Gay Marriage

Gays Demand Too Much?

No Sex, No Allowance Joyce and Sibyl Burden have lived together for their entire lives — beat that. Joyce is 88 and Sibyl is 80. They are sisters, both spinsters, and have shared a three-bedroom home in Wiltshire for the past 40 years. India Knight (NOTE: Link defunct)

Last week ... they argued that they should be spared inheritance tax in the same way as married people or same-sex couples who formalise their union with a civil partnership.

They lost the argument.

... these two old ladies are being brutally and unfairly penalised because they don't have sex with each other. If they did, or claimed to, and they weren't related, there would be no problem. 

Yes indeed. Promoting the gay agenda is more important to many of these phony European judges than is decency, justice or fairness.

Gays Trump Siblings Two elderly spinster sisters face the agony of selling the home they have shared for 40 years when one of them dies after judges ruled they are not entitled to the same rights as gay and lesbian couples.

Are people going to have to prove that they engage in relatively uncommon types of sexuality in order to be treated decently by the tax system?

Surely, if it is supposed to be decent and fair to treat cohabiting couples in a certain way, then why should the mere lack of sexual activity between them have anything to do with it? - particularly at the age of the above two sisters.

And I also wonder how many people will pretend to be gay simply in order to reap the financial rewards.

Zillions, I imagine.

What a fabulous propaganda coup this will be for the gay lobby, eh?

Millions of people finally admit that they were gay

Headlines: "Millions of people finally admit that they were gay all along!"

"We demand proper recognition of our gayness!"

(And, of course, recognition of our right to a few extra tax allowances!)

Ah yes. Organisms.

They grow in the strangest and most imperceptible of ways. 

On Gay Marriage

And Other Gay Things

Well, for what it is worth, I do not really have an attitude problem with regard to gays - but I do have a problem with some aspects of the gay agenda. I will just give one example of this - the 'civil partnership' idea, wherein gay couples are seeking to have the law and the tax office treat them as 'normal' married couples.

And let me try to explain why I have a problem with this. 

It seems to me that if, for example, two gay people who happen to live together can avail themselves of various legal advantages (e.g. via the tax system etc) then why cannot two friends who are not gay have such advantages? This difference in treatment cannot be right - especially for old people.

 which will ... then lead to government snoopers checking out some very personal details

And, surely, the notion that the intimate sexual activities of couples should have any significant bearing on their legal status in this particular situation is ridiculous - and grossly unfair. Further, it will clearly lead in the future to people pretending to be gay simply in order to recoup the rewards - which will, of course, then lead to government snoopers checking out some very personal details.

And then there is the issue of single people - and people who simply live alone. Surely, life for them is much tougher. For example, it is much more expensive to live alone than to share living expenses with a partner. As such, why should single people not also receive the various privileges that gay couples seek for themselves? Single people are surely more in need of these privileges than are couples?

And, once again, this is especially true for old people.

And I simply cannot believe that the vast majority of people are going to sit back and continue to accept that heterosexuals who live together and, thence, those who are single, should be disadvantaged compared to gay couples.

 it is part and parcel of the treacherous pathway designed to break down traditional families.

Furthermore, the special status and privileges that were traditionally accorded to heterosexual couples who were married were designed to help them with the maintenance of family bonds (inheritance laws etc) and with the extra financial burdens incurred when bringing up children. And the introduction of 'marriage' for gay couples is, clearly, just one more step in the direction of destroying this particularly special situation - i.e. it is part and parcel of the treacherous pathway designed to break down traditional families.

And if, eventually, as a result of political pressure - which I am sure will come - we all end up being entitled to receive various special privileges for our situations vis-a-vis our partners - or lack thereof - then there is no real advantage to be gained for anyone - except, of course, for the government - which gets to exert even finer control over people's intimate relationships - e.g. through the tax system.

In other words, 'gay marriage' is a step in the wrong direction on many fronts. And it can only lead to increasing resentment - much of which will be justified, in my view. 

And this is bound to be especially true from the point of view of many men who are MRAs - for obvious reasons; the most important of which, I suppose, is the breaking down of traditional families and, hence, the breaking down of men's positions and, hence, their security within those families.

 'gay marriage' is yet another blow to what many heterosexual men hold close to their hearts.

In other words, 'gay marriage' is yet another blow to what many heterosexual men hold close to their hearts. And it is gays - rather than feminists - who are delivering this extra blow.

And, of course, as we move forward toward the situation wherein special status is given to all couples - which I am sure will happen eventually, unless we go back to supporting traditional marriage alone - then this will be yet another area wherein women - who live longer than men - will manage to suck yet more significant resources away from men simply by living together in their old age. 

And we can't have that!

They are already taking far too big a portion of the pie!

But I think that the most important point to understand about the legal recognition of gay marriage is that it is bound to lead to heterosexuals and single people wanting the same benefits

 antagonism towards gays will surely rise..

If they do not get these benefits, then antagonism towards gays will surely rise.

If they do get these benefits, then no-one really benefits - except, of course, the state - which also gets all the numerous benefits that accrue to it from breaking down traditional marriages.

..........................

Why Are Gays Gay?

Anyway. I'm in such a good mood at the moment that I think that I shall comment most gay-like over the following piece.

...

Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired Homosexual behavior appears to result from a complex, dynamic interaction of many contributing factors including environment, free will , and possibly, biology.

I believe that the first two factors are the chief contributing factors to homosexuality.

...

Homosexuality is mostly a choice.

So, there you have it. Homosexuality is mostly a choice.

Only some 20% is down to genes, it is often said.

But is this conclusion reasonable, given the data upon which it is based?

No. It is not.

After all, a growing boy has no say when it comes to choosing his parents or his brothers and sisters, nor the personalities that beset them. He has no choice with regard to where he lives or to the era in which he lives. He has no choice when it comes to the teachers and the adults who will guide him through to adulthood. He has no choice over the neighbourhood in which he lives, or with regard to his neighbours. He has no choice when it comes to the politics that reigns throughout his childhood, over the material that he is given to learn at school, over the TV programmes that are shunted out at him, over the culture in which he has been embedded. He has no choice when it comes to the classmates and the children who surround him. He has no choice over his particular brain chemistry, his anatomy, his physiology, much of his personality, the way his face is shaped and the way that his body is formed. 

Indeed, he has no real choice over most of the psychological forces and the daily experiences that will operate on him throughout his growing years.

And, of course, one thing tends to lead to another, and to another, and to another, eventually leading to things that are way out of sight. In other words, the destinations of these long infinitely complicated pathways in life are too difficult for adults to figure out.

For boys, it is impossible.

But because twin studies suggest that homosexuality is some 20% determined by genes, many people who should know better state, or imply, that the other 80% must be down to choice.

But this is hokum!

The 'trick' is to hide - by omission - the fact that growing boys not only do not choose their genes (the 20%), they also, clearly, do not choose the environments in which they are brought up! (the 80%)

In other words, their 'choices' are very limited indeed. Almost zero, for much of the time.

Good trick, eh?

And so for my less able readers - of which there are many! - I summarise my most magnificent conclusion. And it is this.

Some gay men had no choice over the matter. Their brains got wired up by forces over which they had virtually no control.

Some gay men had more of a choice.

And one fairly good way of ascertaining roughly the proportions of men who likely fall into each category is to ... um ... is to ... um ... is to ask them!

In a nutshell: Twin studies are fairly good methods for working out the weights of the environmental and genetic factors that lead to various traits and characteristics, but it makes no sense at all to assume that the environmental contribution must be a measure of the amount of 'choice' that was available when this environmental contribution was being made.

Duh!