We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
If you think the transgendered are normal and gays want to get married, you’re not going outside. Marriage has a lot of benefits for gays like getting your spouse’s health care and pension, but it also comes with a lot of work. “For better or for worse” means you can have some bad months, even bad years. Fortunately, you make it through those times because you want to be there for your children. Take kids out of the equation and add in people you want to fuck and monogamy is just not possible. Most gays concede this and have come up with new terms like “monogamish.” In other words, they’re redefining marriage. Unlike the pundits on TV such as Jon Stewart, I actually know gays. There are so many homos at my place upstate we call it a GAYted community. I’m also married to a fag hag so they regularly fill up my apartment in the city, too. They don’t want to get married. They want to party. The only ones screaming about equality are a handful of annoying nerds nobody gives a shit about (look at the guy who got Brendan Eich fired). Real homos aren’t tweeting about social justice. They’re in Paris, fornicating. LGBT isn’t an alliance. It’s a hodgepodge of outcasts who have absolutely nothing in common with one another. LG needs to cut BT loose. B is lying and T’s insane.
well said. There are a lot of heteros who see marriage purely as a business transaction, a way to get tax benefits and when things change, one or the other gets a job somewhere else and needs to move or have a long commute, they get a divorce and find some other partners to live with.
And many homosexuals are indeed just as monogamous as "properly married people".
IMO if the government is getting involved in giving financial benefits to people who decide to live together, they should not distinguish based on sex, race, or any other dynamic in the group (including the number of members), call it marriage if you want.
If however the government wants to (as they claim historically) for those benefits to be for the purpose of raising children, they should limit them to those groups that live together while actually raising children. Child is grown up and leaves home, benefits stop. Again, this should be irrespective of the people raising that child...