Perhaps this thread belongs in another forum. I was not sure where to post it.

The push for legalizing same sex marriages seems to be gaining momentum.

I really do not care about most of the issues involved here. Most of the time, I am willing to agree with either side if it avoids an argument, although I tend to side with the gay community. Live and let live as long as nobody gets hurt.

However there were two times in my life when I could have benefitted by some sort of domestic partnership legislation.

The first time involved my father who had some serious medical problems and no medical insurance. I was single and worked for a large corporation which had wonderful medical coverage for those who were married with dependent children. If the law had permitted, I would have established my father and I as domestic partners in order to get medical insurance for him.

The second time came many years later when I was divorced and had an adult son with some medical problems. Once again, it would have saved a lot of money and resulted in better medical care if he could have been covered under the policy provided by my employer.

If a same sex partner can be covered by an employer’s insurance, it seems unfair that such benefits not be expended to other relationships. My commitment to my father and later to my son were every bit as strong as the commitment many have to a spouse or a same sex partner. I suppose there are siblings (same or different sex) with similar commitments.

Should medical insurance coverage only be granted on the basis of a sexual relationship?

people who spell it thot don't get to have any

Sorry, but I have had problems with English spelling since first grade.Through & threw, right & rite, too, to, & two, et cetera.

Is there a law about spelling thought as thot? It looks reasonable to me.

On the internet I see LOL, ROFL, BW, IMHO, et cetera. Why not thot?

Not a sexual relationship, a marriage (same sex or otherwise) that can be proven in a court of law?

Not a sexual relationship, a marriage (same sex or otherwise) that can be proven in a court of law?
Therein lies the entire issue. It is not a question of who is having sex with who, but a legal entity. A married couple can hold joint liability of debt and are a financial unit. Room mates, father and adult son, brother and sister, etc, are not.

There are a lot of laws governing financial responsiblity of one to the other (originally of a husband to provide for a wife) but no such laws exist between more distant relationships. That is what the group insurance rates are based upon.

However, time marches on. Definitions change and people just don't get married as often as they used to. So if they live together and have kids, shouldn't they be allowed to share insurance just as if they had that marriage liscence?

The next step is other kinds of domestic partnerships, like same-sex partnerships. Why should they not be entitled to the same benefits, it is asked.

Your example of father/son, seen in this light, is clearly much farther down the line of relationships. Father and son are rarely responsible for each others debts, after the son reaches the age of majority. If one chooses to do so, it is solely his choice, not mandated by law.

Silverback: I understand what current law dictates relating to marraige and the fact that none of it applies to father/son & various other relationships. I am questioning why it should be that way.

For that matter, why just two people in a marital relationship?

From very on, marital law seemed a bit strange to me. When you get married, you are entering into a very complex contract. Yet there is never a requirement that you understand the obligations, rights, et cetera. Most people have only a vague idea of what they are agreeing to.

When you sign a lease or other type of contract, there is always a statement about your having read and understood what you are signing.

I always wondered why the law did not provide for a couple to write up whatever agreement they thought was a good deal. There have been a few Scifi storeis about cultures with no specific marraiage contract built into law.

Why would the gay people want to have a marriage when all they need do is write a will and whatever they want to give to another person they can.

As far as gay people recieving the same sort of benefits as hetrosexuals I don't really understand why that is important. Let us say two men live together and one works at a job while the other feels that he should just stay home. If they both are capable of working then why is it that they should recieve benefits at all if one chooses not to be employed? The only time another man should recieve benefits is if he is working somewhere himself as a single man usually does. A question arises here, should all single men then recieve benifits from where they work or should they get married to another man only to get those benifits without having to work at all for them? I'd say no.

Why would the gay people want to have a marriage when all they need do is write a will and whatever they want to give to another person they can.

As far as gay people recieving the same sort of benefits as hetrosexuals I don't really understand why that is important. Let us say two men live together and one works at a job while the other feels that he should just stay home. If they both are capable of working then why is it that they should recieve benefits at all if one chooses not to be employed? The only time another man should recieve benefits is if he is working somewhere himself as a single man usually does. A question arises here, should all single men then recieve benifits from where they work or should they get married to another man only to get those benifits without having to work at all for them? I'd say no.

well why is important to have state recongnized marriages at all. everyone should just write a will and all problems are solved.

As far as gay people recieving the same sort of benefits as hetrosexuals I don't really understand why that is important.

Why should a black man be able to eat in the same restaurant as a white man?

well why is important to have state recongnized marriages at all. everyone should just write a will and all problems are solved.

The benefits and legal considerations given by a legally recognized marriage go far beyond allowing your spouse to settle your estate when you're dead.

From very on, marital law seemed a bit strange to me. When you get married, you are entering into a very complex contract. Yet there is never a requirement that you understand the obligations, rights, et cetera. Most people have only a vague idea of what they are agreeing to.
Agreed. My advice to any couple considering marriage is to seek pre-marital counseling first. They may not cover all the legal aspects of what is coming, but they do touch on it a bit (if they are qualified) and hopefully the couple will at least get a glimpse of the complexity of it all.

With a lease, the laws are much simpler and much more straight forward. "This is mine, but you can use it for this price for this amount of time. Damage it and you pay for it." Marriage law is fantastically more complex and varies from state to state (and nation to nation).

They don't pass out contracts because it would read like a very large, very boring book and would probably scare away half the people considering it. Also, religion has always had its fingers deep into this and anything that would give pause to "holy wedlock" would probably be met with stiff resistance.

And it is the religions who are leading the charge on defining what exactly is "holy wedlock" in the instant case.

And as for why a father and son can't have such a civil union? The insurance companies will resist anything that increases the number of required dependants they are forced to give full coverage at reduced rates. Period.

Today's mainstream religions tend to be slaves to the "selfish gene", only favouring relationships that advance the interests of reproduction of the genotype. In many ways, religions represent humanity only on the most base, chemical level - which is rather ironic, given their rejection of chemical determinism.

But such a rejection serves the genotype well, in helping to maintain the illusion that marriage, reproduction & "family values" really advance the interests of human consciousness, rather than the mindless imperatives of our mindless genes.

Well said, Bubblecar!
It seems that I'm not the only one who has read Richard Dawkin's material. He's an superb science writer. Richard Dawkins = 'Stephen Hawking' of biology.

Well said, Bubblecar!
It seems that I'm not the only one who has read Richard Dawkin's material. He's an superb science writer. Richard Dawkins = 'Stephen Hawking' of biology.
and Steve was never treated like a demi-god by real physicists / astro-physicists.

Interesting. I am sad to say I have never heard of Richard Dawkins. Recommendations?

and Steve was never treated like a demi-god by real physicists / astro-physicists.

And neither is Richard Dawkins...
Unless you can show otherwise, of course...

The fact that you even dare imply that I 'worship' Dawkins comes close to a baseless insult.


Interesting. I am sad to say I have never heard of Richard Dawkins. Recommendations?

"The Selfish Gene" is a good book, which is Dawkin's theory of how genes 'control' us, in the sense that we are machines that they have built to help them survive.

"Climbing Mount Improbable" is another good one. It is about evolution, and how structures could have 'evolved' with gradual changes over time. It deals with chance and natural selection.

The fact that you even dare imply that I 'worship' Dawkins comes close to a baseless insult.
In a forum like this with evolutionists everywhere, you are more daring & insulting than me to say this :

It seems that I'm not the only one who has read Richard Dawkin's material.

Dinosaur, your comments here are well put. I think fair-minded people should want the government out of the marriage business entirely. If some couples cannot get married (if only for the financial & legal benefits) then you have discrimination. If every adult can get married then for simplification the benefits should come with adulthood rather than marriage.

Why would the gay people want to have a marriage when all they need do is write a will and whatever they want to give to another person they can.

The surviving spouse in a marriage keeps the assets tax-free and also gets social security survivor’s benefits (a will can’t do that). Those are just two of the many benefits of marriage that gays want.

Why should a black man be able to eat in the same restaurant as a white man?



The benefits and legal considerations given by a legally recognized marriage go far beyond allowing your spouse to settle your estate when you're dead.

i know, i was being sarcastic :)

Why would the gay people want to have a marriage when all they need do is write a will and whatever they want to give to another person they can.

As far as gay people recieving the same sort of benefits as hetrosexuals I don't really understand why that is important. Let us say two men live together and one works at a job while the other feels that he should just stay home. If they both are capable of working then why is it that they should recieve benefits at all if one chooses not to be employed? The only time another man should recieve benefits is if he is working somewhere himself as a single man usually does. A question arises here, should all single men then recieve benifits from where they work or should they get married to another man only to get those benifits without having to work at all for them? I'd say no.

So are you opposed to stay-at-home moms? After all, your assertion is that those who are supported by their spouses even though they could work shouldn't get included in health coverage.

I also feel inclined to bring up the legal ability for spouses to act on behalf of each other in medical emergencies. Say one member of a gay couple has a horrible accident and requires a risky medical procedure. Should the commited partner of 10-20 years be able to act on behalf of their spouse, as they would be able to do in a heterosexual marriage, or does the decision default to the parents who dishoned them 30 years before? What is it about the gender makeup of these relationships that makes a difference?

What is it about the gender makeup of these relationships that makes a difference?

That's the 50 million dollar question. No conservatives seem to be interested in answering, it's just somehow vaguely bad because it's ewwy.

The more I think about the movement to establish a legal basis for gay marriages, the more I become convinced that it is motivated by financial considerations.

An informal marriage can take care of most situations other than health insurance benefits, adoption of unrelated children, and social security benefits. I have a committed relationship with a girl friend. We have notarized living wills and power of attorney documents which allow one of us to make health care and financial decisions in the event that the other is too ill to make such decisions. Each of us has a will leaving our money and property to the other.

The major advantages to be gained via legalizing gay marriages are social security and health insurance benefits. The health insurance benefits are quite valuable.

As mentioned in a previous post, if gay marriages are legalized, why not extend health insurance and social security benefits to other very close relationships? A single person working for a company that provides health insurance should be able to cover somebody like a parent, sibling, adult child.

BTW: Many years ago, I had some gay friends and attended several informal wedding ceremonies. There is nothing preventing gay people from making a public commitment to each other. Aside from the finacial benefits and the difficulties if there is a divorce, an informal commitment is much the same as a legal marriage. It so happens that I feel far more committed to my girl friend of 25 years than I ever felt to my wife. We do not need the approval of legal or religious authorities to make us feel better about our relationship or more committed to each other.