Ah, yes. . . re: politically correct people, governments: no hope. Those whom the gods would destoy, they first make mad. Charles+

What dear, sweet looking ladies.

If I were wealthy, I’d pay the stinking tax for them. I hope some magnanimous individual will do so.

The high court judge Justice Michael Kirby has been jumping up and down for months about the injustice he feels in relation to his homosexual relationship not being recognised for retirement and superannuation benefits. John Stanhope the Labor party cheif minister of the Australian Capitol Territory has repeatedly advanced the program of civil union of homosexual couples in that state, and recently Mr McClellan the Attorney General of the Federal Labor Government has said that the government wishes to remove the “discriminatory” laws of our country and this has led to the Rudd Labor government complying with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Tribunal recommendations that about 100 pieces of legislataion “discriminating” against homosexual couples should be altered. No wonder that Cardinal George Pell last sunday preached in Sydney on sexual morality, and spoke again during the week against the introduction of a “Bill of rights” which would give social legislative authority to the judiciary, who answer to nobody. Even John Stanhope eventually will have to answer to the electorate.

What country does the story about the two sisters come from?

This is really another sad and repulsive case of social engineering.
It’s just a way of making all relationships the “same” so we can all just ignore natural blood ties and be wards of the state.

This is how legislation is being organized in this world. Against the family values. If these two sister´s speak to loud they will be characterized as insane and will have an Euthanasia committee on them.

When Europe will turn upside down it will be to late.

This is one law too many. Such laws should have been extinct by now. It is another evidence of the fact that humans more often than not, tend to allow financial considerations to take precedence over justice and proper human considerations.

The aim of these laws was never to help real domestic partners. It was, rather, to use the powers of the state to erase any public recognition of the natural differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

Next time Americans hear about a gay couple whose lives would be easier with the right sort of legislation, they should ask themselves: is that gay couple more deserving of accommodation than people like Joyce and Sybil Burden? If the aim of the proposed legislation is not to change society but to make life easier for people who have made a home together for decades, it should not apply exclusively to homosexual couples. If, on the other hand, its only beneficiaries are homosexual couples, perhaps the aim is social change after all.

Well, of course it would make sense to have a separate legal title for those that have raised families, but are not legal parents in love; Such things happen all the time.
But I wouldn’t argue that those kind sisters should be given a status completely equivalent to that of marriage. And as such, I wouldn’t argue that they should be equal to ‘civil unions’, either.

Additionally, your arrogance is only made more obvious by your feigned ‘clarification’.

“No, this isn’t a diatribe against homosexual or lesbian liaisons.” (That’s cute, ‘liasons’.)
And, in the very same paragraph…
“Let’s have no special status for those proclaiming that they have a “same sex union””

“Equal rights are not special rights unless you’re the one who doesn’t have them.”
- John S. Dixon

According to wordnet.princeton.edu…
Special - “particular(a): unique or specific to a person or thing or category”
Right - “an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature”

-Heterosexuals- are the ones with special rights. They can marry; we can not. They have rights that we do -not- have, and therefore they are ‘special’ in the eyes of the law.

Nevertheless.
Although the sisters’ situation described above is lamentable, homosexuals did not make this law; heterosexuals did. So perhaps they could also make reforms in said law without whining about how unfair the homosexuals are being for wanting -equality-.

I think that’s about it.

Inheritance taxes are intrinsically unjust. They originate in the Marxist desire to destroy inherited “wealth,” but in real life, they put calamitous burdens on ordinary people. Why on earth should ANYBODY have to pay a 40% tax on the family home? Then the poor souls have to look for some legal loophole that would enable simple justice to be done. Perhaps someone should consider that the mere ownership of property is NOT immoral and that laws should reflect our natural human rights of property.

Re: Rea Koskue’s post. Since when is “homosexual” a legitimate classification of members of the human species?
Or even “heterosexual”? These are merely social,political and faux scientific classifications.
I have asked many times on the web, in newspapers and of course face to face; where’s the proof otherwise?!?
There’s male and female. Physiologically it’s OBVIOUS how things are meant to be. One need not bring religious or spiritual arguments into the debate.
Should we have legal and social recognition for any and perhaps all sexual proclivities? Why not pedophilia? Why not abolish the age of consent? Children have rights? They are sexual beings, aren’t they? Aren’t sado-masochists and latex fetishists as good as “gay” people? Oh, and hey let’s not forget incestuous relationships? After all, it’s all about love, right?
I would continue wth this post, but I have to go throw up..

Hey Darren,

Perhaps after you’re done throwing up, you can follow the link my name points to; a series of essays explaining why each of the points you brought up is invalid.

But because you probably won’t, and I feel obligated to respond ...

“Aren’t sado-masochists and latex fetishists as good as “gay” people?”

No. Sadomasochists inflict pain on others and enjoy it being inflicted upon themselves; by arguing with me, you appear to be exhibiting similar behavior.
The typical homosexual is neither a sexual deviant nor a fetishist, just as the average heterosexual is not.

“Why not abolish the age of consent?”

Rhetorical questions are always adorable.
Well, in case this is a -serious- question, that’s a bad idea because it would result in the manipulation of children for sexual purposes; something that is obviously immoral.
This has nothing to do with homosexuality, because homosexuals do not typically coerce others to have sex with them in any devious way; they flirt and date just as anyone would.
If you think they live a life of promiscuity and broken hearts, you’ve been mislead by media misrepresentations. “Will and Grace” represents my life about as much as “Friends” represents yours.

I have but one suggestion: get some homosexual friends. If you’re friends with more than twenty people, you may have one already.
If you learn to love the ‘sinner’, you’ll learn that the ‘sin’ does not exist.

Sincerely,
Rea

Hey Rea, You haven’t said anything I haven’t heard before.
Typically you have either missed my main point or deliberately ignored it. PROVE that homosexual relations are a normal, biological, inborn characteristic!!
As for that bit about manipulation of children for sexual purposes, I’ll tell you this; the teaching about and promotion of homosexuality in schools is STATE SPONSORED CHILD ABUSE! iT’S A SHAME AND A DISGRACE. In religious parlance it is a SIN!Within a generation you will have some very confused young people. If “gays” want to flirt and date,FINE, but why the demand for acceptance and approval for what is OBVIOUSLY a misuse of body parts?Homosexual acts by thier very nature are “deviant”.If that,s what you like, fine, but again why the demand for recognition of a false identity? And again where is the proof that it is a true identity?
Why support “gays”, but criticize sado-masochists? Hey, it’s all about sexual freedom, right? It’s private, keep it that way.Ah, but what about “heterosexuals”? Hey, I know, we’ll just pretend the stork delivers babies!
You said “If you learn to love the `sinner`, you’ll learn
the `sin` does not exsist.” WOW! I suppose if the Jews loved the nazis who shoved them in to ovens the Holocaust wouldn’t have existed. OY vey!
Sincerely,
Darren

Mr Darren Hall might find the following story helpful.

I recall telling a Catholic/Irish lady that I have a lot to think about than bother my head about the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality. I don’t care, I am hetero and that’s all that matters to me.
The lady had shocked me in a way that only a religionist could. She asked, What if I am violated by a gay man, will I still feel the same about homosexuality?
Talk about religious shock-tactic. I replied her though: such an act will not make homosexuality wrong, anyhow. Homosexuals don’t go around raping - even far less so than heterosexuals. Remembering what a logician might call ‘defeasible reasoning,’I told her that what she was implying was that heterosexual rape is right because in involves a man and a woman. 
She was stumped.

Mr.Adebowale Oriku might find the following phrase helpful.
“Red Herring”

My ultimate point in any of these such discussions is that
homo and yes, hetero sexual are not natural identities of humans. There is male and there is female; they mate and the species continues.