrary and begs a challenge. Think what this will do for the polygamists, “fundamentalist” Mormon sects in the west will demand recognition for sure. Could this soon dissolve into chaos?
I will sue so my 5-piece dance band or my 25 member fraternity can declare ourselves "domestic partners" (we love each other)...and gain all the benefits of (what was once) holy matrimony? We will demand that all of us be covered under ONE family health insurance program.
Also, what if my sister is a widow and I'm divorced (so there is NO sexual connection in our relationship), why should we be prevented from pooling our families and getting ALL the benefits of marriage, if we declare ourselves "Domestic Partners"? Think about Aunt Bea and Uncle Charlie, they were vital "domestic partners" to their households (I am assuming there was no sex). In the headlong rush to destroy our Judeo-Christian roots advocates of "Gay" marriage and the like are opening a MAJOR can of worms (No pun intended). They say "we just want to do what’s fair”, but notice when you try to please everybody, you usually just screw it up for everybody.
Comments:
<< Home
Gays and their allies need to decide wheather they want to actually help "domestic partners" gain benefits or just stick it in the Christian conservatives' eye.
I suspect the latter.
I suspect the latter.
# posted by 
: 9:24 AM
: 9:24 AM
I'm not an allie of homosexuals but i suspect that your crusade is mistaken care bear- in the end it doesn't matter what the state does or doesn't call marriage (or give tax benefits to) it is the identity of the Christian community that matters. It is a mistake to use the sword of the state to enforce Christian morals on the unbeliever and it often results in the corruption of the church as it is enlisted to support the violence of the state (for example, the war on Iraq).
" It is a mistake to use the sword of the state to enforce Christian morals on the unbeliever and it often results in the corruption of the church as it is enlisted to support the violence of the state (for example, the war on Iraq)."
Hmmmmm??? Mr. JC, what "morals" should be enforced by the state (and what should be the source of these morals?) If the church can be corrupted by a position on the war… can it also be corrupted by a position on “gay marriage” or any other issue (slavery, civil rights, etc).
Post a Comment
Hmmmmm??? Mr. JC, what "morals" should be enforced by the state (and what should be the source of these morals?) If the church can be corrupted by a position on the war… can it also be corrupted by a position on “gay marriage” or any other issue (slavery, civil rights, etc).
# posted by : 11:55 AM
: 11:55 AM << Home
