And So I Go: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

The Traditional Family vs Whatever. Is there room for compromise?

Posted on: January 10, 2010

• Oct. 7, 2007 – The Traditional Family vs Whatever. Is there room for compromise?

Posted in Commentary

Two of my favorite people (Joel and Potatostew ) are on opposite ends of a problem that we as a society will soon have to grapple with seriously. That is the issue of just what constitutes a marriage and who is eligible to form this special union. I am somewhere in the middle where human compassion for the individuals involved can be taken into consideration, but at the same time we as a society do not jump off into deep waters by opening up the issue of marriage as it has throughout history been known to any manner of interpretations.

I have for years believed and preached that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition and not a choice. I feel society should accept homosexuals and lesbian couples and give them all the rights to raise children and adopt children, as well as to work at any jobs they are qualified for. In fact, they should have all rights, but one. They should not be permitted to legally marry. The argument that being legally married would strengthen the relationship doesn’t stand water when you consider all the divorces that legally married couples end up getting. A piece of paper does not a relationship or commitment make.

But, this particular piece of paper extended to gay couples would open a Pandora’s box of social and legal problems. Marriage confers certain benefits to spouses that are not extended to other members of society. Just off the top of my head is Social Security and some other retirement benefits that were made law to protect the wife who in the traditional family did not work outside the home and earn these benefits herself. Now we open marriage up to anyone, and we will because once the door is open there will be no closing it again, then what about these earned benefits? It is already the law that they go to the partner in a marriage in case of the death of the other, or as in the case of Social Security while the husband is still alive the wife whether or not she ever worked would get a SS check that is a percentage of her husband’s. What is to keep any number of combinations of partners and any number of partners from “marrying” and therefore qualifying for these same benefits. Under a law allowing any kind of combinations of relationships besides the traditional man and woman (husband and wife) could have a man “marrying” his sister-in-law, his aunt, his next door neighbor as well as his wife and they would under the law ALL be eligible for an SS Check under his Social Security. I promise you this will happen because people are always looking for ways to beat the system and get something for nothing.

There is simply no end to the legal problems that allowing gay marriages would cause. On the other hand, a piece of paper does not promise commitment. A couple who are committed will stay together no matter what. Men and women have forever lived their lives and died together and raised families and had great grandchildren and never stood before a preacher or judge.

Now, what should and could be done: In the case Potaostew mentions where the woman wants her uncle to care for her children but the state of Utah law will not allow it because he is cohabiting with his gay partner then these stupid laws should be changed. Parents should be allowed to specify who cares for their children when they can not and unless these people are known to be criminals then the arrangement should be permitted. In any case, children should never be placed in foster care when an adult or adults are willing and able to care for them.

Another case is allowing gay couples to adopt children. This should be permitted. Being gay is not being a pedophile! In fact most pedophiles are married heterosexuals men. Hat there are homosexual pedophiles, yes, but be reasonable here and look at the individuals and don’t just out of hand accuse and accept as truth because it is rumored or even because there are “clubs” of homosexual pedophiles. Don’t bother to look now but there are also “clubs” of heterosexual pedophiles, “clubs” for entire family swap parties and any other perverted sick thing the humanoid animals mind can conceive.

The other case that is often reported and is wrong is when the gay couples can not visit each other in hospitals. Or when one partner in the relationship is denied the right to dispose of the body of the other partner and authority falls back to the blood relations. Gay couples, or any couples or individuals for that matter, should be afforded the right to designate who will be considered to have these privileges. I knew well two elderly ladies (not gay) who were badly hurt by this next of kin stuff. The one hadn’t seen or heard from her children for years, but when she was hospitalized her closest friend could not even visit her dying friend and had no say in what was done to her body after death although she was the one person who knew what her friend wanted done. It turns out that the children had her body cremated and this was the one thing all of us knew she was afraid of. She had been badly burned as a child and was afraid of fire. It made no matter that she was dead and the body just an empty husk; her wishes should have been honored. These things are wrong and can be worked out, but leave the marriage laws alone. Just don’t get into that Pandora’s box.

If we could all just exercise a little sanity and throw in a bit of humanity then surely all problems can be worked out. Why are sanity and humanity, especially humanity so hard to come by? BB


2 Responses to "The Traditional Family vs Whatever. Is there room for compromise?"

It should go without saying that a person should be allowed to marry whomever they choose. Until the right-wing, religious fanatics in this country stop trying to control everybody else and force their “morals” down the throat of the country, there can be no real freedom in the United States. Civil rights cannot simply be “voted away,” that is the purpose of the Bill of Rights. Religious activists should be left out of these decisions completely. I invite you to my web pages devoted to raising awareness on this puritan attack on our freedom:

So sorry but I believe I have made my stand clear and yopu have nothing to tell me since you are the fanatic not I. I have many gay and lesbian friends and among them are several couples. Everyone of them are disturbed by the fanatics in the gay community who are making an issue of the “traditional marriage” when there is a very good and even more air tight and legal option open to gays. That is the civil contract. Everyone of them feel that gays have come a long way in being accepted by the population at large and can only be harmed by the demands now being made by the fanatics. The actions of the few are damaging the peaceful coexistence achieve by the many. My friends and I are afraid of backlash. Changes are achieved by reasonable arguments and over time no thru militant jamming things down peoples throats. 30 states have now voted in laws against gay marriages, but have allowed civil union contracts. Perhaps you should study up on how to win friends and influence people. BB

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

See topic cloud at bottom of page for specific topics.

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 97 other followers

BB’s file cabinet

%d bloggers like this: