No personal insults or people bashing.
HK, you've stated your opinion and I think everyone gets it.
Melonie, I'd certainly hope that everyone understands your opinion by now.
Does anyone have any NEW points or opinions?
Lena
(your lesbian moderator)
Printable View
No personal insults or people bashing.
HK, you've stated your opinion and I think everyone gets it.
Melonie, I'd certainly hope that everyone understands your opinion by now.
Does anyone have any NEW points or opinions?
Lena
(your lesbian moderator)
Because anyone who does opens themselves up for a homophobic witch hunt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hello~Kitty
The moment you have someone vote against it,someone is going to say they are anti gay and they will have to explain and justify thier beliefs,and no matter what they say,they will still be labled as a gay basher by some.
What really should be looked at is the vote itself,its at 100% FOR gay marriage.
(about what i predicted it would be at the start of this thread)
Where was the 100% when it came time for the real vote??
Where is the 100% when it comes to passing laws in a state??
It may be 100% here on SW,but in real life,its more like 10%,and the 90% wins in this country.
The stats that Melonie has posted are real chit,why hasnt any media shown it or discussed it??
Because they cant,they would get the same backlash from the 10% of the population as anyone who posted NAY here.
Despite extensive public opposition to gay marriage, Americans are conflicted over whether to amend the Constitution to outlaw this practice. Recent polls on a possible constitutional amendment to prohibit gay marriage have yielded very different results, with support as low as 36% and as high as 60%.
Opinion on this subject varies, depending on how the issue is framed. A May survey by the Gallup Organization found 51% in favor of a constitutional amendment, with 45% opposed. The question stated the amendment "would define marriage as being between a man and a woman, thus barring marriages between gay or lesbian couples."
The public is less supportive of a constitutional amendment when presented with the option of allowing states to deal with this issue. In an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted in March, just 44% supported a constitutional amendment * with 53% opposed * when asked this question:
"Would you support amending the U.S. Constitution to make it illegal for homosexual couples to get married anywhere in the U.S., or should each state make its own laws on homosexual marriage?"
Polls find more support for a constitutional amendment when no mention of states rights is made, and the question does not specify that the amendment will explicitly prohibit gay marriages. In May, a CBS News survey found that 60% favored "an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would allow marriage ONLY between a man and a woman."
Yet an experiment conducted by CBS in February found that when the question clarified that such an amendment would "outlaw marriages between people of the same sex," support fell to 51%. Polling organizations have long found that the public is more willing to allow something than to forbid or bar it, even if the practical effect of the two constructions is comparable.
Context Matters
Most national polling organizations, including all the examples cited above, ask people their views on the constitutional amendment after a general question about gay marriage. This allows respondents to express their personal support or opposition to gay marriage, and then consider the constitutional amendment on its own merits. The Los Angeles Times recently found that when this approach is not taken * and respondents are asked about the constitutional amendment cold * people express somewhat more support for the amendment (54% vs. 48% after question on gay marriage).
Against Gay Marriage, but...
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press takes another approach, by seeking to elicit the views of gay marriage opponents on the proposed amendment. Pew's question mentions that there is a proposal to "change the U.S. Constitution to ban gay marriage," and asks opponents of gay marriage whether this is a "good idea" or a "bad idea."
In a March survey, Pew found similar levels of overall opposition to gay marriage as other national polls (59% opposed). But while most gay marriage opponents thought a constitutional amendment was a good idea (36% of the public), a substantial number did not (21% of the public). This latter group * those who are opposed to gay marriage yet dubious about the constitutional amendment * are an important "swing group" on this issue.
The Pew poll also probed the reasoning of these people. In an open-ended format, many expressed a concern that the constitution was not the appropriate place to deal with the issue, with 18% saying "leave the Constitution alone," and 14% expressing the view that the government should "stay out of" the question of gay marriage.
Opinion on Previous Amendments
In the past, many of the same arguments have been raised by opponents of constitutional amendments, and it is true that relatively few amendments have ultimately passed the formidable the series of hurdles established by the framers. This is especially true in the area of social policy.
Despite their low success rate, public opinion polls about proposed constitutional amendments have generally found significant support. A review of polls on 17 amendments discussed or formally proposed since 1939 found majorities supportive of 13 of them. Only one of the 17 was actually ratified * the amendment granting voting rights to people 18 and older, which was ratified in 1971.
http://people-press.org/commentary/d...?AnalysisID=92
Some would argue that the actual voting results of state ballot initiatives banning gay marriage in their state offer a much more accurate picture than any poll. If so, then the gay marriage advocates have their work cut out for them ... the majority of voters in 12 states approved ballot initiatives banning gay marriage in recent state elections, no ballot initiatives banning gay marriage failed. There was one victory for the gay marriage advocates, however, when they received 5 votes from the Mass State Supreme Court overturning a previous Mass ballot initiative vote where the majority of state voters supported a gay marriage ban.
truth ! A very vocal 10% can create lots of controversy, particularly when much of the mainstream media is eager to provide coverage of that controversy. However, 10% of the population does not win elections.Quote:
The stats that Melonie has posted are real chit,why hasnt any media shown it or discussed it??
Because they cant,they would get the same backlash from the 10% of the population as anyone who posted NAY here.
What I'm saying at least is that the question of gay marriage involves two separate and distinct issues. The first is the 'personal' union, which I could care less about one way or the other. The second is financial, i.e. the gay lobby using existing hetero marriage laws, existing hetero marriage tax laws, and existing union/civil service contracts and established employer policies to reap substantial financial benefits for gays while foisting huge resulting costs on employers and taxpayers in general to provide new benefits for gays and their spouses.Quote:
Ok, so I'm a little buzzed here, but is everyone saying the main reason gay marriage is not allowed is because health insurance rates will get all whacked out? Sorry if I didn't read everything right.
I have done some research today on this subject and found various things I found interesting so I thought I'd share my finding with others who are also interested in the subject............ I am also seriously considering writing a research paper on hiv, gay marriage and insurance.
Anywho here is some of the stuff I found today. The first link has numerous articles to choose from.
http://www.keepmedia.com/featuredtop...ge?extID=10038
Married couples normally have joint health insurance with one of their employers. If same-sex couples had equal access to employer healthcare benefits, there would be less of a financial burden on the public healthcare system if a partner living with HIV is in need of health care.
http://www.thebody.com/asp/septoct04/marriage.html
Link between Hiv and Gay Discrimination -http://www.aidslaw.ca/Maincontent/is...-info-gla2.pdf
The experience of Aids is the reason why marriage is the particular form that gay rights is taking now. The special damage visited on gays at the height of the Aids era - the damage that differed from the grief that death brings to everybody - came from the interaction of sudden death with a probate law designed for heterosexuals. There is an entire oral literature of men dying in hospital denied the company of their lovers of several decades; couples thrown into penury because American-style health benefits, designed to protect spouses, do not transfer to partners.
http://www.aidschicago.org/community...secid=5&sid=25
Awsome!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hello~Kitty
The more its talked about,the more people will know.
I hope you do it,I would love to read it.
I would suggest for your paper,you use reliable sources for your statistics and information.Quote:
Anywho here is some of the stuff I found today. The first link has numerous articles to choose from.
Married couples normally have joint health insurance with one of their employers. If same-sex couples had equal access to employer healthcare benefits, there would be less of a financial burden on the public healthcare system if a partner living with HIV is in need of health care.
The bold print you posted above is a factualy incorrect opinion given on some guys personal web site,asking for donations of course.
This verges on a pity party platform for same sex marriage.Quote:
The experience of Aids is the reason why marriage is the particular form that gay rights is taking now. The special damage visited on gays at the height of the Aids era - the damage that differed from the grief that death brings to everybody - came from the interaction of sudden death with a probate law designed for heterosexuals. There is an entire oral literature of men dying in hospital denied the company of their lovers of several decades; couples thrown into penury because American-style health benefits, designed to protect spouses, do not transfer to partners.
Sickening!
Quote:
There is an entire oral literature of men dying in hospital denied the company of their lovers of several decades
this is bullshit political tactics!
anyone dieing in a hospital can add someone to the visitors list,this aint cuba!!!
The family of the dieing person can have people outside of immediate family barred from the room,but im guessing only after the dieing person is at the point of not being able to say anything in protest.
Girlfriends,mistresses,and yes,Gay lovers can be barred,but its not just the system picking on gays as this story would suggest.
Anyone who suggest gay marriage is the cure for aids is a fucking Mo RON IMO!!!
btw
can anyone post factual stats on the approximate numbers of homosexuals in the united states??
I saw mel post aprox 5% for males,is this about the same as lesbians??
Im asking because i thought the homosexual community was 13% of the US population,not 10% or less.
Here is another link with numerous articles on this subject matter http://www.gaymarriagenews.com/
and here is another article excerpt:
If their marriage were recognized, the Saylors said, they would not have to rely on Healthy Kids, a state program, to insure the 14-year-old. http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll...S0201/50405019
And here is another public opinion poll from NY; boldface by me:
The Global Strategy Group survey found that 51% of New Yorkers support marriage for same-sex couples while 42% do not. On poll questions about various rights and protections that government gives to those who marry and whether same-sex couples should have access to them. The poll clearly shows there is overwhelming support for our families having access to these rights and protections. 72% to 83% of New Yorkers gave a resounding “Yes” to gay families having child custody rights, medical decision-making authority, burial authority, health, pension and inheritance rights.
According to this study tax payers are picking up the tab for a high majority of hiv persons:
The AIDS Cost and Services Utilization Survey (ACSUS) was a longitudinal study of persons with HIV-related disease. In a combination of personal interviews and abstraction of medical and billing records spanning an 18-month period, information was collected on more than 1,900 HIV-infected adults and adolescents, including approximately 350 women, and on 140 HIV-infected children under 13 years of age.
53 percent of respondents reported public coverage for their medical care. Another 28 percent were covered by private insurance, and 19 percent had no source of payment other than themselves or their family. Public coverage rose from 37 percent for asymptomatic persons to 50 percent for those who were symptomatic but non-AIDS to 62 percent for persons with AIDS. http://www.ahcpr.gov/data/acsus2.htm
The number of patients who are forced to use public health system would certianly drop if gay marriage were legal
I was under the impression anyone you wanted to leave your shit with had "inheritance rights". Am i wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hello~Kitty
I'm assuming that it refers to the line of inheritance when one dies intestate. (literally, "without testicles") (just kidding!) Right now, in most states, the preferred order of inheritors to an intestate decedent's estate runs something like: wife, kids, sibs, parents, grandkids, aunts/uncles, cousins, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madcap
So I'm assuming that "inheritance rights" means that the homosexual spouse is right there in line with anyone else, with full spousal rights to the estate.
BTW, I didn't answer the poll because I don't care. And it shouldn't be a Constitutional amendment, either. Whether one can marry one's different-sex lover, same-sex lover, multiple partners, cousin, sibling, pet, whatever, is a matter for the individual states rather than a something for the U.S. Constitution.
I realize there's a problem with other states' recognition when married people move. If Utah still allowed polygamy, it wouldn't be recognized in Illinois. If Arkansas allowed two 14-year-olds to get married, it wouldn't be recognized in Colorado. You take your chances when you're living in a state that's on the cutting edge.
So you mean "dies without a will," right (You hit me with a new word there, i got a good vocabulary but that was a new one on me). There's an easy answer to that one, get a will... Anyone should have one (at least a living one) and anyone with anything should have one...
hehe... looked it up...
Main Entry: 1in·tes·tate
Pronunciation: in-'tes-"tAt, -t&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin intestatus, from in- + testatus testate
1 : having made no valid will <died intestate>
2 : not disposed of by will <an intestate estate>
Actually there have been court cases where the family of a gay person has sucessfully contested (for no other reason than the fact that the couple was homosexual) the will of their deceased family member when said will leaves the deceased persons property to their same sex lover ......so no it isn't just "no will" situations. Marriage rights for gay persons all but eliminates those type of cases.
OK here's the key as I see it..the reason alot of people (MELONIE) don't like it revolves around the economic...healthcare, etc.
WHY is it OK for hetero couples that get married to receive these benefits, and non-hetero couples don't? If you really think there is an economic problem, oppose it for ALL people and don't claim there is some difference between the quality (or economic value) of straight vs gay love.
How in the hell does that happen? And when? Are we talking the fifties or the 00's?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hello~Kitty
I agree, Madcap, but I was just referring to one of the results of legitimizing homosexual marriage. In some states - maybe all, for all I know - you cannot cut a spouse out of an inheritance altogether. That's one of the "inheritance rights."
Exactly !Quote:
Originally Posted by discretedancer
if her argument was about ALL then it wouldn't be discrimination but since it is aimed at only one section of one group in society well then .....:-X
nope it wasn't the 50's ....how does it happen ? It happens when the Judge in the case is anti gay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Madcap
Jay has it right, and that is why gay marriage pretty solves those type of problems along with a whole host of other things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay
I see it as discriminatory against sexual mores that lie outside the standard accepted within mainstream society. No polygamy, no underage marriage, no homosexual marriage, no incestuous marriage. I see it as a sexual morality issue more than a "discriminate against gays" issue, although the net effect is the same.
One thing that always gets me about this issue is this...
People screaming about the "sanctity" of marriage... Very few ever talk about the health insurance, what have you, other things. It's always "we must defend the sanctity of marriage."
Um, Hetero's have already shreded the Sanctity of marriage with them constantly divorcing one another and remarrying (often multiple times). So where is the sanctity? Once, you got married, you were stuck. Often totally fucked because you didn't pick who it was you married (For friggin eons it was like that, a thousand years ago a girl was considered marrying age when she got her "first blood," guess what that is, and often to a man twice or more her age. Back then it was really only the poorest classes that married for love). The romanticists got hold of it and it became some harper's ballad. In the high middle ages, adultery was actually celebrated in song, they called it 'Courtly love' (the best literary example would be King Arthur - Queen Guenevere - Sir Lancelot, and maybe Sir Tristan and Lady Iseult with King Mark being the jilted Hubby out for revenge). Then all this time passes, we wind up with the fifties, where we seem to get all our ideas about marriage, but nobody counted on the sixties, with all those new ideas (that half these jokers try to ignore), and now how anyone can say a 50% (or more) divorce rate for Marriage is sacred is beyond me. What it once was is gone.
Fact is, it doesn't mean sharing your life with someone anymore. Once it did, and that wasn't always a good thing since you didn't get to pick. Those days are gone. It's a Harlequin romance, now.
Frankly, i say that anyone who wants to spend their lives with another human being, should be commended. That's the exeption, these days, not the rule (as it once was).
If these jokers are worried about the "sanctity of marriage" then they friggin need to stop cheating on their wives... And that divorce rate needs to come down. Then maybe i'll believe them. As it stands they are defending a dead body. Marriage is not Sacred, anymore. And half these people shouldn't even be taking vows under God in the first place. I wouldn't be calling God's attention to their exact location if i was them...
It's not for me. I don't even want to ever marry anyone. I think it's bullshit. I need no slip of paper to tell me i love someone. But i can't find an objection to Gay Marriage anywhere in me.
^I completely agree with everything you just said in that post, Madcap :O.
Seriously. That's my big problem with all the objection to gay marriage. Most of the gay couples I know are more monogamous and committed to one another than the straight married couples I know. People who want to protect the "sanctity of marriage" should worry more about the escapades of Britney Spears than about two guys who have been together for twenty years and just want to have the ability to make important medical decisions for one another, or get covered on their partner's health insurance plan.
I just DO NOT buy the slippery slope arguments ("Next thing y'know, people'll be marrying their sheep!!" wtf?)
Because I've pretty much always lived in coastal bastions of liberal debauchery, I don't worry about it too much, though....people tend to live and let live around here....
Outlaw interracial marriage instead.
Until we prevent race mixing, there is little need to talk anything else.
http://img23.echo.cx/img23/5829/meonme7kc.jpg
versus
http://www.marmalade.ca/images/misc/taye.jpg
Which is more harmful for America?
I believe the results are before our very eyes.
Huh?
I'm a little confused.
Shot......
wtf ???
Okay, but how many of those cases lead to health care costs beyond the average of health care costs for people without HIV/AIDS? That's the relevant issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
You're mixing your conditions now. You cited a stat about the likelihood of contracting HIV and/or AIDS, but now you've jumped to a conclusion about health care costs associated only with developing full-blown AIDS. The health care costs associated with developing full-blown AIDS must be higher than the costs associated with treating the total number of AIDS/HIV cases or HIV sans AIDS symptoms. In other words, the average of all such cases might be far less than you're estimating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
Also, it's a "gotcha" saying that it ALWAYS results in. Nothing ALWAYS results in anything. If you had said "the vast majority of times," I'd be more likely to swallow it (I have been known to swallow for a good cause), and I suspect that's what you meant so I know it's a technicality of semantics. But what's the actual source for that cost estimate? Some AIDS patients die relatively quickly, avoiding years of health care, possibly even saving money when compared to someone who deteriorates from other conditions but survives longer. Do we know the actual cost estimates or are we using a broad brush of generalization based on what we suspect sounds good?
Gotta get in a rant here first. Private medical insurers don't want to "cover" anyone with a claim; they want to collect premiums while the insured are healthy and then jetison them when they get sick and need coverage. Wouldn't matter if a company's profits were astronomical, they would totally cherry pick their customers if that would yield astronomical squared. But that's beside the point, I just had to slam insurance companies for a moment. }:DQuote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
The bottom line here is that costs is costs. They don't go away just because gays can't get married and the private medical insurers aren't covering them. My SO is chronically ill, not with HIV, but another chronic condition that requires specialists, lots of medication and an occasional hospital stay. She's costing what she's costing. Since she can't be my dependent on private insurance if I were to get a non-stripping job, she will continue to cost Medicare, and would be costing Medicaid (and the providers who would get shorted under Medicaid) if I weren't pulling some of the load. Woops! I just anecdotally betrayed the argument that gay marriage would cost others more. I'm paying for some of what the government would be paying for if not for me. Amazing what love can do. :D
If we were married filing a joint return, it wouldn't even be a choice, she wouldn't be eligible for Medicaid or supplemental Social Security (SSI). Primary burden would shift to private insurance if she could get on as my dependent, but I and/or my employer would be contributing to premiums for her and myself (low insurance payout for me, knock wood), compared to the situation at present which would be, if not for my "gay love contribution," all on the government.
So six of one, half dozen of the other, no? It's coming out of someone's pocket other than hers because she can't work. Government or private insurance or the provider being shorted. We pay for all of those, don't we?
Maybe we should just euthanize her and all BZs (Below Zero, a term used to describe a customer who costs you more in expenses than she nets you in profit)? Why does insurance even exist? It's nothing but income redistribution from the strong to the weak, just like taxes for welfare, right? Let everyone fend for themselves! Hoo-hah! /:O
I don't see how life insurance would be impacted much by gay marriage. Yes, there are some insurance plans at certain jobs covering spouses, but aren't they generally small potatoes? One job I had offered the benefit of a $10,000 term plan for me and a $5,000 plan for a spouse. Not big money. It would be nice to cover some funeral expenses, but that's about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
It doesn't matter if my SO is married to me or not, she ain't gettin' a full-fledged life insurance plan of her own. She's F'ed on that because of her condition. Couldn't qualify if her soul depended on it. Or I should say, I'm F'd, because I'll be the one surviving with bills but her Social Security Disability runs out as soon as she kicks. (But don't tell her I said that, this is said for the sake of personalizing the argument and being flippant about a situation that otherwise would have me :'( .) Nevertheless, my point is that the bulk of life insurance, unlike group health insurance, will continue to be assessed and denied based on perceived risk and behavior, with or without gay marriage.
Again, I say the 20x figure is questionable at best. You assumed that because the rate of catching HIV/AIDS is 20 times, that the cost will be 20 times. Heck, maybe it's more, for all I know. Plus, we haven't even determined what the rate of catching HIV is for couples in a long-term committment, have we? If every couple were serial monogamists like my SO and I, their rate would be zero. Assuming I can just stay away from probing fingers at work. :OQuote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
And besides, unionized industries? They're a dying breed, not as significant as they once were. We sure won't see a change in SC industry benefits, will we? >:(
Okay, so we'll only legalize lesbian marriage. Now what's your argument? And come to think of it, why did you leave women out of your cost estimates for gay marriage? That stacks the argument. :-\Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
Did I put enough smilie faces in this to make my potentially smart alecy nature palatable, if not adorable? Or at least to keep me from being bitch slapped? I really really don't want to make PP a full-time habit, so just ignore me if I'm being too frickin' annoying.
-Ev
Precisely because the statistics are 'what they are' - which clearly indicate that lesbians don't show any additional risk factor where HIV/AIDS are concerned. I'd have absolutely no objection to legalizing lesbian marriage, both on 'personal union' grounds, and because any lesbian dependents of large corporations or fed/state/local govt's or gov't contractors ... empoluers who would be automatically required by existing law or contracts to provide health benefits for a legally married gay spouse ... would not have to shoulder very much in the way of new health care costs.Quote:
Okay, so we'll only legalize lesbian marriage. Now what's your argument? And come to think of it, why did you leave women out of your cost estimates for gay marriage? That stacks the argument.
sarcasm aside, the intended purpose of medical insurance is to mitigate the high costs of the 1 in 1000 shot actually happening, spreading the costs of that 1 in 1000 prolonged cancer case among 999 other people - many of whom die in car accidents, shootings, the flu, heart attack or other causes where the medical costs associated with that death are very low. When a certain group, for example smokers or skydivers, seeks medical insurance, the law allows insurance companies to charge them higher premiums based on the fact that their behavoir/lifestyle directly contributes to a higher probability of the need for high cost treatments. Gay men certainly have been proven to be such a group based on AIDS statistics. However, unlike smokers or skydivers, gay men are seeking to use existing law and contracts regarding married dependent coverage to avoid having to pay higher insurance premiums themselves, and instead shift those very significant insurance costs associated with their high risks to everybody else.Quote:
Maybe we should just euthanize her and all BZs (Below Zero, a term used to describe a customer who costs you more in expenses than she nets you in profit)? Why does insurance even exist? It's nothing but income redistribution from the strong to the weak, just like taxes for welfare, right? Let everyone fend for themselves! Hoo-hah!
I wouldn't be harping on this if we weren't talking about an astronomical amount of money. I also wouldn't be harping about this if the USA had public health coverage such that the $1,000,000 in typical medical costs per AIDS patient didn't have to be picked up by private employers and local govt's. But consider the example of a self-insured 100 worker business, with a net annual profit of $10,000 per employee (which is optimistic these days). Having to cover the expenses associated with just one dependent AIDS case would absorb every single dollar of profit produced by the hard work of those 100 employees. As expensive as MedicAid benefits might be to the public coffers, they do not directly bankrupt businesses and put 100 people out of work.
Actually, you're right though. Ultimately this will lead to two possibilities ... employers will stop providing employee and dependent health insurance coverage as soon as they can find a way to weasel out of contractual obligations to do so, leaving either gov't health care or individually purchased private health insurance (based on individual risk factors).
I noticed these in one of the related threads and thought I would repost them as they are relevant to this thread as well.
Argument against :Gay marriage would mean forcing businesses to provide benefits to same-sex couples on the same basis as opposite-sex couples.
While this may or may not be true (based primarily on state labor laws), the reality is that many businesses already do offer these benefits to gay couples, and for sound business reasons. And experience has shown that when they do, the effect on their costs for offering these benefits is minimal - very rarely does the cost of benefits offered to gay couples cause the business' benefits costs to rise by more than 1.5%. This trivial cost is usually far more than offset by the fact that the company is seen as being progressive for having offered these benefits - making its stock much more attractive to socially progressive mutual funds and rights-conscious pension funds and individual investors, and thus increasing upwards pressure on its price. This is why so many corporations, including most of the Fortune 500, already offer these benefits without being required to do so - it's just good business sense.
Argument against : Granting gays the right to marry is a "special" right.
Since ninety percent of the population already have the right to marry the informed, consenting adult of their choice, and would even consider that right a fundamental, constitutionally protected right, since when does extending it to the remaining ten percent constitute a "special" right to that remaining ten percent? As Justice Kennedy observed in his opinion overturning Colorado's infamous Amendment 2 (Roemer vs. Evans), many gay and lesbian Americans are, under current law, denied civil rights protections that others either don't need or assume that everyone else along with themselves, already have. The problem with all that special rights talk is that it proceeds from that very assumption, that because of all the civil rights laws in this country that everyone is already equal, so therefore any rights gay people are being granted must therefore be special. That is most assuredly not the case, especially regarding marriage and all the legal protections that go along with it.
http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm
Also I must seriously question the true intent of people who use health insurance costs as their argument against gay marriage. First of all it assumes that all gays or specificaly gay men are or will become hiv+ which is an inncorrect and ignorant assumption.
Second, if it is truely an objection to paying into something that offers healthcare to people other than themselves or paying more than beforehand then why not object to joint health insurance for all couples ? Why only gay people? Why not other higher risk groups such as IV drug users as an example ? Why not any of the groups of people who have a higher statistical chance of developing a disease ? Why gay people and only gay people and no one else ? The answer is obvious in my opinion. Discrimination of homosexuals.
Third, why no objection to any of this for any heterosexual married couples ? Again the answer is quite clear. The entire arguemnt of healthcare costs as a reasonable argument against gay marriage is based on nothing more than discrimination of homosexuals.
Fourth, many insurance companies already charge homosexual men higher premiums and this would not change if gay marriage were legal so the entire I'd have to pay more argument is for that reason alone defunct. And really what kind of person feels that denying equal rights because of perceived costs is acceptable anyway ? :-\ I am quite sure similar arguments were used by those who did not want interacial marriage as are now used by those who oppose gay marriage.
I can't say I have much respect the position of opposing gay marriage or for the people who feel that way, however I would respect it more if those who use these flimsy arguments would just be honest about what it is they are doing. Which is ofcourse discriminating against homosexuals. Denial of that obvious truth is nothing short of lying.
:twocents: