TX Man: After 34 Years My Partner’s Sister Forced Us Apart, Took Our Home Because We

The moral failure is on your part. Bigotry is never the right path.

 

Bigotry does not apply to truth which stands on its own. The charge of bigotry is a false Alinski tactic designed to engender guilt where none exists.

 

Anyone else manage to find any ACTUAL VERIFICATION of the OP story...?

Other than the gayblog where it originated...LESS THE NAMES of the ACCUSED PARTY(s)?

 

nope yet the thread continues to remain in the Current Event section; curious that is eh?

 

Imagine my surprise to see you being wrong again.

In this country you DO have the right to be immoral. You don't have the right to be a criminal, but you DO have the right to be immoral.

 

I have never voted for Obama. You fail. Again.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you clearly hate America. You are openly against freedom, instead supporting tyranny under the guise of "societal moral standards". How psychotic.

 

why is this still in current events?

there is no legitimate source

no

who
what
where
when

the double standards of threads is getting out of hand

 

That is true. The problem comes when we cease recognizing how incideous it is.

 

You only say that because you believe Marxist progressive leftist propaganda.

 

why is this still in current events?

 

No, the problem comes when people claim they are for individual rights, but what they really mean is that they are for THEIR individual rights.

The reality is the people who offend you the most are the very people who's rights you should defend with the most vigor.

Take gay marriage for instance. A little common sense should tell you that if we allow the government to dictate in anyway which groups of consenting adults may marry that opens the door for them to later on down the road dictate that a group YOU support may not marry.

But no, the average American idiot isn't capable of looking at the picture , nor is he capable of not being selfish.

 

My wife and I still had to file some of those forms, and we had to file forms specific to married couples, so that the forms are different didn't deny this man and his partner to ability to protect themselves and their property which they should have done.

 

Thats the lie. Immoral behaviors and choices that are contrary to social order and benifit, Freedom and liberty is not a free for all, it is the exercise of a virtuous and responsable people. Not the lunatic lunatic fringe and their perverse and incideous "lifestyle".

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*) plain and simple. <<<Mod Edit: Personal Attack Removed>>>

If today we allow the government to dictate that gay marriage is not virtuous or responsible; then we have given them the power to tomorrow decide that marriage between persons born in different states or of differing religions is not virtuous or responsible.

NO WHERE in the COTUS is the federal government empowered to decide what is virtuous and what is not. In fact,, that is the very thing the founding fathers were running from when they left the old world for the new.

 

Am I the only one that finds it odd that those who feel an injustice occurred fail to realize its big government policies that created the injustice, yet think even more big government policies would actually 'fix' it?

 

what actually happened? All we have is a gay blog as a resource with very questionable details

I've reported the thread and let's see how long it remains in current events

it lacks who,what,where,when

 

Well its all there, its a whiny over-emotional over vocal minority, what they are doing is whining, where is never relevant when it comes to these things, come to think about it, neither is when... Nothing new here...

 

I am very smart, If we allow the evil of gay marriage to pollute our society then that is the last check on morality. We already murder our next generations and with MaO'Bama care we will allow our previous generation to perish because they are too expensive. We are talking about values, morals, and principles that are not mandated but a natural occurence among free men, your comments reveal a decided lack of knowledge about American history. Do you know nothing of the testimony before the congress in 1963 regarding a report on communist purpose (The Naked Communist) to destroy America, one of which was to promote homosexuality and other perversities as normal and acceptable and a whole host of other tactics which are well under way. <<<Mod Edit: Flamebait Removed>>>

 

We as a society don't "allow" government to do it we tell it to do it. We as a society have a vested interest in encouraging heterosexuality and heterosexual unions as it is of great benefit to our society to do so so we establish marriage to encourage, support and sanction heterosexual unions. We have no such interest nor is there a benefit to society to encourage people to engage in homosexuality nor to sponsor and sanction it. And people who engage in homosexuality have no right to demand we do so.

 

Two grown adults failed to take proper measures to protect their personal and legal interest.

 

we don't even know that.

All that's been provided is a slanted editorial from a gay blog.

 

Now this is true here. Even married couples are fools if they rely on marriage alone to provide should something befall one of them. They could have easily had both names on the house. Problem solved. Joint bank account. Problem solved.

Doesn't make sense.

But them being dumb doesn't change the fact that they should have been able to get married if they had wanted to.

Two different arguments.

 

we do not have any facts about these 2 "gentlemen" other than what the gay blog provides.

 

How childish to put gentlemen in quotes. LOL

However, what you say is true only IF you are willing to believe that the blog lied about the sister taking over the home. If the other man's name would have been on the deed, she couldn't have done that. The most she could have done was take over her brother's interest. She couldn't force the other interested party to move out.

The blog is most assuredly slanted, but I doubt it lied about such a basic fact.

 

I always put the term "gentlemen" or "ladies" in quotes when I question the truth of a claim because gentlemen do not lie or tell half truths

I also notice how you use the negative term of "sister taking over the home"

Do you even know if her name was on the deed or what the last will says?

Nope; we know absolutely nothing including if this really happened <<<Mod Edit: Off Topic Removed>>>