While the waters are muddy enough, what about the PETA types? They practically exhalt animals over humans now.
IMHO, this is about tying down survivor's benefits and tapping into healthcare plans more than emotional bonding. Call it "marriage" and they can "adopt" other gays and increase the drain on employers' healthcare plans while heterosexuals pick up the tab.
It is still legally OK in many states for these corporate/government employee health insurance plans to discriminate against smokers, heavy drinkers, hang glider pilots, motorcyclists, and skydivers, but not Gays, despite the medical problems inherent in their 'lifestyle'.
While the waters are muddy enough, what about the PETA types? They practically exhalt animals over humans nowAnd they have absolutely nothing to do with this gay marriage business. Idiots, maybe, but really not germane to the issue.
IMHO, this is about tying down survivor's benefits and tapping into healthcare plans more than emotional bonding.
Got it in one, IMO. Those homosexuals who are already in long-term relationships aren't going to have the relationships themselves materially affected. It's largely about medical rights, and suchlike as you mentioned. I guess I can see where they're coming from, more or less...if I'm living long-term with a woman and want to make it honest, I head w/ her down to the courthouse - $25 and a blood test later, we're hitched, with all the rights pertaining thereto.
Call it "marriage" and they can "adopt" other gays and increase the drain on employers' healthcare plans while heterosexuals pick up the tab.
What - do gays not have to pay for their insurance? And are insurers really going to start granting coverage wholesale, without regard for pre-existing conditions or poor medical history? They sure as heck aren't now...
And really, if they're only 1% of the population, as many here claim, how much of a drain could they really put on the system?
Snidely