SpinnerMan wrote:Most of the real issues are issues of individual rights, government handout, and government over reaching. Many of these problems apply to people who never marry or aren't married. Think about how you can solve the problem for unmarried "straight" people and that solution will work for unmarried gay couples.
Now we are getting somewhere. You are developing monitary arguments, where this topic should be about to start with.
Government handouts are always a problem. I am for small government, hence I don't believe in socialism to start with.
SpinnerMan wrote:Social security benefits. There are no issues (or few) associated with individual retirement accounts because it's the individuals money. Social security is NOT your money and is handed out based on whatever formula the government decides. Pensions present similar problems. It's the group ownership that is the real problem in sorting out whose money it is and therefore who gets it after you die.
To start, I think Social Security is a crutch and another social program which has been grown way beyond where it was intended. So am I reading you that a person's partner shouldn't have a say in who gets what?
SpinnerMan wrote:Hospitals - Every adult that is not married should be able to appoint a legal representative with the same rights as a spouse. If you never marry for whatever reason, you may still need someone to fulfill this role. It could be your mother, fathers, sister, brother, gay lover, or whomever you want.
You can now. It's called the "medical power of attorney" and is applicable to whomever you want, for however long you want it.
SpinnerMan wrote:It's pretty well legal to live with, have sex with, have babies with, whoever and however many people you want. Why does the government care about marriage at all? Because even as bad as some people screw it up, having a male role model (Father), a female role model (Mother) is the best of the available options. Just like they encourage home ownership, there is good reason to encourage the ideal environment for children. That doesn't mean the other options can't work, but they are less than ideal.
I don't disagree. I actually believe that too, and I am a father figure as well as a parent to both of my sons. It is up to the father to be the discipline director of the family. Unfortunately, that isn't always the case. Alot of families are way beyond dysfunctional and in some instances, the kids would be much better off in the care of a loving set of parents, even if they were gay. Not the ideal situation, but far better than the one they came from. Sometimes, you have to settle for what's best at the moment, rather than what's prefect.
I just have real problems with government dictating what you can or cannot do. Just look at California for instance. They have ruled that home schooling is illegal, what is an outrage. That is what happens when government becomes the parent, rather than the parents themselves.
Good discussion SpinnerMan.