Gays more equal than straights

How does homosexuality affect straight people?  I suppose it all depends on who you ask.  If you ask a military member, the answer might be: significantly.  In the wake of the administration’s lift on the ban of openly gay and lesbian men and women serving in the military, the Department of Defense has seen fit to extend military benefits normally reserved for married couples to same-sex Domestic Partners.

Without being married, same-sex partners will be treated as though they are, so long as they pinky swear that they are gay and live together.  Straight cohabitants, however, are out of luck.  For non-married straight couples, they don’t qualify for the benefits unless they are officially married.

part 1

part 2

part 3

part 4

part 5

Don’t worry, if the Domestic Partners break up, they lose the benefits, until they start dating again.

See the full Department of Defense Memo HERE.

H/T: Vine of Life

Comments

  1. It has been that way from the beginning of their agenda. The very first more-than-equal right was the right to redefine what marriage is. No one else has that right.

  2. John,

    “For non-married straight couples, they don’t qualify for the benefits unless they are officially married.”

    When straigth couples are banned to marry tell me about inequality.
    Your comment is a misleading half truth.

  3. John,

    Can’t you read and understand?
    In some states gays cannot get married. That doesn’t apply to straight couples.

    Once again: when straigth couples are banned to marry tell me about inequality.

    • Everyone can get married in every state. Two men, in every state, can pledge their love to each other, pledge their commitment, they can do it in a church in front of family and friends, they can have a reception after too. What they don’t have is the governments blessing.

      You know who else can’t get married to each other? Mothers to their sons and fathers to their daughters. Nor can siblings. Should they be allowed to get marriage benefits in the military if they love each other and are cohabiting?

  4. John,

    “What they don’t have is the governments blessing.”

    Then it doesn’t count as officially married, which is the only sort of marriage which officially counts.

    “You know who else can’t get married to each other? Mothers to their sons and fathers to their daughters. Nor can siblings. Should they be allowed to get marriage benefits in the military if they love each other and are cohabiting?”

    Have you read the “Declaration of Domestic Partnetship”?
    “5. We are not related in a way that, if we were of opposite sexes, would prohibit legal marriage in the State in which we reside;”

    The ones you are talking about have direct kinship which excludes marriage.

    • And that those benefits not being extended to incestuous relationships is discrimination.

      The law is the law in this case. If same sex marriages aren’t legal, why treat them as though they are? If the law is that marriage benefits are reserved for legally married people, why bend the rules for one demographic and not everyone? Again, incestuous relationships should be eligible if this exception is being made because of legal exclusions.

  5. I don’t see how this is making same-sex couples “more equal”. I mean, heterosexual soldiers can pledge to be in a committed and loving relationship with a same sex person they cohabit with and get these same benefits, right? It isn’t really a double standard at all, since both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same ability to declare their commitment to a same sex roommate to get benefits.

    • I get the point you’re making george. However, it seems for this, you have to be in a sexual relationship. Perhaps I’m wrong and two straight men could room together and claim the benefit without having to be deceptive. If that’s the case, and they meet the criteria then so be it.

  6. John,

    The issue is not incest, but heterosexual and homosexuals equality. I despise incest disregarding it is an heterosexual or homosexual relationship.

    Marriage benefits are reserved for legal marriages, I agree. But similar benefits (and obligations) can be provided for another kind of similar relationships.

    • I’m not comparing homosexual relationships to incest except to show they are two kinds of sexual relationships which the federal government does not recognize officially by allowing their marriages. So Homosexual sexual partnerships are not recognized, and neither are incestuous ones. Why do homosexuals get the benefits and not incestuous couples?

      Also it must be kept in mind that not every homosexual couple even wants to get married. So what we have is a situation where a same-sex couple could receive marriage benefits without even wanting to be married, so the marriage restriction is moot. In this way, opposite sex couples are being short changed.

  7. John

    “Why do homosexuals get the benefits and not incestuous couples?”

    I talked about getting benefits, not about getting “the” benefits.
    And why heterosexual couples get benefits?

    “Also it must be kept in mind that not every homosexual couple even wants to get married. So what we have is a situation where a same-sex couple could receive marriage benefits without even wanting to be married, so the marriage restriction is moot. In this way, opposite sex couples are being short changed.”

    You didn’t mind to give the same benefits to an unmarried straight couple. It seems that inequalities regarding married/unmarried don’t bother you unless one of the groups is homosexual.

    Once again I ask you, have you read the “Declaration of Domestic Partnetship”?
    Which are the differences between the mutual obligations of civil marriage and the mutual obligations of a declaration of domestic partneship?

    • Actually, I don’t think unmarried couples of any sexual status should be given military benefits reserved for married couples. My point was that if the benefits would be given to non married heterosexuals as well, at least it’s not discriminating.

      Of course I read the declaration and it does nothing to change the validity of my point/complaint.

  8. There are no such things as “homosexuals” as if they have no choice in the matter. There are only people who behave homosexually. A relationship defined by two people of the same sex engaging in sexual behavior is not a valuable relationship for society to provide benefits to. Homosexuality turns men into effeminate wimps, spreads diseases, increases mental disorders and suicides. Homosexual behavior is a prison. It is not a valuable lifestyle.

  9. John,

    “Actually, I don’t think unmarried couples of any sexual status should be given military benefits reserved for married couples.”

    John, you still confuse domestic partnership benefits and marriage benefits.
    You said “so be it” for that sort of benefits (domestic partnership) when referring to straight couples which won’t be married.

    “My point was that if the benefits would be given to non married heterosexuals as well, at least it’s not discriminating.”

    You didn’t mind the benefits (domestic partnership) been given to non married straight couples.

    “Of course I read the declaration and it does nothing to change the validity of my point/complaint.”

    Yes, it changes it:

    1. Married people don’t have to sign that agreement, that’s because domestic partnership is implicit in a marriage.
    Following your sort of argumentation, that would be an unequal obligation in favour of heterosexuals.

    2. Relationship obligations in that agreement are similar to civil marriage obligations.You must point out the relevant difference with makes that agreement more advantageous that civil marriage one.

  10. DogTags,

    Science says homosexuals cannot help being homosexual anymore than you or I can help being straight. That’s what science says. Whether I agree with it or not is another matter. I’m not really sure. I know some homosexuals that were married, had kids, and then decided one day they were gay. Sounds strange.

    But I do know some homosexuals that seem to be very happy and satisfied. I’m not sure they would classify their homosexuality as a prison.

    • T

      actually science says we’re pretty sure it’s fully genetic but we don’t really know

    • John and Terrance, There is NO science which says it is genetic or that they can’t help themselves. They keep looking for a scientific reason, but it doesn’t exist, unless they can find defective genes which cause it, because it IS, after all, a defect from human design.

      People always have the ability to not have sex, by the way.

  11. Science does not confirm that homosexuality is a natural behavior. People may not be able to help what they are tempted with, but they certainly can control their behavior. God is sovereign. He calls homosexuality an abomination. It is an aberrant behavior that is destructive no matter how many people are happy in their prison.

Any Thoughts?

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: