jupiter
Posts: 97
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
| Quote | | Quote | | So, when gay people say they just want to be able to visit their spouses in the hospital or let them inheret their property by default or file for joint insurance policies, what they REALLY want is to undermine the "larger societal meaning" of marriage. Yeah, makes sense. |
You need to distinguish between ordinary homosexuals and the radical activists. Ordinary homosexuals may want these things, but this isn't the underlying motivation of the radical gays. |
Thord, how does one make this distinction? Attire? Voice pitch? Wrist angle? Are there different signifiers for gays v. lesbians? Just out of curiosity -- how many of the people you regularly interact with are "ordinary homosexuals"? How many are "radical activists"? You're professing a remarkable expertise in distinguishing subgroups within the homosexual population. How did you acquire this esoteric knowledge?
| Quote | | Now, I don't have dental insurance right now, but she does. It would be cheaper on both of us if I could be on her policy. But we can't because we're not married. Ah! But at her company if we were the same sex, we could. This is obvious discrimination. Non-married (legally) gay partners can apply for joint health/dental insurance policies, but non-married hetero couples cannot. |
PuckSR, it's obvious discrimination only if you're an obvious idiot. Earlier in the same post, you said that you and your girlfriend have chosen, absent progeny, to "live in sin" -- which is perfectly fine. Gay couples don't have that choice. You're arguing that since homosexual couples are barred from legal marriage, they should also be deprived of any of the benefits of marriage, such as partner or family dental coverage. (Please note that one of the arguments against gay marriage is the availability of legal or policy work-arounds, such as those at wherever your non-missus works.)
Does that make any sense at all to you? (Thord, I'm not soliciting your opinion here.)
|
