Grimloc said:
Good point. I suppose what they want is marriage, exactly as it is for heterosexuals with all the legal, financial and family perks and recognition, with the singular exception that it is homosexual. They don't want it called something else, and they very much don't want a different legal standing than heterosexual married couples. They want the same marriage. Several states have allowed them to marry, but the federal government wants to put an end to that. Can the federal government "unmarry" couples? I guess we'll see what happens.
The Fed has nullified other legal arrangements in the past with a wave of the legal wand, but I doubt it will. The course of our history is inevitably drawn straight through and out the other side of this issue, and it's not going away until a lot of self-righteous people get their way.
But it doesn't make sense. Consider: What does the Federal Government of the United States
get out of a homosexual marriage? The Fed
specifically wants men and women to get married, so they can have successful children (various studies have shown that children born to stable heterosexual marriages are better adjusted blah blah than kids of any other sort of family - of course that doesn't mean kids from single-parent families, or adopted children of any nature can't be successful, but we're going for what's
best, not what's good enough,) and build stable families, and hold jobs, and own homes etc. All of these things not only contribute to, and strengthen each other, they essentially constitute a standard of living, and one which isn't too bad, and they perpetuate as well, leading to newer generations who seek and achieve the same successes.
Our government is not legally obligated to support and endorse every conceivable lifestyle. It's not required to support and endorse
any, but it does so for those it sees as benefiting it somehow. The fact that the Fed sees no benefit in a gay marriage, and therefore does not legally sanction it, is seen by ideologues as being a punitive measure against homosexuals, and that's how it's styled by them.
And that should illustrate the key problem here: It isn't about marriage - it's about legitimacy. The homosexual "community" wants its lifestyle to be legally recognized as equivalent to the default norm. Well no, sorry but I
don't think it's equivalent, I don't think it's interchangeable, and I don't think the governments I fund with my own money should be endorsing it.
Clearly, nobody's rights should be curtailed or suspended based on their sexuality, but let's face it, folks: with respect to marriage, theirs aren't. They can get married any time they want, and live happily ever after. People got married before the United States existed, before the US Federal Government decided to sweeten the deal. I can't fathom why a homosexual man or woman should feel entitled to receive the same bonuses which are awarded to me
specifically because I'm a heterosexual.
I'd rather they take the whole thing away - at least that still makes some measure of sense.
But I'm really just raging against an incoming tide. People want this, because they don't understand it, and they're going to get it, and they're going to continue getting whatever they want until we've piled on enough bullshit that it all comes toppling down around us.
And then I'm going to start shooting people.