|
bnjohns
Feb 15, 2004, 3:03 PM
Post #126 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2003
Posts: 174
|
In reply to: Opinion and more opinion. I thought I'd heard on the news yesterday that so far 38 states have banned gay marriage. *Gasp! Could you be in the minority on this? Is there a possibility that you could be wrong?
And the latest Gallup Poll has public opinion split on the issue of a constitutional amendment to exclude gays from marriage: 47% to 47%. A Time/CNN poll has people split 47% pro-amendment, 46% against.
But so what? Principles should guide us, not a bandwagon effect, even if there is one.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 15, 2004, 3:09 PM
Post #127 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
Principles are based upon subjective ideas and opinions.
You are bright and clever and well suited to quoting the law, bnjohns.
That does not change the fact that traditional "Mom, Dad, Junior, and Sis" type families make a community strong. Always have, always will. Changing that is at the very least of questionable merit.
|
|
|
|
|
bnjohns
Feb 15, 2004, 4:16 PM
Post #128 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2003
Posts: 174
|
In reply to: You are bright and clever and well suited to quoting the law, bnjohns. That does not change the fact that traditional "Mom, Dad, Junior, and Sis" type families make a community strong. Always have, always will. Changing that is at the very least of questionable merit.
I appreciate the compliment about my cleverness. I hesitate to pat myself on the back here, though, since essentially all I'm doing is stating the facts.
So, to go back to stating the facts, danooguy, it seems to me like you have three arguments here, two of which I've responded to before now, and the third of which I respond to below in more detail.
Argument one: We should respect tradition.
Response: There's no point in respecting tradition for tradition's sake. If there's no overwhelming positive reason for keeping the tradition, a tradition that favors discrimination ought to go. There are lots of traditions we've rejected over the years as harmful, like the exclusion of women from political life and prohibitions on interracial marriage.
Argument two: The majority should rule.
Response: Issues involving individual rights are precisely the issues that the founders (rightly) chose to place beyond the reach of the majority. This is why these rights are constitutional rather than statutory: so that the majority cannot easily deny the rights of the minority.
Argument three: Mom, dad junior and sis type families make a community strong
Response: I take this argument to be that homosexual families cause harm. Since I don't see how harm to the 'community' would be measured, I'll interpret this argument as "Gay parenting is harmful to child development." If this is true, it should give us pause, since one of the few reasons that we might legitimately restrict the rights of a minority group would be if that group is systematically infringing on the rights of others (children in this case).
But I don't know of any evidence to support the claim that gay parents harm children, and there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. Here's a brief bibliography, just to show that I'm not just spouting subjective ideas and opinions.
Children aren’t at greater risk of sexual abuse from homosexuals:
Jenny, C., Roesler, T. A., & Poyer, K. L. "Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals?" Pediatrics, 1994. 94, 41-44.
Children of gay parents are as well adjusted as children of heterosexual parents:
Golombok, Susan; Perry, Beth; Burston, Amanda; Murray, Clare; Mooney-Somers, Julie; Stevens, Madeleine; Golding, Jean, "Children with lesbian parents: A community study." Developmental Psychology. 2003 Jan Vol 39(1) 20-33
Flaks, D. K., Ficher I., Masterpasqua, F., & Joseph, G. "Lesbians choosing motherhood. A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children." Developmental Psychology, 31, 1995, 105-114.
Patterson, Charlotte J. "Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents." Child Development. 1992, 1025-42.
Golombok, Susan, Spencer, A., & Rutter, M. "Children in lesbian and single-parent households: Psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal." Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 24, 1983, 551-572.
Miller, B. "Gay fathers and their children." The Family Coordinator, 28, 1979, 544-552.
And finally, not that it should make a difference, but here are some articles showing that children of gay parents are no more likely to be gay than other children:
Golombok, Susan; Tasker, Fiona "Do parents influence the sexual orientation of their children? Findings from a longitudinal study of lesbian families. " Developmental Psychology. 1996 Jan Vol 32(1) 3-11
Bailey, J. Michael; Bobrow, David; Wolfe, Marilyn; Mikach, Sarah. "Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers. " Developmental Psychology. 1995 Jan Vol 31(1) 124-129
Green, R. (1978). "Sexual identity of 37 children raised by homosexual or transsexual parents." American Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 692-697.
Based on all this evidence, I see no reason to believe that gay families are harmful.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Feb 15, 2004, 4:21 PM
Post #129 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
In reply to: That does not change the fact that traditional "Mom, Dad, Junior, and Sis" type families make a community strong. Always have, always will. Changing that is at the very least of questionable merit.
Just how would a few gay marriages change the traditional mom, dad, junior and sis families?
You need to stick to eating doughnuts.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 15, 2004, 4:38 PM
Post #130 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: Just how would a few gay marriages change the traditional mom, dad, junior and sis families? You need to stick to eating doughnuts.
I have never said that homosexual marriages would change the traditional family.
You need a krueller and a cup of coffee. I'm buyin'.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 15, 2004, 4:59 PM
Post #131 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
Argument 1 is not mine. I would never suggest "tradition" as grounds for anything. We are back to discussing the semantics of a common expression. I guess you could say "historically" the Mom, Dad, Junior, Sis type family....." The idea that I am conveying is not complicated. I maintain that government promotes and thwarts behaviors by way of legislation, taxation, etc. The traditional/historical family has been promoted in a variety of ways as you readily admit. Why promote anything else?
Arguement 2 is an oversimplification of what I have stated above. I maintain that what is stated above is not only logical, but it is a inalienable right of every society to promote those behaviors that is wishes to foster and to thwart those that it wishes to discourage, nothing more, nothing less. Do not read anything into or detract anything from that basic idea.
Argument 3 is as stated. However, your interpretation of it borders on being quite offensive, first to me, and secondly to the homosexual community. I DO NOT maintain that homosexuality and pedophilia are in any way connected. Nor do I feel that a homosexual is in any way a sexual predator.
What I am saying is this: We know that the normal family works (and for the pinheads on the board, that does not mean that it works 100% of the time and without failure). A child should have a mother figure and a father figure. In my opinion, that is the ideal, and a society should promote that which is ideal, not that which is or may be questionable.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Feb 15, 2004, 5:18 PM
Post #132 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
But bhjohns gave some evidence that children in gay marriages are not harmed by the non-traditional situation.
And anyway, I don't see that promoting mom and dad families while allowing gay families are antagonistic. Society allows many things without actively promoting them.
Um, and I would think that a happy loving family ( the Ideal) is more important that the sex of the two parents.
I am heading for the food now. THe idea of doughnuts and tea or coffe will not go away.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 15, 2004, 5:32 PM
Post #133 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: You still didn't answer any questions. I answered yours. Quit pretending this is personal just so you can avoid the argument.
Read my last response to you again.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 15, 2004, 5:38 PM
Post #134 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: But bhjohns gave some evidence that children in gay marriages are not harmed by the non-traditional situation.
Again, I have never said they were harmed.
In reply to: And anyway, I don't see that promoting mom and dad families while allowing gay families are antagonistic. Society allows many things without actively promoting them.
By providing the same benefits to homosexual marriages that are provided to heterosexual marriages, you are not simply "allowing," you are actively promoting that which is, in my opinion, less than ideal.
|
|
|
|
|
bnjohns
Feb 15, 2004, 5:43 PM
Post #135 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2003
Posts: 174
|
In reply to: Argument 1 is not mine. I would never suggest "tradition" as grounds for anything. We are back to discussing the semantics of a common expression. I guess you could say "historically" the Mom, Dad, Junior, Sis type family....." The idea that I am conveying is not complicated. I maintain that government promotes and thwarts behaviors by way of legislation, taxation, etc. The traditional/historical family has been promoted in a variety of ways as you readily admit. Why promote anything else? Arguement 2 is an oversimplification of what I have stated above. I maintain that what is stated above is not only logical, but it is a inalienable right of every society to promote those behaviors that is wishes to foster and to thwart those that it wishes to discourage, nothing more, nothing less. Do not read anything into or detract anything from that basic idea. Argument 3 is as stated. However, your interpretation of it borders on being quite offensive, first to me, and secondly to the homosexual community. I DO NOT maintain that homosexuality and pedophilia are in any way connected. Nor do I feel that a homosexual is in any way a sexual predator. What I am saying is this: We know that the normal family works (and for the pinheads on the board, that does not mean that it works 100% of the time and without failure). A child should have a mother figure and a father figure. In my opinion, that is the ideal, and a society should promote that which is ideal, not that which is or may be questionable.
I'm sorry if I offended you, but I was trying to think of all the ways in which a person might think gay parenting was harmful, and then refute all of them. I'm not sure how my argument that homosexual parenting and sex abuse are not related is offensive to gays and lesbians.
In response to your response to the second argument, I'd say that when key individual rights are at stake, society's freedom to make laws as it pleases is restricted. This is why we can have laws that discriminate on the basis of "whether or not you're speeding" or "whether or not you put your money in the right kind of savings account" but not on the basis of what race you are.
So your argument is really that it is harmful for child development not to have both a male and a female role model? Of course, a male and female role model can exist outside of the nuclear family unit, as I'm sure you'd admit. So the question really is, does the lack of both a mother and a father in the nuclear family unit systematically affect child development in a negative way? The five articles I cited above find that the answer is no.
If the 'normal' family works (which I'm not disputing), and families with gay parents work (in that there's no negative effect on children, which the evidence demonstrates), there's no reason to discriminate against gay and lesbian parents. In fact, constitutional principles compel us to grant them equal rights.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 15, 2004, 6:51 PM
Post #136 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: I'm not sure how my argument that homosexual parenting and sex abuse are not related is offensive to gays and lesbians.
There are people that equate homosexuality to pedophilia. If I were homosexual, I would not appreciate the dismissal of that possibility against the backdrop of a discussion of homosexuality and homosexual marriage. The reason that it bothered me is because I do not wish to be colored as being in the same corner with those that would love to besmirch a homosexual as a pedophile. On this very thread we have those that cannot get past the semantics of "normal family." It is no stretch to imagine that they could presume that I am condemning homosexual marriages because I feel that the children would be physically harmed. I am not and I have not.
In reply to: I'd say that when key individual rights are at stake, society's freedom to make laws as it pleases is restricted.
Agreed. The question remains...are individual rights being restricted or are couple's rights being restricted. No individual can claim, for example, the right to a person's pension benefits, unless that person is his/her spouse. Spouse refers to marriage, marriage refers to man and woman. It seems as though the law cannot be applied until some long standing definitions are altered. Thus, while arguing the law, chapter and verse, may be beyond the scope of my training and experience, valid questions still exist.
In reply to: So your argument is really that it is harmful for child development not to have both a male and a female role model?
Johnny Cochran again. :)
No, the argument is that we know that the traditional family is ideal. We choose to promote that which is ideal. Homosexual "families" are not the ideal. We have not promoted them in the past. Why promote them now.
In reply to: If the 'normal' family works (which I'm not disputing), and families with gay parents work (in that there's no negative effect on children, which the evidence demonstrates)..............
A question of the strength of said evidence obviously remains. You would have the posting of a few sources be accepted as conclusive. Would that life should be simple.
Do families with "gay" parents "work?" That is the question. Therefore it is questionable. If it were not so, we would not be having this conversation, would we?
In reply to: Of course, a male and female role model can exist outside of the nuclear family unit, as I'm sure you'd admit.
Not your best work. A child can grow and prosper without ever having known his parents, without ever having had a mother figure at all, for example. But then, that is not what we are trying to promote with our benefits, is it? Should we grant pension benefits to the woman next door, when my father dies, because she was "like a mother" to me?
In reply to: In fact, constitutional principles compel us to grant them equal rights.
I agree that if all the questionable things that you hold to be true about homosexuals couples and families are true, then we should grant them equal rights. But...are they true? The proving of such a thing requires much interpretation and a swan dive into a very subjective area. After that tall order, you must still convince an obviously skeptical nation of your "proof."
Is a homosexual family what America wants to actively promote?
Not everyone is as confident of the answers as you are.
|
|
|
|
|
bnjohns
Feb 15, 2004, 7:30 PM
Post #137 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2003
Posts: 174
|
In reply to: On this very thread we have those that cannot get past the semantics of "normal family." It is no stretch to imagine that they could presume that I am condemning homosexual marriages because I feel that the children would be physically harmed. I am not and I have not.
And it's for others on this thread who have advocated particularly extreme views about homosexuality that I presented that particular evidence. I apologize if I implicitly lumped you in with them. I certainly never explicitly accused you of this point of view.
In reply to: The question remains...are individual rights being restricted or are couple's rights being restricted. No individual can claim, for example, the right to a person's pension benefits, unless that person is his/her spouse.
What I'm saying is that prohibiting someone from even being a party to a particular type of contract on the basis of sex is much different from distinguishing between those who are part of such a contract and those who are not. The first is constitutionally suspect because it is an individual rights violation, the second is not.
In reply to: No, the argument is that we know that the traditional family is ideal. We choose to promote that which is ideal. Homosexual "families" are not the ideal. We have not promoted them in the past. Why promote them now.
I'm not sure how you're defining "ideal". If ideal means "the empirical evidence shows that children are better off in such families", I've presented evidence refuting the point. If ideal means "what we have promoted in the past", then you can refer back to my argument that tradition shouldn't be maintained for tradition's sake. The only other way I know of defining "ideal" is based on religious values, and you've said you're not relying on religious values.
In reply to: A question of the strength of said evidence obviously remains. You would have the posting of a few sources be accepted as conclusive. Would that life should be simple. Do families with "gay" parents "work?" That is the question. Therefore it is questionable. If it were not so, we would not be having this conversation, would we?
If you've got other evidence, by all means present it.
I disagree with the suggestion that the very fact of your disagreement indicates that your argument is correct. :D
In reply to: A child can grow and prosper without ever having known his parents, without ever having had a mother figure at all, for example. But then, that is not what we are trying to promote with our benefits, is it? Should we grant pension benefits to the woman next door, when my father dies, because she was "like a mother" to me?
I don't think I ever advocated granting automatic survivor's benefits to next door neighbors. All I'm saying is that prohibiting someone from being a party to a particular type of contract on the basis of sex is discrimination and ought to be unconstitutional. All this is 'promoting' is equality under the law.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 16, 2004, 12:17 AM
Post #138 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
Thank you for your understanding, bnjohns. Anyone that disagrees with the idea of homosexuals marrying is to certain members of this board a religious zealot, a bigot, a hate-monger and so on. That is why I jumped when you started down the road of homosexuality and pedophilia. I'm also disgusted by the slurs associated with homosexuality and the pop-culture attributes that homosexuals contribute more to the arts than heteros and so on.
In reply to: What I'm saying is that prohibiting someone from even being a party to a particular type of contract on the basis of sex is much different from distinguishing between those who are part of such a contract and those who are not. The first is constitutionally suspect because it is an individual rights violation, the second is not.
The first cannot happen under the current definition of marriage. The definition will have be to be altered and the alteration be accepted legally and perhaps even socially. The laws can be changed and enforced. Acceptance on a social basis may be another matter altogether. I cannot understand certain types of bias (as in the example of people showing a willingness, almost an eagerness, to lump homosexuality and pedophilia together). However, bias does exist and overcoming it may be a battle that makes the legal battle for "rights" seem easy in comparison. Fodder for another thread perhaps.
As to defining ideal........
I state that as a matter of common knowledge, common sense. I suppose one could provide documentation and various references to prove for example, the a child has a better chance of growing up healthy in a variety of ways when both parents (meaning male and female) are actively available and involved in the child's life. It is also common knowledge that children from single parent families may be prone to a variety of problems that children from traditional families are not...discipline problems and so on. (Again for the pinheads, yes there are many exceptions to those rules that can be cited...a discussion of such ideas is necessarily general in nature). In my opinion, that a child should have a mother and father is something beyond question. It is simply the best way to raise a child.
Therefore, I stand by the concept of the ideal family. Can other family scenarios succeed? Certainly, especially because children are amazingly resilient and adaptable little boogers. Some children of single moms grow up to be wonderful people doing wonderful things. That does not mean that the struggle is not greater than it might have been, or that they would not have achieved success sooner or to a greater degree, or that the chance of success for the children of single parent families is every bit as great as it is for the "ideal" family, where a mom and a dad support and nurture the kids.
As to the "evidence" that you produce...I will stick to my guns on what environment is healthiest for a child. The ideal family is just that...ideal. Anything else is a compromise one way or the other. Your evidence is questionable in my opinion for a variety of reason which are subjective. I am relying on what I know to be true and I will not be swayed by a "study" done by this or that outfit or person. Fracture has proven my reasoning and validated it in a big way when he posts figures to "prove" that 60% of all males supposedly show homosexual propensities.
Mom, Dad, Junior, and Sis...that is a family...like the sunrise and the sunset, I do not need a "study" to prove it to me.
|
|
|
|
|
calliope
Feb 16, 2004, 12:35 AM
Post #139 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2002
Posts: 1212
|
In reply to: Mom, Dad, Junior, and Sis...that is a family...like the sunrise and the sunset, I do not need a "study" to prove it to me.
Harping on this point is really starting to annoy me. Explain to me in logical terms how allowing homosexuals equal rights under the law changes your right to adhere to a family blueprint out of a 50s sitcom.
The entire purpose of this thread was a legal discussion regarding a constitutional ammendment that would define marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
bnjohns
Feb 16, 2004, 12:38 AM
Post #140 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2003
Posts: 174
|
In reply to: Thank you for your understanding, bnjohns. Anyone that disagrees with the idea of homosexuals marrying is to certain members of this board a religious zealot, a bigot, a hate-monger and so on.
Hey, a bunch of people on my side of this argument got called Nazis a few pages back, so I understand how it feels!
I think maybe we've reached a point beyond which there is not much more to say. Danooguy, you're a worthy interlocutor. Too bad you're so wrong on this. :D
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 16, 2004, 12:46 AM
Post #141 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
Calliope:
Your questions are answered on this thread, including how this ties into the legal side of things. Your inability to follow the thread is annoying for me. Read it.
In reply to: to a family blueprint out of a 50s sitcom.
Your choice of rhetoric to slur the concept of a traditional family is puzzling and disrespectful. I made no slurs and spoke not a word of sarcasm or satire in reference to homosexual families. Either you have some axe to grind with the traditional family or you have an agenda. Which is it?
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 16, 2004, 12:49 AM
Post #142 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: think maybe we've reached a point beyond which there is not much more to say. Danooguy, you're a worthy interlocutor. Too bad you're so wrong on this.
Thank you, bnjohns. I've enjoyed talking with you very much. I admire your smarts. I'll give you a little time to think about this and you'll come around. :)
|
|
|
|
|
calliope
Feb 16, 2004, 12:56 AM
Post #143 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2002
Posts: 1212
|
In reply to: Calliope: Your questions are answered on this thread, including how this ties into the legal side of things. Your inability to follow the thread is annoying for me. Read it. In reply to: to a family blueprint out of a 50s sitcom. Your choice of rhetoric to slur the concept of a traditional family is puzzling and disrespectful. I made no slurs and spoke not a word of sarcasm or satire in reference to homosexual families. Either you have some axe to grind with the traditional family or you have an agenda. Which is it?
ooh. Snarky. I'm following quite well thanks. And it wasn't a slur. Mom, Dad, Jr. and Sis is the 50s sitcom formula. There are a number of traditional families that don't consist of that makeup.
Like Bnjohns I think we've reached a place where nothing further's going to be gained by continuing to discuss. I suppose you could say I have an agenda. Equal rights is always a worthy agenda.
Best of luck to you Dano. I hope you're never on the other side of an issue like this.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 16, 2004, 2:43 AM
Post #144 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
In reply to: And it wasn't a slur. Mom, Dad, Jr. and Sis is the 50s sitcom formula.
And I'm the king of Siam.
|
|
|
|
|
dirtineye
Feb 16, 2004, 4:04 AM
Post #145 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
The least logical thing you've said in this thread, danoguy, is that it is activly promoting same sex marriages, to the detriment of society, to grant the same rights to gay peoplel who love each other as we do to straight peopel who love each other-- that is a legal marriage with the same benefits as heterosexuals get.
You are just wrong on this.
We allow homosexuahaaht doew not mean hta tthe military is activly promoting homosexuality, I think even you can admit this.
Surely if you put your mind to the task you can come up with many such examples.
So get another hobby horse to ride, the wheels are off the old one.
Now where is my doughnut?
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 16, 2004, 4:12 AM
Post #146 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
dirt, old buddy, either you've broken several of your fingers, or you're under the influence of a controlled substance.
I will be glad to talk to you tomorrow though, ok?
|
|
|
|
|
calliope
Feb 16, 2004, 4:39 AM
Post #147 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2002
Posts: 1212
|
Regardless of which side of the issue you fall, I hope you'll make sure your voice is heard in a manner which is likely to make more of a difference than arguing on a climbing web site. In the interest of fairness and equality, the links to two petitions are listed below. Make sure you pay attention. It would be a crying shame if you aligned yourself with the wrong side according to your beliefs.
http://www.hrc.org/...marriage/index.shtml
http://www.nogaymarriage.com/
|
|
|
|
|
bnjohns
Feb 16, 2004, 1:42 PM
Post #148 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 12, 2003
Posts: 174
|
Thanks calliope!
|
|
|
|
|
sharpender
Feb 16, 2004, 6:14 PM
Post #149 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2003
Posts: 663
|
In reply to: Certainly, especially because children are amazingly resilient and adaptable little boogers
Dano: You also said it is a inalieanable right of every society to promote behaviors it desires and discourage those it dislikes. This is false and wrong thinking. Societies do not have rights. I will grant that for centuries mankind has labored under this paternal god misconception. Divine right of kings and all that crap of what is best for the "children" and the masses. But this simple statement would allow the atrocities of the Third Reich as the rights of that society. Wrong. It is human beings that have rights. socities job is not to "promote". It's purpose is to protect the rights of individual humans and the best interest of the peoples in the regulation of complex interactions. That's it.
I have also seen the argument that pension benefits can only go to a marriage partner. While I am not certain about pension I know that many states allow at least medical benefits to go to ones "life partner" and that this does include same sex partners. So creating a marriage for gays to acheive benefits is not necessarily a required solution. This is not to say I am defacto opposed. See my previous posts for my position.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 16, 2004, 6:31 PM
Post #150 of 280
(3619 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
Ok, they are malleable little boogers. :)
I am not sure that the Third Reich gave a horse's patootie what is society wanted. Hitler was pretty much a dictator as I recall. Society had no voice in things at all as I recall. But overall, you do give me something to think about.
As to medical benefits to a life partner...not sure it that is a state sponsored idea or a company granted privilege. Not a commonplace thing though, that is certain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
