Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Obama to Order Gay Benefits

Should happen today.

President Barack Obama, whose gay and lesbian supporters have grown frustrated with his slow movement on their priorities, is extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, a White House official said

Lotsa political debts that the taxpayer has to pay.

It's the wrong thing to do, of course.


RAG said...

This is an interesting political issue as it's said that 30% of the gay vote is Republican.

J. Strupp said...

"It's the wrong thing to do, of course."

Yeah 'cause those gay people don't need no benefits.


Not after the, "party of the middle-aged white guy", finds a way to alienate that 30% by making comments like this. You can kiss those folks goodbye.

Neo-Con Tastic said...

Two points:

1) Obama signing this executive order is against the Constitution. He can't spend tax dollars without the legislature passing a law. Of course, the One doesn't need the Constitution.

2) This is only opening the door for corruption. Me and my roomie can now "become partners" and he can ride off my great federal bennies. Great plan.

J. Strupp said...

Don't forget your cat, neo-tastic! This opens the door for you and your roomie "Garfield" to become partners so he can collect on the government dime too. This is where it all starts, you give bennies to those gays and the next thing you know people will be marrying their pets and farm animals.

Dad29 said...

For the record, Struppster:

HETEROsexual marriage is in the interests of the State for procreation and raising children. HOMOsex 'unions' are NOT in the interests of the State--they are only in the interests of the homosex couple.

That does not justify tax-paid 'benefits.'

There are some things over which the "30% of gays" will simply be unhappy.

And there are some things over which Conservatives are unhappy, too.

J. Strupp said...

That would make sense if our country somehow had a healthy, stable household for every child.
We most certainly do not.

I can assure you that it's "in the interest of the state" to place orphans (abandoned, abused or whatever) into a loving family, in order to make sure that child becomes a productive member of society.

Your argument has merit only if you feel that homosexual households are less of a stable environment than the alternative (orphans supervised by the state).

While the procreation argument makes sense on paper, it assumes that the state's only interest is producing children and not finding families for the ones who are already with us.

Dad29 said...

Your argument does not hold.

While I (like Miss California) don't have any ill-will or animosity toward homosexuals, NOR do I presume malice or evil...

The fact remains that you advocate an un-natural household arrangement as "preferable" to orphanages or the current foster-system.

That doesn't add, Struppster. I am no fan of the foster system (joining capper in that general un-ease.) But you haven't made a case that a gay "arrangement" is superior. It is un-tried, by and large.

Try again.

RAG said...

I agree with Dad29 on this.

I, too, bear no ill will toward gays. The societal benefits of heterosexual marriage, however, have withstood the test of time and are indisputable. The societal benefits of gay unions, if any, are not of the same ilk.

J. Strupp said...


To start, thanks for the disclaimers.

The problem here is that you both consider heterosexual relationships as "natural" and therefore consider everything outside of this "natural" state to be ill-equipped and unproven when it comes to raising a child. The problem is, "natural" relationships do not hold a monopoly on love, support, companionship, discipline, etc......all necessities in raising a child in a healthy, loving household. These traits have nothing to do with whether a relationship is natural or unnatural (your words) and have everything to do with the character of the individual/couple regardless of sexual orientation. To say that homosexual relationships have not been "proven" effective is assuming that "unnatural" relationships are somehow unable to provide the necessary foundation of a healthy, loving household.

Finally, Dad-ster, for a libertarian such as yourself, I find it odd that you would rather have a kid raised as a ward of the state, rather than let good Americans attempt to carry that burden.

Dad29 said...

For openers, I am NOT a libertarian. Civil liberties are one thing; libertarianism is another entirely.

You set up a straw dog in your example by telling us what we know: that some homes are really lousy environments. We know that.

But using "some are bad" to justify something which does not now, nor ever HAS existed as 'marriage' throughout recorded history in every culture is simply wrong.

The nature of homo sapiens is readily observable; it is a nature which is evidently ordained to heterosexual marriage. There are no substitutes. When there are abusive situations, they occur FAR MORE OFTEN in 'irregular' households--where the natural father or natural mother is not present.

Foster care and orphanages are societal constructs which (ironically) prove the point that healthy children are in the interests of the State. We know that children cannot be begotten other than in male/female relationships (and no, I do not condone artificial child-manufacturing, either.)