The Conservative Case for Gay MarriageFollow

It absolutely is prevented when a same sex partner isn't allowed to see their partner in certain areas of a hospital or help make important decisions in their life because the law prohibits it. Love isn't just about some intangible feeling. It's about being with someone and caring for them and about them in times of need and not so much. The aforementioned prohibitions held against non-traditional "marriage"-based partnerships is a classic example of where your logic fails.

Despite being largely irrelevant, I know you'll just ***** about me not answering this anyway...

"Dramatically"? No. On average? Perhaps. But then the average benefit cost of a coupling that doesn't have children (born, adopted, cabbage patch'd, whatever) will be less as well. If a childless couple get hit by a truck, no one gets their Social Security and the gummint seizes a chunk of their property for shits and giggles. If a couple with a kid are hit, the kid gets both their SS payments and keeps the government from taking the good china.

So, really, the answer isn't anywhere near as simple as "It's worth it for this couple and not for that couple!" because you're comparing different costs, benefits, etc.

You mean like the Government allowing them to sign the marriage license?

It's almost as though you picked out one little passage and ignored all the other parts talking about how a $10,000 contract still didn't provide the same rights and benefits as a $40 marriage license.

I'm sure you wouldn't have done that intentionally. You must have gotten distracted early in.

The law does not prohibit it. More specifically, the state benefits do not have anything at all to do with this. The power to visit in a hospital and make decisions about your partner is not granted by the state. The state has no authority to give one person power to make decisions over another.

That power is granted by your partner. It's part of the civil contract of marriage, and any two people can gain it. As Joph pointed out, it's possible to create a contract that provides all of those benefits. I've been saying fo years now that what gay rights folks should have done was just hire some contract attorneys to write up a contract that includes all those things.


But they didn't. That's why gay couples can't easily be able to do this. It's not about the government prohibiting it. It's about them not knowing (as you don't) that those things are granted by contract between two people and any two people can enter into it.




Look. This is a BS argument. You think it's valid. You may even believe it is. However, a few threads on this subject ago, I proposed a "solution" to this issue in which the state laws were changed to include same sex couples qualifying for gay marriage, but at the same time the following things were restricted to only marriages consisting of one man and one woman:

Tax table filings
FHA loans programs for married couples
mandated inheritance of spouses social security benefits
mandated inheritance of spouses pension benefits
Military survivors benefits
pre-tax exemption for spouse on partners medical insurance



That's it. Nothing about visitation rights. Inheritance of property. Adoption and guardianship of children, etc. In other words every single thing that gay rights folks claim they want marriage for, they get, including the actual legal title of "married" from the state. The changes are made purely to other funded programs criteria.


This was soundly rejected. Can we stop pretending that this is "just" about the reasonable-sounding things you and everyone else spouts?

"Presumably"? Maybe you should just read the article instead of presuming.

Before my husband and I got married, we had our son. Two days later "the government" started trying to entice us into marriage with, um... benefits of some sort. Or maybe it was tax breaks. Who knows. They tried and tried and tried. Then they started pressuring us. I kept sitting down to breakfast and there was this marriage license on my plate.

Damn government and their ability to lure us into marriage!

If the above makes no sense, it's because I've been reading gbaji's reasons for hetero marriage.

Bard

Do you know WHY being gay (for men) leads to an increase in STDs? No, it isn't God punishing us. When society treats you like a second class citizen, the natural reaction is to hide that which makes you different. This created the more secretive side of the gay community. It is near impossible to be in a healthy relationship when you are in the closet. As such, relationships don't go well and promiscuity increases. If however, gays were not treated any differently than their straight peers, they would be more apt to develop healthy relationships and decrease the promiscuity that leads to STDs.


I do when the blood is already being tested prior to use, anyway.



Edited, Jan 18th 2010 5:04pm by Bardalicious

Edited, Jan 18th 2010 5:06pm by Bardalicious

I do get it. Do you?



Really? Name them.