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 If we are going to rid ourselves of the old, outdated and traditional “chains” of male/female marriage, we are going to have to throw it all out and start over!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.
9/02/2008
Danger! Blogging!
Just fer fun… read some movie “reviews” of Ben Stein’s movie “Expelled” but there’s a catch… as of now I have not seen a real review… nothing about was it clever?, funny?, poorly or well made… just the standard angry tirade and condescending putdowns against anyone questioning the “sacred” dogma of evolution… most have done EXACTLY what Ben Stein was illustrating! How’s that for irony? They are entitled to their prejudices and opinions… but I hoping for a review. Well I did see the word “loaded” at lot… and monkey, sucker, and the ultimate loaded word... Christian Conservative.
An Example: (from Roger Moore Orlando Sentinel)
“Shockingly, the ‘experts’ Stein hurls against evolution are disgruntled, under-credentialed academics dismissed from lesser colleges, they say because they say they wanted to teach creation rather than science. Other ‘experts’ in the film come from anti-evolution "think tank" cranks…”
Please Roger, open up... How do you really feel?
I guess “disgruntled” means not buying the evolution claptrap… or wanting to explore other options, to (try and) explain the incredible complexity of life. But anyone who questions the "faith" is automatically "disgruntled and under-credentialed"! That Darwinism is the cornerstone of modern atheism is not denied by anyone, especially atheists!
Which leads to this observation... Can atheists happy?... as they seem to be ALWAYS angry (at who?) and happiness and anger are exclusive of each other... (unless I guess, being angry makes you happy?)
When one rebels against G-d, all that is left is EGO... and ego has an insatiable appetite... must ALWAYS be fed, and is a fearsome merciless master! This is why most atheists deceive themselves into “presenting… as a superior intellect on every topic under the sun” and are soooo damn condesending... because that feeling of superiority is ALL they have! They are so pathetic!
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw one… “He who dies with the most toys wins” (wins what?) It should read “He who dies with the most toys… is still dead!”
RedNeckoBlogger
An Example: (from Roger Moore Orlando Sentinel)
“Shockingly, the ‘experts’ Stein hurls against evolution are disgruntled, under-credentialed academics dismissed from lesser colleges, they say because they say they wanted to teach creation rather than science. Other ‘experts’ in the film come from anti-evolution "think tank" cranks…”
Please Roger, open up... How do you really feel?
I guess “disgruntled” means not buying the evolution claptrap… or wanting to explore other options, to (try and) explain the incredible complexity of life. But anyone who questions the "faith" is automatically "disgruntled and under-credentialed"! That Darwinism is the cornerstone of modern atheism is not denied by anyone, especially atheists!
Which leads to this observation... Can atheists happy?... as they seem to be ALWAYS angry (at who?) and happiness and anger are exclusive of each other... (unless I guess, being angry makes you happy?)
When one rebels against G-d, all that is left is EGO... and ego has an insatiable appetite... must ALWAYS be fed, and is a fearsome merciless master! This is why most atheists deceive themselves into “presenting… as a superior intellect on every topic under the sun” and are soooo damn condesending... because that feeling of superiority is ALL they have! They are so pathetic!
Reminds me of a bumper sticker I saw one… “He who dies with the most toys wins” (wins what?) It should read “He who dies with the most toys… is still dead!”
RedNeckoBlogger
