the government comes to the bedroom
By Diogenes (articles ) | Jan 24, 2006
Who could have predicted that when the liberals' nightmare came true, and government agents began spying on the bedroom activities of private citizens, it would be to enforce a pro-homosexual policy?
The enlightened domestic-partnership policy at the University of Florida presents poor Uncle Di with another instance in which the reality defies efforts at parody.
But ask yourself this hypothetical question: Suppose there are two apartments, each occupied by a couple of young men. In one apartment, the men share living quarters because together they can afford a nicer apartment and a big-screen TV on which to watch football games. In one apartment, the men share living quarters because together they can perform unnatural sex acts. On what basis should society give special benefits to one couple and not the other?
That question has been asked and answered before.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Sir William -
Jan. 25, 2006 10:58 AM ET USA
Its about time we end this nonesense and go back to using our own cash to pay for our own care. Costs would go down on their own rapidly and this foolishiness would stop - health care would be affordable for nearly everyone again. The only 'insurance' we would need would be for surgery & catestrophic happenings - which was the original intent of it (back when births cost $250). The rising costs are killing us all, in more ways than one. Think "euthanasia".
Posted by: -
Jan. 24, 2006 9:51 PM ET USA
All benefits given to spouses and domestic partners must be given to all chaste housemates — e.g., nuns in a convent, parents living with adult children, etc. Government-bestowed benefits ("domestic partnership", "civil union") should be an entitlement for all adult human members of a household & shouldn't imply a sexual relationship. Marriage should be an exclusively religious concept. France, Brazil & other countries separate religious marriage from civil marriage. So should every country.
Posted by: Gil125 -
Jan. 24, 2006 4:46 PM ET USA
In San Francisco, it's no problem. The ordinance says city contractors have to provide benefits to domestic partners. Abp. Levada said, fine. Catholic Charities will provide benefits to anybody who lives with an employee for whatever reason---presumably including sharing the 42" plasma TV and popcorn-making microwave. Certainly he would not presume to inquire as to what orifices his employees employ for what purposes.
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Jan. 24, 2006 1:53 PM ET USA
Trimalchio, You are a good egg. Sincerely, Fitzgerald
Posted by: patriot6908 -
Jan. 24, 2006 10:39 AM ET USA
Hey, let's hear it for the University of Florida as it nudges us even closer to Satyricon and to the vanishing of all moral social standards. Then let's hear it for the new standards waiting and wanting in the wings, namely the law of Sharia. Not many years ago, I heard a homily where the priest stated that the United States would vanish one day. Little did I realize his astute prescience. Goodby Bishop Robinson, Hello Imam Mohammed!