Quote:
Originally Posted by hip hop bunny hop
I'll encapsulate my argument in brief, as I've already addressed that point on this board several times, and I touched on it in this thread before Pepe entered the discussion.
Anyways, in regards to the point you labelled #1, same-sex couples are allowed to have private ceremonies and all that. There is no law preventing them from doing so. In the context of the USA, the arguments regarding homosexual marriage have to do with state recognized marriage. So, there is nothing interfering with the ritual of marriage or their ability to love one another.
I, however, object to state recognized marriage same sex marriage because:
|
The points you've raised for state recognized marriage are really just a bucket full of holes.
Point 1- Collecting a deceased's social security shouldn't really be an issue in a same sex marriage, as there is a strong liklihood that both partners would've been paying contributions anyway and why shouldn't a the partner of a deceased collect contributions that their partner has worked for and paid into, unless you're trying to claim that the marriage union could've been done with this future ulterior motive in mind!
Point 2- Getting cover under a spouse's health insurance needn't be an issue either, in the USA health insurance comes as part of a workers package right? Or the person taking out the health insurance pays a premium dependent on their health and who is covered? If this be the case, insurance companies are taking a calculated risk with those that they cover, insurance companies as far as I'm aware usually make a nice profit otherwise they wouldn't be in business.
Point 3- "The propagation of society is a compelling state interest" Now that statement is extremely debatable, in a country with a falling population that may hold some truth, but does the USA have a decling population problem?