If partner benefits are offered to non homosexuals then I see no reason for them to not be offered to all people. Like it or not homosexuals also pay taxes.
---
Agreed. It doesn't have to be called marriage, but certainly any reasonable person would believe that homosexuals should at least be able to have their partner at their bedside at the hospital. Benefits is fine by me too. And I find it hard to understand why people would confine children to 'state' institutes that neglect children rather then having homosexuals adopt them. No, I think there are far more important things we could be doing - such as stopping the advance of socialism, then getting all riled up over homosexuality.
Agreed. It doesn't have to be called marriage, but certainly any reasonable person would believe that homosexuals should at least be able to have their partner at their bedside at the hospital. Benefits is fine by me too. And I find it hard to understand why people would confine children to 'state' institutes that neglect children rather then having homosexuals adopt them. No, I think there are far more important things we could be doing - such as stopping the advance of socialism, then getting all riled up over homosexuality.
You guys are missing the point. First of all you are falling for the liberal "fairness" argument. This line of thinking can be extended to "it isn't fair that some people should get to live in nice neighborhoods and others can't", etc. to essentially justify socialism.
Secondly, the initial point of benefits and a host of other family oriented laws and policies in our society was to support the continuation of a healthy society through fostering provision for the care of children. In a traditional family, ideally, one parent would consider child raising to be more than a casual venture and might make career sacrifices for the greater good. The implication of the proposed benefits extension to unmarried domestic partners is consistent with the revisionist definition of a "family" that is being propogated by the left. If you agree with the leftists that it is only fair to expand the definition of "families", you would find that most conservatives disagree with you. However if you believe that the traditional family is the bedrock of our society, you should see how Mr. Helms' proposal would undermine this.
Lastly, if you read research on children raised in homosexual households vs traditional families, you would probably come to the conclusion that the child suffers. However, this is a moot point in terms of the benefits argument, as any children, whether adopted or born to a homosexual through some fertilization procedure would already be covered, and where adoption is precluded by law, that is a separate issue to one of benefits.