Obama now President of USA.

[Baba O'Riley]

There are also people protesting the protestors. Metaprotests.

I would really love to see someone protesting the protesting of protesters, and then a fourth group protesting against protesting in general.

Well, in the article, they mention a woman protesting that Christ wants the gays to marry, so as it is, we're inching towards that.

[Dash]

Hey Dash, you did'nt answer my question either. Not like it's any of by business, but im still just too gosh darn curious not to ask again. So?

Whoawhoawhoawhoawhoawhoawhoa. Whoa. Let's not make these kind of mistakes Doc.


On topic, this Prop 8 stuff is bull. People are wired however they're wired and I don't see anything wrong with that. Let 'em be hitched if they want to be. Marriage has a lot to do with security, and lord knows that in light of all the anxiety gay people face otherwise, they could use some.

I have a friend who just told me about her girl character who was raised in an Amazon-like lesbian tribe and her deep, dark secret is that she loves men. I've always thought it interesting to hypothesize if the situation was reversed and most people were/society expected you to be gay, with man/woman union just being for biological purposes. It'd really suck to be scrutinized for my sexual preference, a base instinct I can't suppress. So with that in mind, I try not to judge. Treat people how you'd like to be treated and all that. Sure, I'll admit to giving a puzzled look to the guy who just grabbed his boyfriend's ass on the bus, but I don't feel great when a heterosexual couple are on their seat groping each other either.

[Radrappy]

I have a friend who just told me about her girl character who was raised in an Amazon-like lesbian tribe

Wait what? Like from her novella or something? This is starting to get weird guys.

[Dr. Watson]

Whoawhoawhoawhoawhoawhoawhoa. Whoa. Let's not make these kind of mistakes Doc.

Oh. Well, i dont hold a degree in writing-the-right-names-on-message-boards-ology you know, so cut me some slack.

[Dash]

I don't either, as I fully expected The Doc to come in and make fun of me for doing the same-ish thing. It was meant to have a bit of a joking tone. Sorry about that. I probably wouldn't have even cared enough to do that if Dasher wasn't so... y'know, himself.

And yeah, it's a character for a story she's working on. Just thought it'd be an fair example(though fictional) of reversing the situation... or something. It probably just made it confusing. Yup.

*moseys along*

[Crazy Penguin]

Whilst research into what extent sexuality is biologically determined is fascinating, it's ultimately irrelevant to the issue gay and bisexual rights. "They were just born that way" shouldn't be the core justifier of the cause. Too often this line of thought, intentionally or not, carries the undertone that if homosexuality were a choice then it would be the wrong choice. It shouldn't matter whether someone was born gay, what should matter is that there's nothing wrong with being gay, that there's no rational argument to support the government granting homosexuals fewer rights than heterosexuals.

The only arguments made against homosexual rights are based upon (a) superstition, (b) tradition or (c) it being gross/"not normal". Human rights laws should not be determined upon the basis of superstition, tradition or normality.

How can a society in which sending people to walk on the moon is viewed as old hat still be so fucking backwards on the most basic of issues?

[Baba O'Riley]

Whilst research into what extent sexuality is biologically determined is fascinating, it's ultimately irrelevant to the issue gay and bisexual rights. "They were just born that way" shouldn't be the core justifier of the cause. Too often this line of thought, intentionally or not, carries the undertone that if homosexuality were a choice then it would be the wrong choice. It shouldn't matter whether someone was born gay, what should matter is that there's nothing wrong with being gay, that there's no rational argument to support the government granting homosexuals fewer rights than heterosexuals.

The only arguments made against homosexual rights are based upon (a) superstition, (b) tradition or (c) it being gross/"not normal". Human rights laws should not be determined upon the basis of superstition, tradition or normality.

How can a society in which sending people to walk on the moon is viewed as old hat still be so fucking backwards on the most basic of issues?

The only possible logical excuse I could see for discrimination against homosexuals would be that it's an anomaly from an evolutionary standpoint. Then again, so is albinism. More to the point, I'm willing to wager most opponents of legalizing marriage for everyone don't believe in Mr. Darwin.

[Crazy Penguin]

The only possible logical excuse I could see for discrimination against homosexuals would be that it's an anomaly from an evolutionary standpoint.

Hmm. If only we could find a way to stop the gays from breeding with each other all the goddamn time!

[Baba O'Riley]

The only possible logical excuse I could see for discrimination against homosexuals would be that it's an anomaly from an evolutionary standpoint.

Hmm. If only we could find a way to stop the gays from breeding with each other all the goddamn time!

I was taking the standpoint that by not reproducing, it goes against the principles of evolution. I've got no bone to pick with the LGBT community; I'm part of the B category.

[DackAttac]

"They were just born that way" shouldn't be the core justifier of the cause. Too often this line of thought, intentionally or not, carries the undertone that if homosexuality were a choice then it would be the wrong choice.

This was the biggest line of thought to cross as a recovering adolescent Catholic. My logic was rooted in the fact that my gay friends were very good people, and "they couldn't help it". But I eventually let that line of thought slip around one of them, and they pretty much responded with a paraphrasing of that paragraph. Which is important, because under that line of thought, pedophiles also can't help it.

I still rely on that "they can't help it" school of thought when debating with neocons I think are on the brink of accepting but not quite. But I'm ultimately screwing myself in the long run since as a bisexual, I theoretically have that "choice", and I don't plan on letting the path of least resistance take precedence over, who I... wait. Shit. What's this whole thing about again? Oh yeah. Love.

I've got no bone to pick with the LGBT community; I'm part of the B category.

Dammit.
No offense, it's just that I tend to measure the "strength of the movement" by how many straight people give a shit.

[Dash]

Crazy Penguin makes en excellent point and I'm sorry to have taken away focus from the issue of equal rights. You're right, it shouldn't matter whether someone was "born that way" or not. It makes it sound like they're retarded somehow, and I never meant to say that homosexuals are biologically made wrong, though it sounds implied no matter what I do. I'll have to find a better reasoning/analogy, because I think the reasoning for going to the back of the bus was due to being "born that way" too...

[Baba O'Riley]

The whole argument tends to fall to pieces if you consider that people are promised equal protection under the law, and that should include lawful, consenting marriages born out of either love or circumstance.

[Frieza2000]

I admit that it's pretty difficult to illustrate how gay marriage would hurt society, but there's merit to the arguments.

? The only arguments I've ever heard is that gay marriage will somehow make straight people take marriage less seriously, but that's not a good argument for several reasons.

The Christian community has done a terrible job of getting their good arguments to the front of the discussion. Well, here they are. I didn't come up with these, but I'm making them my own.

To start with, we need to establish that marriage is good for us and divorce is bad for us. I think I did a pretty good job of that in my last post. To supplement that I'd like to get you thinking for a moment about what it takes to have a good marriage, one that will yield all those benefits I spoke of. It's kind of tangential, but it adds to the weight of the actual argument in the end. This is the only part of this post that I don't have some study or statistic to back up, but it's only meant as a supplement and I don't think it's much of a stretch.

Social science and psychology have shown what we should all know: human beings need relationship. This can be adequately met with friends or community, but we have a desire for a deeper relationship. Not everyone is made for marriage, but everyone has the desire for deep relationship and the deepest unions can only be between two persons. Introduce a third person and you get competition, jealousy, and disunity. Affection spread among many people may give short-term pleasure, but such relationships necessarily will be superficial and not satisfying in the long run. They won't fulfill the deep yearning that committed ones do.

Such a union takes time and deepens over time. It also takes confidence; we're not perfect, and in opening ourselves to that kind of intimacy we risk rejection. In order to have that kind of confidence you need commitment, an assurance that even if your self-revelation is not well met it won't break the relationship. You need to know that you'll be accepted as you are, unconditionally, or that level of openness will not come comfortably. In short, marriages fail for lack of exclusiveness, unconditional mutual acceptance, or commitment to permanence, and Psychologists will concur with this.



Now then, if marriage is good and makes us happier, healthier, and richer, why not let homosexuals share in its benefits? Well, naturally there's no data showing similar benefits for same-sex couples yet. We don't know whether they would enjoy any of these benefits, and there are reasons to think they would not. Here are some stats to help paint the picture, and I know I'm going to step on a few toes, but it is what it is.

Homosexuals of both sexes remain fourteen times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals1 and 3½ times more likely to commit suicide successfully.2 Thirty years ago, this propensity toward suicide was attributed to social rejection, but the numbers have remained largely stable since then despite far greater public acceptance than existed in 1973. Study after study shows that male and female homosexuals have much higher rates of interpersonal maladjustment, depression, conduct disorder, childhood abuse (both sexual and violent), domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, anxiety, and dependency on psychiatric care than heterosexuals.3 Life expectancy of homosexual men was only forty-eight years before the AIDS virus came on the scene, and it is now down to thirty-eight.4 Only 2 percent of homosexual men live past age sixty-five.5

Male homosexuals are prone to cancer (especially anal cancer, which is almost unheard-of in male heterosexuals) and various sexually transmitted diseases, including urethritis, laryngitis, prostatitis, hepatitis A and B, syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and genital warts (which are caused by the human papilloma virus, which also causes genital cancers).6 Lesbians are at lower risk for STDs but at high risk for breast cancer.7 Homosexuals of both sexes have high rates of drug abuse, including cocaine, marijuana, LSD and other psychedelics, barbiturates, and amyl nitrate.8

Male homosexuals are particularly prone to develop sexually transmitted diseases, in part because of the high degree of promiscuity displayed by male homosexuals. One study in San Francisco showed that 43 percent of male homosexuals had had more than 500 sexual partners.9 Seventy-nine percent of their sexual partners were strangers. Only 3 percent had had fewer than ten sexual partners.10 The nature of sodomy contributes to the problem among male homosexuals. The rectum is not designed for sex. It is very fragile. Indeed, its fragility and tendency to tear and bleed is one factor making anal sex such an efficient means of transmitting the AIDS and hepatitis viruses.

Lesbians, in contrast, are less promiscuous than male homosexuals but more promiscuous than heterosexual women: One large study found that 42 percent of lesbians had more than ten sexual partners.11 A substantial percentage of them were strangers. Lesbians share male homosexuals' propensity for drug abuse, psychiatric disorder, and suicide.12

In view of the evidence, homosexuals will not succeed at establishing exclusive relationships. Promiscuity is a hard habit for anyone to break, straight or homosexual. Promiscuous heterosexuals often fail to learn fidelity; male homosexuals are far more promiscuous than heterosexual males, and therefore far more likely to fail. Lesbians are more promiscuous than heterosexual women. There is little good data on the stability of lesbian relationships, but it is reasonable to speculate that their higher rates of promiscuity and various deep-seated psychological problems would predispose them to long-term relational instability. Existing evidence supports this speculation.13
1 C. Bagley and P. Tremblay, "Suicidal Behaviors in Homosexual and Bisexual Males," Crisis 18 (1997): 24-34.
2 R. A. Garofalo et al., "The Associations Between Health Risk Behaviors and Sexual Orientation Among a School-Based Sample of Adolescents," Pediatrics 101 (1998): 895-902.
3 R. Herrell et al., Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-74; D. M. Fergusson, J. Horwood, A. L. Beautrais, "Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?" Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 876-80; M. J. Bailey, "Homosexuality and Mental Illness," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 883-4.
4 P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents," Adolescence 31 (1996): 757-76.
5 Ibid.
6 Laura Dean et al., "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health: Findings and Concerns," Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association 4, no. 3 (2000): 101-51.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978).
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 J. B. Lehmann, C. U. Lehmann, and P. J. Kelly, "Development and Health Care Needs of Lesbians," Journal of Women's Health 7 (1998) 379-88.
13 S. Sarantakos, "Same-Sex Couples: Problems and Prospects," Journal of Family Studies 2 (1996): 147-63; P. Tjaden, N. Thoennes, and C. J. Allison, "Comparing Violence Over the Life Span in Samples of Same-Sex and Opposite-Sex Cohabitants," Violence and Victims 14 (1999): 413-25.

So not only is it probable that these marriages would end in divorce, bringing the associated pathology I outlined before, it also appears - and this is news to me - that the homosexual lifestyle is statistically unhealthy. Now, there are a number of unhealthy practices that go uninhibited by the law. I'm sure it's possible to be gay and healthy, much as there are some people who smoke their whole lives and never get lung cancer, but our society shouldn't encourage such practices. Recognizing same-sex couples with tax breaks would do that.

The effects of bringing children into this are not well studied, but what is available isn't encouraging.

Children raised in families containing one non-biological parent are dozens of times more likely to be abused than children raised by both biological parents.1,2 Studies by Cameron and Cameron have shown a high incidence of incest between minor children and homosexual parents of both sexes.3 These investigators suggest that homosexual parents may be more likely to abuse their children sexually than heterosexual parents, so although the point is not definitively proven, the available evidence is worrisome.

Children raised by both biological parents are significantly healthier, happier and better adjusted emotionally than kids raised by single parents of either sex. They are less likely to live in poverty or engage in violent crime or sexual promiscuity and more likely to be successful in school, career, and marriage.4 Same-sex couples, by definition, would have at least one non-biological parent.

There seem to be good reasons that children need both biological parents. The sexes are different. Because gender is a real phenomenon, it should come as no surprise that men and women parent differently. Men and women bring different, complementary skills to childrearing. Men are more likely to play expansively with their children than to do mundane care taking; women tend to be more practical. Mothers tend to be more responsive to their child's immediate needs, while fathers tend to be more firm, more oriented to abstract standards of justice (right and wrong).5 Kids need both.

Mothers tend to emphasize the emotional security of their children, while fathers tend to stress competition and risk taking. Mothers tend to seek the immediate well-being of the child, while fathers tend to foster long-term autonomy and independence.6 Children need both parents, because they learn different lessons from each. Neither fathers nor mothers are expendable. The presence of a father is critical to a male child's learning self-control and appropriate male behavior, especially learning to respect women. Similarly, the presence of a father is vital for a female child's self-respect and eventual development of a healthy adult sexuality.7 Children need mothers just as much. The presence of both parents seems to be necessary for ideally balanced emotional and mental development.

Put in technical psychological jargon, the social science evidence suggests that women teach children communion (in English, that means the drive toward inclusion, connectedness, and relationship) and that men teach children agency (the drive toward independence, individuality, and self-fulfillment). Further, children of both sexes appear to learn self-control and responsibility primarily from their father.8 They fail to learn them when he's not involved in their lives.
1 Judith S. Wallerstein, "The Long-Term Effects of Divorce on Children: A Review," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 30, no. 3 (May 1991): 358-9.
2 Norman Bales and Anne Bales, "Today's Blended Family Landscape," All About Families, April 26, 2000, 1-2; Lynn K. White and Alan Booth, "The Quality and Stability of Remarriages: The Role of Stepchildren," American Sociological Review 50, no. 5 (1985): 689-98; Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., "Divorce and the American Family," Annual Review of Sociology 16 (1990): 379-403.
3 P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents," 757-66; P. Cameron and K. Cameron, "Homosexual Parents: A Comparative Forensic Study of Character and Harms to Children" Psychological Reports 82 (1998): 1155-91.
4 Waite and Gallagher, op. cit., 124-40.
5 Popenoe, op. cit., 139-63.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.

We have many rights, but the expression of any right is limited when it threatens harm to others. Free speech, for example, is almost unlimited, but no one is free to libel or slander someone else, nor to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater. There has never been an unlimited right to marry in this country. States have provided minimum age requirements and have insisted that both persons be unmarried, that one be male and one female, that they not be too closely related, and that adequate public notice and records be kept. It exists in a social context. Its success or failure has public health and financial impacts.

Marriage, for all these reasons, is a major public health issue and not just a private affair. Marriages that are exclusive, permanent, unconditional, and life-giving contribute much to public health and longevity; marriages that fail any of these criteria and end in divorce create an enormous social, emotional, and health care burden for the couple, their children, and society.

[Zeta]

First of all, I'd like to know where you got this information, second of all:

So not only is it probable that these marriages would end in divorce, bringing the associated pathology I outlined before, it also appears - and this is news to me - that the homosexual lifestyle is statistically unhealthy. Now, there are a number of unhealthy practices that go uninhibited by the law. I'm sure it's possible to be gay and healthy, much as there are some people who smoke their whole lives and never get lung cancer, but our society shouldn't encourage such practices. Recognizing same-sex couples with tax breaks would do that.

First of all, there's no proof that being homosexual causes any of those statistics to happen directly. Black Men are overwhemingly the largest group in our prisons, that does not mean that being a black man makes you inherently a criminal. Nor does it mean we should deny them the rights to try NOT to be criminals.

Second of all, if divorce is so bad, why are straight people allowed to do it? Ban divorce, if you're so against and let's see how far that gets you. Further, why are people who have a history of divorce allowed to constantly remarry?

Children raised in families containing one non-biological parent are dozens of times more likely to be abused than children raised by both biological parents.

So ban step-parents from raising children as well.

Mothers tend to emphasize the emotional security of their children, while fathers tend to stress competition and risk taking. Mothers tend to seek the immediate well-being of the child, while fathers tend to foster long-term autonomy and independence.6 Children need both parents, because they learn different lessons from each. Neither fathers nor mothers are expendable. The presence of a father is critical to a male child's learning self-control and appropriate male behavior, especially learning to respect women. Similarly, the presence of a father is vital for a female child's self-respect and eventual development of a healthy adult sexuality.7 Children need mothers just as much. The presence of both parents seems to be necessary for ideally balanced emotional and mental development.

You have all these arguments, but a lot of them are only being applied against homosexuals. Even if homosexuals are more prone to these things, and I'm not even admitting that, the fact that there's nothing in place preventing heterosexuals from performing the exact same actions (anal sex, drugs, raising children with variosus parental configurations, divorce, promiscuity etc.) shows a double standard. And you can't deny people rights based on statistical information. If that was the case, then tons of minorities would have rights based on how their statistics as a whole were performing. Black males would not be allowed to go out at night, stepfamilies would not be permitted to get married because having a non-blood relative parent.

Also, many of the people cited in your examples have some suspicious background:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... rnals.html
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... _obit.html
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... sheet.html
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/catego ... l-cameron/
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/h ... urvey.html

Many of them have been rejected from actual scientific papers for wonky research methods, particularly the Cameron group, which seems to have it out for gays. Most studies I've seen have shown that homosexual parents do just as well as straight parents, with no excess sexual abuse, and lesbian parents are actually slightly better parents than heterosexuals.

[Zeta]

Also, gay people probably wouldn't get married out of shits and giggles like a lot of straight people, or at least not in such large numbers. Also, gay people wouldn't be tied down to a spouse because they knocked their partner up, which would probably make the rate of divorce amongst gay couples slightly smaller than straight people, at the least. And they wouldn't feel the societal pressure to settle down and start a family to gain acceptance. All of this shit is what leads to such high divorce rates in breeders.

[DackAttac]

Y'know, if you were, um, insuring marriages or something, I'd agree. Charge more for the gay couples. That's what insurance companies do. Stereotype your demographics and use that to conjure up a fee.

But lawmaking by statistics is kind of just plain un-American. I'm aware of how promiscuous the gay community is on the whole, and it pisses me off because I'm a pretty monogamous guy. I don't screw around outside of relationships, I don't screw at all if I'm not in a relationship, infidelity boggles my mind, and if I held this doctrine of taking the path of least inconvenience, I'd have said, "let's just stick with women" a long time ago. Would've saved me the whole awkward episode of coming out. Would've made shit a lot easier. Easier doesn't mean better.

The argument seems to be that straight couples would, statistically, be "better" at marriage. Even if that ends up being the case... so? Half of marriages fail as it is. Apparently there's no one demographic that are good at marriage. Denying homosexuals the right to marry over the probability of marriage failure is like finding the age bracket where X-rays will most commonly lead to cancer. Then someone in that age bracket breaks their arm and their doctors tell them they're not legally allowed to X-ray the limb because "it's more probable to get cancer". Or find out what race is involved in the most automobile accidents and require they score twice as well on their driver's test in order to get their license, (or, hey, if they're a minority, just keep them from driving altogether!)

Whether it pertains to race, age, orientation, gender, hair color, height, whatever. Statistics have no place in lawmaking. Period.

[G.Silver]

A lot of those statistics are not directly affected by homosexuality, but the things that surround it. Even if people are more accepting now, there are still a lot of people who aren't so accepting, and there is tremendous societal pressure against being homosexual. You don't have to spend a lot of time in a high school locker room to figure that out, but the issue at hand, gay marriages, puts that pressure at the governmental level. So you might have some fairly conservative gays out there, but the appeal of counter-culture is extremely strong when your society rejects you, so it's no wonder drug abuse and promiscuity are so prominent. Even if these statistics are accurate, there are way too many additional factors at work to make a ruling based on them.

I might also mention that when safety is concerned, statistics DO matter, like say, in auto manufacturing and other areas of public and consumer safety. Perhaps that's more "regulation" than "lawmaking," but that's kind of the point--you can't treat humans like products, we aren't "manufactured," we live our own lives.

[Baba O'Riley]

I agree with G Silv on this. There are so many lurking variables within that data set, not to mention the dubious sources cited within that study.

For instance, the idea that promiscuity outside of a relationship leads to infidelity while in a relationship is preposterous.

[Delphine]

Thank you, Silv. You said what I wanted to say, but I was too angry to be coherent when I read his post this morning.

[DackAttac]

Also, gay people probably wouldn't get married out of shits and giggles like a lot of straight people, or at least not in such large numbers.

I had a few totally straight male friends in high school who were contemplating driving to Massachusetts and getting hitched just for the hell of it. So if anything, straight people could ruin the sanctity of gay marriage. There's some irony for yo' ass.

[G.Silver]

Thank you, Silv. You said what I wanted to say, but I was too angry to be coherent when I read his post this morning.

No problem!

[Frieza2000]

Thank you, Silv. You said what I wanted to say, but I was too angry to be coherent when I read his post this morning.

I haven't had an occasion to say this, but despite your Pmpous exterior I've always thought of you as one of the most tender hearted people here and your feelings were really a concern to me. The thought of facing your reply was one of the reasons I didn't sign on yesterday. I think that we should go another couple of rounds with this though, so stand by for further offending material. I promise to at least end it sweetly this time.

[Delphine]

There's no way to end it "sweetly". You can dress it up however you want to, but at the end of the day every single post you've made regarding gay marriage and homosexuality in general basically says you think I am less of a person than you because I am gay. Period. End of story.

[Zeta]

There's no way to end it "sweetly". You can dress it up however you want to, but at the end of the day every single post you've made regarding gay marriage and homosexuality in general basically says you think I am less of a person than you because I am gay. Period. End of story.

Not to mention trying to back it up with information from questionable sources and flimsy reasoning.

[DackAttac]

Harsh as it sounds, I agree with Del on that one.

I've often wondered how many people simply hate homosexuals but can't express that viewpoint without (rightfully) catching flack for their bigotry, but have found that opposing gay marriage is a perfectly politically correct platform, so they just cling to last anti-gay viewpoint that society on a whole will tolerate. Maybe thinking that if they get gay marriage banned today, they can ship us off to hetero camps tomorrow. I don't think it nearly accounts for everyone, but certainly a larger portion of the anti-gay-marriage camp than any of their spokespeople would admit on CNN.

I think the poster child they're looking to put forward is the one that says, "Gosh, I don't have anything against our wonderful LGBT brothers and sisters, but marriage has just always been between a man and a woman and I'm not really comfortable changing that definition that's been on the books for years." But if they were all like that, wouldn't we have those civil unions by now? That's another reason why I push that civil union argument so hard. It catches people off-guard. It separates the people who only mean "marriage is between a man and a woman" and the people who really mean "love is between a man and a woman." The people who don't want their traditions changed from those who simply feel everyone queer is incapable of true love and long-term relationships.

So, yes, Frieza, unless you catch me off-guard with an "Oh, yes, civil unions are AOK in my book!", you're not gonna tie a little bow on this. No matter how much you claim to respect Del or any of the rest of us, there has to be some reason you want us to sit in the waiting room while our lovers perish, or to be unable to make ends meet with their transferred pensions should they pass on.