Stage set for possible showdown on gay marriage

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Haha, see, I'm not quite such a nasty conservative (and I'm only conservative on certain issues).

I wouldn't ever (well, ever is pretty all inclusive -- maybe almost never would be better) use the word "nasty" with conservative. I'm conversative on certain issues, too. I just try very hard not to go too far to either side -- both of which drive me to distraction sometimes.

As I've said many times, the older I get, the less I'm absolutely sure of.

What I really agree with you (I think -- don't want to put words in your mouth) on is that this debate has become much more emotional/religious than really legal -- understanding, of course, that there's also a big difference between legal and political.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

What I really agree with you (I think -- don't want to put words in your mouth) on is that this debate has become much more emotional/religious than really legal -- understanding, of course, that there's also a big difference between legal and political.

Definitely - personally I'm not against same-sex marriage, so that may be clouding my judgement. However, at some point it always comes down to a religious/moral argument, and that doesn't sit well with me when making legal decisions.

[valkyrie]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Definitely - personally I'm not against same-sex marriage, so that may be clouding my judgement. However, at some point it always comes down to a religious/moral argument, and that doesn't sit well with me when making legal decisions.

Exactly, and this is why I'm so bothered when people advocate in favor of laws prohibiting gay marriage. I don't buy the "it should be left to the states" argument mentioned earlier in this thread, because there is no non-religion-based basis for any state to enact a law prohibiting gay marriage.

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by valkyrie

Exactly, and this is why I'm so bothered when people advocate in favor of laws prohibiting gay marriage. I don't buy the "it should be left to the states" argument mentioned earlier in this thread, because there is no non-religion-based basis for any state to enact a law prohibiting gay marriage.

That's true. Also, Mississippi dragged us into the civil war under the banner of state's rights when really they just wanted to keep slaves. Then Lincoln et al came down to supress state right's under the banner of freeing the slaves. Hypocrites and Horsesh*t on both sides of that conflict.

[shinerbock]

Lets not bring the War into this. However, you're still mistaken regarding your non religious based reasoning. Not only is it counterproductive, it also is very troubling to corporations who have to provide benefits. I recently spoke to one of my fathers business associates, who works for a large international corporation here in Atlanta. He said that gay marriage is a big concern for them, as partners do not tend to be long term, and that the health insurance costs are higher. I'm sure the majority of people in Mass. want gay marriage, and they should have it. But the huge majority of people in Georgia don't, and I think they should make the call about what is seen in their community.

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

it also is very troubling to corporations who have to provide benefits.

So, that makes the debate religious and business/financial, I guess. Still the wrong reasons in my opinion.

I would simply point out that many companies, as well as government entities are now offering benefits to employees' life partners and my guess is that the trend will continue in order to keep valued employees.

[greekalum]

A huge majority of the gay marriages tend to be less longterm than straight marriages? Or gay relationships tend to last less than straight relationships? Because "partners do not tend to be long term" is not a statement of fact. There are no statistics to show that gay marriages would have divorce rates equal, less than, or greater to straight marriages yet.

As for health care costs, many companies already offer health benefits to domestic partners, so gay marriage wouldn't increase those costs at all.

[Drolefille]

Gays are a small percentage of the population, their marriage benefits are not going to bankrupt, or even hurt anyone.

I think the only reason some perceive gay relationships to be shorter term is because there isn't a long term binding option. How many people have been through a rough patch in their marriage where if they'd just been dating, they would have broken up?

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Lets not bring the War into this.

You're the one who brought it up. Don't bring it up if you don't want it broughten up. You up-bringer.

[SydneyK]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

.. it also is very troubling to corporations who have to provide benefits. I recently spoke to one of my fathers business associates, who works for a large international corporation here in Atlanta. He said that gay marriage is a big concern for them, as partners do not tend to be long term, and that the health insurance costs are higher.

About the health care costs companies would face should gay marriage be allowed... Generally, health care is more expensive for women than it is for men. So, technically, companies would fare better (economically) to provide coverage to male-male couples than any other kind. I don't buy the "health care costs would go up" argument.

[shinerbock]

You're right about women, and obviously I'm no expert on health insurance...however, would being gay, and having a higher risk of certain problems, not raise prices? It may not, but I have heard this.