Obama now President of USA.

[Dr. Watson]

so they just cling to last anti-gay viewpoint that society on a whole will tolerate.

Dont forget the no gays in the army rule. Honestly, that has got to be the most unfounded, pointless, idiotic, fucked up law in all of America, if not in all of modern day western civilization. And i really do mean that. As moronic as the notion that gays shouldnt get married is, people have atleast been able to gather enough "arguments" through sociological theories and (shabby) scientific researh to make it seem like a somewhat founded position. But as for the no gays in the army law, there is not a single argument that makes any fucking sense at all. Yet people accept that law. People actually accept that in a western country, in the 21st century, we still practice a law whose one and only intention is to point out how gays are lesser humans.

God dammit, thinking about this kind of shit gets me so frustrated with anger. I think im gonna start agreeing with Dasher: fuck the world. Just fuck it, is sucks to much to care about. Fuck everything. Fuck you, fuck me, fuck a maple tree.

[Zeta]

ut as for the no gays in the army law, there is not a single argument that makes any fucking sense at all.

If they let queers in the military, they'll rape all their fellow soldiers! And them sissy boys can't fight anyways!

[Dr. Watson]

ut as for the no gays in the army law, there is not a single argument that makes any fucking sense at all.

If they let queers in the military, they'll rape all their fellow soldiers! And them sissy boys can't fight anyways!

Alright, I stand corrected. Those two arguments really doeas make sense. Oh and of course this one too: Many of the brave men and women in the army have wholesome christian values, and they wouldnt feel comfortable fighting alongside dirty sodomites (this reason is probably the most often stated one by republican politicians when asked about the issue. Only their phrasing might be slightly different).

[G.Silver]

I thought it had more to do with safety, like the reason women and men in the military are generally kept apart (am I completely wrong about this? I understand each division handles it differently) so that they don't accidentally get into that state where they fall in love and it starts effecting their judgment. You don't want those disruptive human emotions getting in the way of military performance. Also with homosexuals, you've got a whole range of how people are going to respond (possibly violently), so I thought this was for the safety of homosexuals as much as anyone else, and I kinda feel like they're in the right, or at least as far as "don't ask, don't tell" goes, because really, it's no one's business and it shouldn't come up. But if you volunteer that information, it's like you are saying that it IS their business and it IS going to come up. The military has enough trouble, I imagine, with the straight couples.

Anyway, if I was gay and in the military in the current environment (assuming they let me in), I'd keep my mouth shut to protect *myself* but maybe that's just based on four years of abuse in high school for being a nerd and I don't really know what the military is like.

I mean, shit, who's seen Boys Don't Cry? Picture THAT in a military environment! You think the government wants THAT on their hands?

I'm in favor of civil unions but I am a bit concerned about straight roommates getting married in order to cheat the system. But then, I know people who've done that now with heterosexual marriages, so I guess it wouldn't really make that big a difference, but I wouldn't want colleges to stop offering tuition breaks for married couples who used to qualify because suddenly everyone is reporting themselves as a married couple. What's the pro-gay marriage response to that?

[Zeta]

I'm surprised there are any gays in the military, period. I sure as fuck wouldn't throw away my life for this crazy country. I kind of view military gays with the same disdain I have for Republican gays.

[Frieza2000]

The likelihood of a group of people causing problems should certainly not be used as a reason to legally discriminate against them. However, I would point out that homosexuals are not being oppressed by the law. They may be socially outcast and illegally discriminated against, but homosexuals have the same rights in all aspects of life as heterosexuals including marriage; they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. What's being asked for here is not the extension of a right to a group who are denied that right but for a new right, a change in the legal definition of marriage (or the creation of a new kind of legal union, if you want to go that route). In that sense it's the same as asking for the legalization of incestuous marriage and just a little different than asking for polygamy (polygamy would complicate existing tax and pension systems, but it's still an expansion on the present limits of marriage). So it's not that I think anyone deserves less, I just don't think we're automatically entitled to have the laws changed to cater to our preferences in life partners.

That doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done, it just means that it's an issue for policy makers rather than a civil rights issue for the judiciary. It means that we as a nation get to ask ourselves whether or not this is something we want to do. As such, the statistics (the merit of which I cannot confirm, but let's say they're accurate for the sake of argument) do come into consideration because they do present a public health issue. It's true that the relationship between homosexuality and these numbers is not proven by the numbers themselves. The fact that they've supposedly remained consistent for the last 30 years despite a significant improvement in public acceptance of gays makes me suspicious, but I'll leave the conclusions to those more qualified. Whatever the relationship, the reality is that this is the way the homosexual community is now and it can't be ignored.

I've not heard a discussion on the legalization of harmful drugs, but I imagine the main argument against it is similar. It's possible that the number of abusers will not increase or even that the present abusers will not get worse, but the situation dictates that they almost certainly will. There would probably be more people stoned on the job, the efforts to keep more people from becoming addicted would be undermined, and more addicts would die of overdose. Similarly, we don't allow certain people to get sex changes because of concern for their mental well-being. If gays are really as unhealthy as the stats show, it's reasonable to predict that their marriages will work out badly and make things worse for society and for the couples themselves (some of us are thinking of you too! Really!). Civil unions present the same problem. Yes, heterosexual marriage is failing. Yes, it's looked upon as cheap by many and it's creating lots of problems. That doesn't mean we should do something we expect to make it worse just to indulge a lifestyle that could be intrinsically unhealthy.



Now, since my own prejudices have come into question I guess I'll stop being ambiguous. Naturally I believe that homosexuality is wrong. I also believe masturbation, pornography, fortification, and a host of other common behaviors are wrong. Pretty much everyone I meet is a blatant sinner by my definition. It doesn't bother me; I'm a sinner too, by my own definition and the various definitions of others.

I'd cast my vote against the legal recognition of gay unions because I think it's ultimately going to make things worse for everyone. I'm sorry if you were born into a circumstance that makes your life harder. Sometimes you just have to bear it. If it does become legal (and it probably will in our lifetimes), I'll wish the couples luck and forget about it. Our culture already exalts a bunch of things I think are wrong, so it would hardly be something new. In fact, it's already legal in my state. Sometimes I forget!

I'm carrying on with this argument both because I wanted to learn more about the issue and because Zeta wanted to see one that didn't involve morality and had some kind of rational basis, and this is the best I found. I know that the stats may not all be accurate and that the conclusions drawn from them are arguable; I'm just trying to show that this position is not unreasonable.

Coincidentally, my other post came the day before the 5 year anniversary of the Massachusetts decision to allow gay marriage. I don't know of any statistics comparing gay and straight divorce rates, but you'll be happy to know that the total divorce rate has stayed the same and that general acceptance of gay marriage has grown. This is the sweet ending of which I spoke.

Dont forget the no gays in the army rule. Honestly, that has got to be the most unfounded, pointless, idiotic, fucked up law in all of America, if not in all of modern day western civilization.

In Alabama, boogers may not be flicked into the wind. It is also illegal to have an ice cream cone in your back pocket at any time. And until as recently as 2003 some states had "sodomy laws" that criminalized oral and anal sex, homo and heterosexual alike, conducted in private between two consenting adults, though they were rarely enforced.

[Zeta]

They may be socially outcast and illegally discriminated against, but homosexuals have the same rights in all aspects of life as heterosexuals including marriage; they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Black people have water fountains and their own schools, white people have their own water fountains and their own schools. It's fair, because both are able to get the same thing.

Similarly, black people should marry black people, and white people should only marry white people. It's fair, because they both have the right to marry someone of their own race.

In that sense it's the same as asking for the legalization of incestuous marriage and just a little different than asking for polygamy (polygamy would complicate existing tax and pension systems, but it's still an expansion on the present limits of marriage).

First of all, I support polygamous marriage. Second of all, I take offense at the idea that a father marrying his daughter is being compared to gay marriage.

So it's not that I think anyone deserves less, I just don't think we're automatically entitled to have the laws changed to cater to our preferences in life partners.

So you're fine with the government controlling your love life and family right because they know what's best?

I've not heard a discussion on the legalization of harmful drugs, but I imagine the main argument against it is similar. It's possible that the number of abusers will not increase or even that the present abusers will not get worse, but the situation dictates that they almost certainly will. There would probably be more people stoned on the job, the efforts to keep more people from becoming addicted would be undermined, and more addicts would die of overdose.

This is a perfect example of another double standard. Beer and tobacco? Legal. All other drugs? Illegal.

You know why those drugs were originally made illegal. It was believed that allowing black people to consume marijuana would cause them to go on a murderous rampage, killing and raping white women.

The only reason we have alcohol and tobacco legal and not other drugs is because of tradition. It's the exact same thing with gay marriage. We're trying to keep gay people married solely because of tradition, creating a double standard.

Similarly, we don't allow certain people to get sex changes because of concern for their mental well-being. If gays are really as unhealthy as the stats show, it's reasonable to predict that their marriages will work out badly and make things worse for society and for the couples themselves (some of us are thinking of you too! Really!). Civil unions present the same problem. Yes, heterosexual marriage is failing. Yes, it's looked upon as cheap by many and it's creating lots of problems. That doesn't mean we should do something we expect to make it worse just to indulge a lifestyle that could be intrinsically unhealthy.

I'm carrying on with this argument both because I wanted to learn more about the issue and because Zeta wanted to see one that didn't involve morality and had some kind of rational basis, and this is the best I found. I know that the stats may not all be accurate and that the conclusions drawn from them are arguable; I'm just trying to show that this position is not unreasonable.

The government should NOT legislate personal morality. If you really want to go there, don't be a hypocrite and advocate for black men being preemptively arrested, alcohol and tobacco being illegality, fattening foods being made illegal, and since car crashes kill so many people - let's go ahead and make driving cars illegal, too. It is incredibly unreasonable if you believe in rights to privacy and to determine our own lives instead of government bible-thumpers doing it for you.

You're trying to justify your bigoted religious beliefs using facts and figures, but your exclusively applying them to a single minority shows you for what you are. I'm sure if my boyfriend was ever dying, I'd feel comforted by the fact that I couldn't visit him as he breathed his last by the knowledge that us getting married would be promoting an unhealthy lifestyle.

[Frieza2000]

Black people have water fountains and their own schools, white people have their own water fountains and their own schools. It's fair, because both are able to get the same thing.

This one is a case of separate but equal. In gay marriage, both sides have access to the same marriage, it's just that one side doesn't like the marriage we presently have.

So it's not that I think anyone deserves less, I just don't think we're automatically entitled to have the laws changed to cater to our preferences in life partners.

So you're fine with the government controlling your love life and family right because they know what's best?

I was just showing that we don't have some inherent right to demand that the government change marriage to meet our whims.

Similarly, black people should marry black people, and white people should only marry white people. It's fair, because they both have the right to marry someone of their own race.

This, however, I hadn't considered hard enough. So I took a moment to read up on the history and found this:

Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not to marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

So it seems there is precedence for a constitutional right to change marriage. I had no idea. This is actually a strong support for incestuous marriage too. Calling it a right totally invalidates the public health arguments. I can picture lawyers using the "fundamental to our very existence and survival" line to suggest that homosexuality (and incest) was not intended, or the "unsupportable" to open the way for arguments that banning gay marriage is supportable, but even then this is a very big foot in the door. I think that's as far as I can debate it with my meager knowledge of our legal system. Thanks for the lesson.

Incidentally, I support the legalization of drugs because it would save us billions of dollars in suppressing their trade, bring down an entire black market enterprise without firing a single shot, and bring drug prices to a level where addicts wouldn't be reduced to poverty and forced to stealing and prostitution to get their fix (and as a resolution of the hypocrisies you mentioned). I was just using it as an example of a similar argument, for indeed the bad things I outlined would also happen, but the negative is outweighed by the positive. Not so with gay marriage. I think the government has to legislate certain health issues, though. Pollution, for example, and suicide. People who attempt suicide but are stopped by law enforcement are generally thankful for it later.

I'm sure if my boyfriend was ever dying, I'd feel comforted by the fact that I couldn't visit him as he breathed his last by the knowledge that us getting married would be promoting an unhealthy lifestyle.

This is something I only heard about recently. What's the logic behind not letting anyone but family visit? If you can demonstrate that you know the person pretty well I don't see a problem with visiting. Is it a security issue?

[Crazy Penguin]

Incest now? Can we skip over the slippery slope straw man arguments?

[Delphine]

This is actually a strong support for incestuous marriage too.

...

You know what? I'm just putting you on ignore now. Saves me a lot of headache.

[Baba O'Riley]

This is actually a strong support for incestuous marriage too.

...

You know what? I'm just putting you on ignore now. Saves me a lot of headache.

Well, kind of pointless to tell him you're ignoring him, I suppose.

I dunno. I dislike that otherwise rational, kind people can have such disturbing views on homosexuality. It's this terrible idea that makes me stay closeted while pushing myself away from intolerant people. How terrible, that someone may find you likable in every other aspect, and then eventually reject who you are at your core.

But anyways, what are the thoughts on the supposed Obama/McCain alliance? I think it's wasted effort.

[Zeta]

This is something I only heard about recently. What's the logic behind not letting anyone but family visit? If you can demonstrate that you know the person pretty well I don't see a problem with visiting. Is it a security issue?

No, it's a relations issue. If my boyfriend is put into a coma, I have no legal say over him whatsoever. His family can deny me visitation rights, and even pull him off life support without my consent.

In heterosexual marriages, the spouse is the one that gets to manage their spouse's health rights should they become incapacitated. That means a man who hasn't seen his family in 40 years because they thought being gay was sinful can have more power over his life than the man he's been living with and loving for 30 years.

I have seen this happen with my very own eyes. A friend of the family was not permitted to come to visit his lover in the hospital, had no control over his healthcare, and was not even allowed to be at the funeral.

But hey! Born into a difficult situation! Grin and bear it! Everyone has to put up with it! Etc.

[Dash]

So it's not that I think anyone deserves less, I just don't think we're automatically entitled to have the laws changed to cater to our preferences in life partners.

So you're fine with the government controlling your love life and family right because they know what's best?

I was just showing that we don't have some inherent right to demand that the government change marriage to meet our whims.

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people"? We may not get it fast or at all, but we have a right to demand anything we want on a non-religious basis. Part of the issue here, is that people demand that gays not have the right to marry because of their religious beliefs.



The Obama/Mcain thing is strange and probably just a media extrapolation. I mean, it's not like he's getting a place in the cabinet or anything noteworthy. To me, it's sort of "Hey dude, just because I'm President doesn't mean I won't say Hi to you." Besides, it seems like they tried something before and that sorta fizzled.

[DackAttac]

And there it is. I'm suddenly remember why I never get into this debate. It's wasted effort. I thought I could get inside the thought process of a civil opponent to the cause, but it's no use, because there's always that one shred of thought that I can't take seriously. I don't mean won't take seriously, I simply can't take the comparison to incest in as anything other than load of bullshit without shedding all self-worth. To admit that kind of logic as valid to your brain is to consider yourself equal to an inbreeder on some level.

I've also been kind of selective as well about who I come out to, because you can't go back once a friend expresses an opinion like that. You never know who will act totally reasonable about everything else but will refuse to associate with gays. Or the very awkward situation of "I believe you're sinning against God, you're going to hell, and you deserve none of the legal benefits of marriage. We cool, right. Wanna hang out?"

But I'm not blocking you, because I personally believe coexistence is the last hope for survival on this hunk of rock we live on, and I can't claim to be doing my part if my credo is simply, "Yeah, so come coexist with us, you bastards." However, if a friend of mine were to relay the sentiments you've put forth to me, we wouldn't be on speaking terms.

Even if you can prove an opposition to gay marriage isn't necessarily bigoted, you'd be a cold soul to read Zeta's post and be unable to admit that it leaves the door wide open for bigotry.

[Frieza2000]

"Government of the people, by the people, for the people"? We may not get it fast or at all, but we have a right to demand anything we want on a non-religious basis.

Yes, like I said, it doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. I was just saying it's not a right and so would go to policy makers and not the judiciary, but it turns out there's precedence for it being a right.

I simply can't take the comparison to incest in as anything other than load of bullshit without shedding all self-worth. To admit that kind of logic as valid to your brain is to consider yourself equal to an inbreeder on some level.

I was only relating them in so far as they're both current limits on who you're allowed to marry, and the court thing I quoted gave precedence for changing the rules of who you're allowed to marry. That's all I meant.


I'm kind of astonished at the reaction I'm getting. I was asked to make an argument against gay marriage without using morality, so I brought up public health. It isn't that I think you don't deserve something, I just think giving it to you would cause social problems. Is that so insulting? My arguments have been heartless, but I'm not. I do feel bad for gays! Did I really need to say that? It's just that it would be irresponsible to let people do what they want without considering the consequences, and I think the consequences outweigh the present suffering of gays.

I wouldn't be opposed to something that would allow two people (gay or not) to establish a relational agreement that supersedes familial rights to deal with things like that hospital issue. Doesn't it already exist though? Can't you use durable powers of attorney, surrogate decisions, wills, and inheritance to effectively give you the same thing?

[Zeta]

I wouldn't be opposed to something that would allow two people (gay or not) to establish a relational agreement that supersedes familial rights to deal with things like that hospital issue. Doesn't it already exist though? Can't you use durable powers of attorney, surrogate decisions, wills, and inheritance to effectively give you the same thing?

As far as I know, you can give those things out, but biological families/spouses can supersede those without much difficulty. It's sort of how people can adopt a kid, raise him for 10 years, but then the biological family can come out of nowhere and demand their kid be returned. Courts will always side with what is deemed "family", and that doesn't include gay people.

[Zeta]

It's just that it would be irresponsible to let people do what they want without considering the consequences, and I think the consequences outweigh the present suffering of gays.

The only consequences you've proposed is that "gay people would be getting approved by the government, and gay people are naturally unhealthy." But here's the thing, even if the government doesn't approve of gay marriages, gay people will CONTINUE TO BE GAY. They just won't get equal protection under the law.

Another example: Many states don't allow two people of the same sex to adopt one child. If one gay parent dies, and that's the parent that had adoption rights, the child will be taken away from the surviving parent, the only person they've known for their entire life. But hey, letting them live with that parent - they probably would have been molested and brainwashed into being gay, am I rite?!

[Zeta]

Goddamnit, I wish this board would let me go back and edit posts after more than 30 seconds. But it can't, so tripple post:

If I get a job at a company that offers insurance, my boyfriend can't be put on it. So a straight couple can hook up and get married and get insurance benefits even if they only knew each other a day before they got married. But if my boyfriend is dying of cancer, I'll have insurance, but he won't, even if we've been together for 20 years.

Freeza, you straight people take marriage for granted. You really have no idea of the kind of rights that married straight people get, because you have it, and just don't care to look. You can rest assured, in the knowledge that the legal side of your relationship - health, next of kin, ownership, inheritence will be taken care of. WE CAN'T HAVE THAT. But since a couple of gay people are promiscuous and do drugs, I guess all gay people don't deserve it. I'm so glad there are no straight people who are promiscuous, do drugs, or engage in anal sex - because those things are impossible for heterosexuals to do.

[G.Silver]

Well I'd say this was completely worthwhile, if only because Zeta gave the best argument for homosexual marriages I've ever heard, and I guess it took getting this pissed off about it to actually say it? The entire purpose of devil's advocate is to strengthen other arguments, so kudos to Frieza for even trying. I also have never heard an argument against gay marriage that was anything more than "it's between a man and woman" or "marriage is a religious establishment," and then even when presnted one, it still isn't enough to convince anyone else here.

But seriously, "we want to get married" sounds petty and stupid compared to "we want this list of rights that would shock you to know that we are denied." Start out with that list and I think you'll save a lot of trouble!

By the way, nobody answered my question about abusing gay marriage for tax benefits and reduced tuition by straight people. It's small fry compared to the argument you just gave, but I want to know if there's a response for it or if it's just a consequence we have to accept.

[Zeta]

Thanks, Silv. : )

By the way, nobody answered my question about abusing gay marriage for tax benefits and reduced tuition by straight people. It's small fry compared to the argument you just gave, but I want to know if there's a response for it or if it's just a consequence we have to accept.

Eh, it already happens with straight people, with green cards, etc. It's just something you have to accept.

Speaking of green cards, an straight immigrant to America can bring his wife over just because they're married. Guess what a gay couple can't do if they want to move here? Even if they're already married in Spain, Canada, etc?

[Zeta]

But seriously, "we want to get married" sounds petty and stupid compared to "we want this list of rights that would shock you to know that we are denied." Start out with that list and I think you'll save a lot of trouble!

Sometimes, often, starting off with that list of rights ends up with people going "Oh, so all you want is just those rights? We'll give it to you and call it Civil Unions!" While that's not a horrible thing, it would take a huge restructuring of government benefits and passing a bill to cause all corporations to recognize civil unionized employees as having the same benefits as married employees. In other words, significant more time, money, and work for everyone. And even then, you can bet your bippy that some rights would slip through, since I think at the last count married couples receive a couple thousand more rights and benefits than unmarried couples.

[DackAttac]

But seriously, "we want to get married" sounds petty and stupid compared to "we want this list of rights that would shock you to know that we are denied." Start out with that list and I think you'll save a lot of trouble!

Is there a full list located somewhere? Or at least a good summary? Because there seems to be a good four or five that I've heard in arguments, and I take it they're the biggest ones. But if it's up in the four-digit area, it would appear there's a ton being left out.

By the way, nobody answered my question about abusing gay marriage for tax benefits and reduced tuition by straight people. It's small fry compared to the argument you just gave, but I want to know if there's a response for it or if it's just a consequence we have to accept.

I am of the opinion that I could probably pull off some creative insurance fraud if I had to, but the thought of the consequences of getting caught are just too damn much to ever take it seriously. That and I think I may have a conscience. I'm not sure. Jury's still out on that one.

[Zeta]

It's hard, because the rights of marriage vary from state to state. All told, there are 1,138 benefits and rights total that married couples receive over unmarried couples. Here are some from two different sites, so there may be a few repeats:


* Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
* Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
* Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
* Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
* Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
* Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.
* Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
* Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
* Receiving public assistance benefits.
* Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
* Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
* Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
* Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.
* Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
* Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
* Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
* Making burial or other final arrangements.
* Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
* Applying for joint foster care rights.
* Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
* Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
* Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
* Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
* Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
* Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
* Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
* Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
* Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
* Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
* Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
* Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
* Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
* Assumption of Spouse’s Pension
* Child Custody
* Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits
* Divorce Protections
* Domestic Violence Protection
* Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death
* Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse
* Insurance Breaks
* Joint Bankruptcy
* Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records)
* Reduced Rate Memberships
* Sick Leave to Care for Partner
* Visitation of Partner’s Children


A more comprehensive list may be found here: http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

It's 75 pages long, though.

[Frieza2000]

The only consequences you've proposed is that "gay people would be getting approved by the government, and gay people are naturally unhealthy."

That was sort of tangential. The heart of the argument is that homosexuals would be more likely to divorce, and I outlined all the bad things divorce does earlier. That the divorce rate has stayed the same in Massachusetts after five years of gay marriage is a significant blow to the whole thing.

I wouldn't be opposed to something that would allow two people (gay or not) to establish a relational agreement that supersedes familial rights to deal with things like that hospital issue. Doesn't it already exist though? Can't you use durable powers of attorney, surrogate decisions, wills, and inheritance to effectively give you the same thing?

As far as I know, you can give those things out, but biological families/spouses can supersede those without much difficulty.

Are you sure? From what I've read you can only override power of attorney if you're the person's legal guardian. Otherwise you have to take the agent to court for something like wrongful endangerment. Anyway, it's something you should keep in mind. If you and your mate are committed enough to get married but your state doesn't have gay marriage, this could prevent that kind of situation.


Well, that was all pretty painful, and I mean that personally as well as collectively. I guess it was naive of me to think we could have this discussion without peoples' feelings getting involved. Sorry for any headaches or heartaches it might've caused. At least I learned stuff.

[Edgerock]

Now he's officially president. That is all.