Comment: She is very confused and confusing

(See in situ)

She is very confused and confusing

Marriage was established FOR CHILDREN TO BECOME RIGHTFUL HEIRS to property. Children born out of wedLOCK had NO LEGAL claims.

Secular laws moved to change marriage into a STAE SANCTIONED LEGAL CONTRACT between two people FOR THE HEIRS/CHILDREN outside of the Church to have the right to make claims on their birth parents property.

So the idea of marriage being of LOVE is, and was never, the intent of the contractual law, until lawyers saw the profit off failed contracts and divorse became a booming business because people forgot what marriage was all about in the first place.

Because so many people do not understand what the contractual laws of marriage were, FOR CHILDREN, it became a "licensed" union, in the name of LOVE, so why wouldn't homosexulas want this for SECULAR BENEFITS? Of course they would. That is only natural.

The speaker shows us how convelouted relationships can be, and while adults may lament about the cost of divorse, the people who are HURT the most are THE CHILDREN.. she says that her son CONSIDERS one man to be his father, despite whatever the child considers, it will be the CONTRACT.. the "licensed marriage" by the state, that will determine whom he is an heir. This does not mean one must marry.. but one MUST have a legal wills, signatures on documents showing who is the benficiary to the estate, back account, insurance policy, with a death certificate in hand. Still, because laws are becomming precident based, the beneficiary is becomming all the more the state and not the heirs. Fraud is rampent today as to fight the state over property is becomming unaffordable to heirs.

The homosexual case for marriage is ill conceived because it is destroying the rights of heirs and making it very easy for the state to make all the claims.