Anyone who thinks about it knows that the benefits would go beyond just HC.
And I'm sorry you feel that asking for a clear idea of your position is spoiling for a flame war.Why are you here if you find it difficult to express clear ideas about your position on matters?
HC is only one facet.Add being able to get their social security,pensions,retirement benefits,military retirement,being the default heir,etc,etc.There is a whole package beyond HC. You really can't express a clear stance on the issue of legal civil unions for all people even after participating for some 20 pages?Strange,to say the least.
Social security survivors benefits were intended for the surviving mother who either didn't work or didn't work at a job that provided a retirement. Social security survivors benefits were not intended for some dude's hairy boyfriend that also has a good job. We will write new laws that will with surgical precision carve you out of the benefits faster than you can say "I do".
Oh I can express a very clear stance on my position, but I don't want to get into the flame war you have been spoiling for all day (sorry).
Christianity: Seeking an END to religion, one decision at a time.
HC is only one facet.Add being able to get their social security,pensions,retirement benefits,military retirement,being the default heir,etc,etc.There is a whole package beyond HC.
You really can't express a clear stance on the issue of legal civil unions for all people even after participating for some 20 pages?Strange,to say the least.
And besides that, I don't expect private health insurance companies to exist much longer if Obamacare is kept intact, and with health care for everyone-gay, straight, young, old, single, married-- it would seem to be a moot point about getting on the health plan of a spouse.
Christianity: Seeking an END to religion, one decision at a time.
What I have been trying to get out of you is a clear coherent explanation of your objections to the issue and what kind of laws regarding the issue you would approve of.I would not have thought that a troublesome issue for someone participating through 20 pages of posts on the subject,but I guess it is.I'm beginning to suspect that you really don't have one and just object in general to the idea of gays getting legally joined and so prefer to dance around the issue rather than elucidate a clear opinion on it.
So,presuming you do not oppose the concept I have offered since you have not really said yea or nay to it,your reason for opposing SSM is that they would use the same term to refer to a homosexual union as they do the heterosexual version?It's all just the semantics of it?
See, you say semantics when I say Sacrament. That's about as far apart as it gets. We're just going to have to agree to disagree, and all I can offer is what I have offered.
And that is, to have the government view all official couplings as civil unions.
So again,you have no objection to civil unions for homosexuals with identical rights as heterosexuals as long as it is called a civil union and not a marriage? Is there something in my proposal you have an objection to if we leave the term "marriage" to the churches as a sacrament of the church?
You have been trying to tease something out of me all day. And I've passed on the offer because it goes into details concerning the benefits you expect ss couples to receive.
How do I know whether the government is going to say, "Well the gays snookered us, cut the checks.." and will the insurance companies say, "what can we do? with the new law two hetero single men that can't find a woman are getting "married" and taking us to the cleaners, and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it!"
Do you want to get married? Do you want to be involved in matrimony? Or are you trying to do an end run, and think the pig you want to bleed doesn't have chess pieces he can play?
Massachusetts insurance companies can simply HQ in another state where they will be only subject to federal ERISA laws (read DOMA), and they can if they want simply define a spouse as someone of the opposite sex.
And nobody's going to be on your side. People don't approve of tricks and gimmicks to get something that was not intended.
I beleive the presbyterian church USA just jumped on that bandwagon also they just voted recently not only to welcome gay people but also to ordain gay clergy, and also a while before theat the evangelical lutherans.
The thing people like Ed do not understand is that some religions are willing to marry gay couples. So if we all went legally to civil union (which would be OK with me), there would still be plenty of religions willing to call it marriage even if both participants are the same gender. So gay Christian couples could still claim to be married. Just as protestant churches acknowledge marriages that the RCC does not acknowledge sacramentally. And that is OK with me too.
I wish you understood what you do not understand about my understanding.
I can think of three churches that would solemnize a SS CU and call it marriage. The Metropolitan Church, The UU Church, and the Episcopal Church. And that's within the umbrella of Christianity.
Now what a Buddhist, or Taoist, calls a marriage doesn't matter to me. And they have been practicing what they want before the debate began.
What I want is for the government to make no change to what Marriage is. If they insist on doing that then I propose that they use the word civil union and define it as they wish. Heterosexual marriage is already a "civil union", which is why I'm willing to allow the government to refer to heterosexual marriages as civil unions. It does no torture to language.
So,presuming you do not oppose the concept I have offered since you have not really said yea or nay to it,your reason for opposing SSM is that they would use the same term to refer to a homosexual union as they do the heterosexual version?It's all just the semantics of it?
See, you say semantics when I say Sacrament. That's about as far apart as it gets. We're just going to have to agree to disagree, and all I can offer is what I have offered.
And that is, to have the government view all official couplings as civil unions.
So again,you have no objection to civil unions for homosexuals with identical rights as heterosexuals as long as it is called a civil union and not a marriage?
Is there something in my proposal you have an objection to if we leave the term "marriage" to the churches as a sacrament of the church?
So,presuming you do not oppose the concept I have offered since you have not really said yea or nay to it,your reason for opposing SSM is that they would use the same term to refer to a homosexual union as they do the heterosexual version?It's all just the semantics of it?
See, you say semantics when I say Sacrament. That's about as far apart as it gets. We're just going to have to agree to disagree, and all I can offer is what I have offered.
And that is, to have the government view all official couplings as civil unions.
Christianity: Seeking an END to religion, one decision at a time.
