[Hodar]

I don't want to be in the same group insurance plans as homosexuals. Their life expectancy is much lower and their health far worse than that of heterosexuals. They made the decision to pursue this lifestyle- they should pay for it.

You could make the same arguement for smokers or people who drink.

I have no problem with legal equality; however forcing a heterosexuals to recognize "Gay Marriage" on the same plane as "Marriage" was a bit much. The gay community does have a few very legitimate points. For example, a gay couple is driving and has an accident. One of them is severely hurt and requires immediate surgury. The unhurt person could NOT sign for the surgury, this requires a member of the family or a married partner. The unhurt person can NOT visit the hurt person in the hospital, for visitors in intensive care are limited to Family ONLY.

Now, the person dies; and the survivor finds that although they had built a business and home together over a period of years, the surviving partner now has to do legal battle just to keep what they have earned. People who did not participate in their business are now fighting for half interest in the business; the house is now half his; same for any financial remains. People who may have no contact with them are now nothing more than parasites; claiming half of what was left behind.

Now we move on to life insurance benefits, medical benefits and legal protection that is automatically extended to 'Married' people and survivors.

So, IMHO this is only fair. It is NOT marriage, it is a legal means that heterosexuals have enjoyed for centuries. This does not diminish the relationship between a man and a woman; nor does it inject itself into a religon that generally holds homosexuality as a sin, in and of itself.

[Rockitz]

You could make the same arguement for smokers or people who drink.

Insurance companies are already able to discriminate with against smokers. I've seen the question on forms many times. Private pilots are also discriminated against. If you voluntarily accept additional risk in your life, there should be an associated cost to that.

[longtermmemmory]

Your legal analysis is wrong. In an accident there is a presumption for the desire of medical services.

There is such a thing as a health care surrogate which either recreational sex partner can have. (and would be wise for any couple to have with them when traveling)

If they are stupid enough to "build" comingled finances without benefit of proper planning then TOUGH LUCK!

When ANYBODY dies without a benifit of advance planning then they are screwed. Remember Joe Robbie, owner of the Miami Dolphins? He died without a will and the estate taxes forced the sale of assets to pay the tax man. Where was the cried of "fair" and "family".

The intestate laws should not be trumped by a individuals desired fetish with regards to recreational sex.

[Old Professer]

Let's say one partner becomes suddenly spendthrift; does the frugal and responsible partner then have grounds to "de-register" himself?

[radicalamericannationalist]

What is in a name? Your solution is simply an end run around a contentious word that in the end gives the exact same thing: society's endorsement of homosexual relationships.


BTW, all of the "oppression" you cite can already be dealt with by existing legal instruments such as powers of attorney, contracts and wills. That these existing solutions are ignored is proof that what homosexuals want is not legal equality but the forced acceptance of their lifestyle choice.