The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Aren't those rights in general created for the couple as well? Not just for their children?

Why do couples without children have those rights? Why do couples who never intend to raise children have those rights?

It looks as if we might be slouching towards something like agreement. Would you be fine if government legalized all marriage contracts consenting grown-ups might sign, but eliminate all privileges of married people over singles?

If our disagreement was about the 'science' which the Family Research Counsel uses to 'back up' that homosexuality is destructive, I would stop disagreeing at this point. We agree it's mostly junk. But science isn't really what this is about. Values are. On the pro-gay-marriage side, people are taking a moral position on gay people's freedom of contract. On the anti-gay-marriage side, people are taking a moral position against homosexuality. And science is of extremely limited use for evaluating moral positions. To take the most drastic example I can think of, I know no scientific argument why it's wrong to rape babies for fun -- I just know that it is. This doesn't tell us that it is right, and I am wrong, only that science has little to say about morality. Indeed, if it somehow became the scientific consensus that it is indeed right, my reaction would be: "To hell with the scientific consensus". This is how the anti-gay activists in your Salon article are reacting to homosexuality. I disagree with their position, but their lack of scientific backup has nothing to do with my disagreement.

You had better check on these statements. In my 35 years of dealing with the VA on behalf of others and myself, a general power of attorney is only recognized when an individual is incapable of making his/her own decisions.

I agree with this. They are earned through military service which caused the disabilies.

Quote:

He/she must be a veteran and also be disabled as a result of service. The amount of the disability and the associated payment are determined by the government and can be changed at any time. These benefits are not transferable - vetrans cannot grant them to brothers, cosins, friends, or homosexual partners.

Changing the percentage of disability is not done easily. It takes a review by VA staff of all information regarding the veteran's disability. Surprisingly, medical and other experts not within the Veterans Administration are given more creedence than those within it. Perhaps this says something about the VA.

You obviously are unaware that spouses and dependents of totally disabled veterans are accorded the same benefits as the veteran. This is where you show your ignorance., meaning lack of knowledgeg and/or understanding of something. I did mention the word dependents in my previous post. Please read closer or quote me, to be absolutely sure of what was said. I'll be happy to refer you to any veteran service officer for the information on dependent benefits.

The reason these things were mentioned in my previous posting was to make sure you and others understand how our government discriminates against those of us that have same sex partners and what we lose as opposed to those that can legally marry under the present laws. The federal government does not recognise same sex marriages, eliminating people in same sex relationships or marriages from recieving these benefits.

Can you provide sources for this statement or is it your opinion? If opinion, please state it as such. In my opinion, This is a lot of hogwash and smokescreen. However, Since my discharge from service in 1970, I've worked and paid taxes for 29 years. During that time, I fathered and helped raise three children and now have grandchildren. Using the above criteria, I should be allowed to now marry the person of my choice: male, female or intersex (hermaphrodite, to those unfamilliar with the phrase), after all I've done these things and more.


My question to you is quite simple. Are you worried that by recognizing same sex marriages as legal, you or other business people will have to pay additional benefits that you don't have to pay now?

HARTFORD, Conn., April 13 -- Connecticut's House of Representatives passed legislation Wednesday that would make the state the second to establish civil unions for same-sex couples, and the first to do so without being directed by a court.

The state Senate overwhelmingly approved a civil-unions bill last week, and lawmakers said they expect to endorse the House version as early as next week. Gov. M. Jodi Rell (R) said Wednesday that she will sign it.

The House also passed an amendment -- favored by Rell and designed to make the bill more palatable to more conservative members -- that defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

"It's an unbelievable victory," said Rep. Michael P. Lawlor (D), one of the bill's main supporters. "The idea that both houses endorsed this concept of civil unions is an incredible step."

Connecticut's push toward civil unions cuts against a national backlash that has followed the legalization of such relationships in Vermont in 2000 and of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts last year. Unlike Connecticut, court rulings prompted the changes in those states.

There are documented facts surrounding the enactment of the Vetran;'s benefits legislation that make quite clear what was the intent of Congress. I decribed it accurately.

Quote:

The government's intentions are not in question. What is questioned are you misleading statements regarding who is or is not allowed to recieved benefits. For the third time, I will state that I had mentioned dependents, not "cosins" or the others. It's because the government does not recognise same sex marriages that my partner and others are denied these benefits. These same arguments were made for segration, keeping women from voting, killing Native Americans for their lands, child labor and a myriad of other "just" causes.

That the people of this copuntry and their government are able under the law to make distinctions among people is abundantly clear in the many laws that make such distinctions.

Quote:

I understand this and it has been made distinctly and abundantly clear by your previous postings. However, does does this make discrimination right?

With respect to your final question, the answer is yes.

Quote:

I appreciate the honesty. Bottom line is more important to some than treating all people equally? Well, each to their own.

You haven't responded to the other questions though, is there a reason?

Sam 1951- I don't think you read Posner correctly. He said: "we should expect opportunistic homosexuality tobe greater, all other things being equal, in an polygamous than in a monogamous society and to take the form primarily of pederasty, that is, a sexual relationship between a man and a boy.

I just read Posner. The guy sounds like what you sexually unaware people would call a pervert.

I know for a fact that there are legions of men, probably the vast majority if not all virtually all, that are into some kind of kink or another, what Posner calls perversion. Posner is definitely one of them.