In response to:

Scaring the Horses: Britain's Tories Back Unmarriage

NewAmericanCenturySucks Wrote: Apr 01, 2012 5:23 PM
We're talking about legal rights - as in, the right to visit a dying partner in hospital, or to employee benefits as a dependent. And - other than blind bigotry - what's the big argument against? "We understand that when everyone can marry, no one can marry. There is simply no marriage left." Here's a parallel statement: "We understand that when everyone can vote, no one can vote. There is simply no voting left." That an otherwise solid conservative political platform contains so rotten a plank is shameful.
Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Apr 01, 2012 8:40 PM
Red herrings.

If you want someone to visit you in the hospital you have the right to vest medical power of attorney in any person you choose.

As for employee benefits, tough. Homosexual perverts who want the privileges of marriage are 100% free to marry any consenting, adult, non-relative of the opposite sex who is not already married to someone else just as anyone else is. The fact that you do not want to exercise this right doesn't mean that you don't have it anymore than not owning a newspaper means you don't have the freedom of the press or not owning a firearm means that you don't have second amendment rights.
NewAmericanCenturySucks Wrote: Apr 01, 2012 9:22 PM
Granting power of attorney requires both time and attention. Many medical emergencies leave little room for one or both. This change in the law would improve visitation rights.

The rest of your reply is unbelievable. Do you also oppose wheelchair ramps, on the grounds that those "handicapped perverts" already have the same access to STAIRS as everybody else...?
pascagoulapappy Wrote: Apr 02, 2012 10:04 AM
Dear New Am Cen: Obviously paraplegics don't have access to stairs. Just as obviously, homosexuals have the same access to traditional marriage as heterosexuals.
Mark in CA Wrote: Apr 01, 2012 5:42 PM
I agree that argument is poorly phrased, NACS. It would be better to say that if everyone can marry then marriage as we know it loses its meaning. And that, I believe would adversely affect society. Indeed, if everyone was permitted by the state to vote, voting would lose its meaning.
John3138 Wrote: Apr 01, 2012 9:07 PM
You said, "Indeed, if everyone was permitted by the state to vote, voting would lose its meaning". How is that true? Is my vote only important because others can't vote? I don't think so. . .my vote is important because it helps decide elections. . .
overyonder Wrote: Apr 01, 2012 5:32 PM
Yeah if everyone can drive, no one can drive. Makes perfect sense.
Mark in CA Wrote: Apr 01, 2012 5:44 PM
If everyone were allowed to drive, driving would be much too dangerous and result in much injury to the state.
overyonder Wrote: Apr 01, 2012 5:48 PM

Editor's Note: This column was co-authored by Bob Morrison.

Britain’s Conservative Party, the Tories, lost an empire when America rebelled against their tyranny and foolishness. Edmund Burke said then: “Great empires and little minds go ill together.” Now, the Tories are preparing to lose Britain itself.

How so? The Tories are ending marriage. Of course, that’s not what they think they are doing. They think they are simply acknowledging that Sir Elton and his significant other are as “married” as any other British couple. It used to be said of the Britons with their stiff upper lips that they don’t care...