When you are admitted to the hospital, you should be able to decide who gets to visit you, having a marriage license should not affect this.
We have still not determined that any *hospital *keeps unrelated people from visiting patients.
There are reasons for people to want to acquire civil “unions” or privileges that traditionally belong only to spouses or blood relatives other than sex. I work with many blended families who run into horrific problems if the legal adoption or guardianship paperwork has not been done and there is some sort of medical emergency. Step parents who have been the main parenting resource are disallowed and even a child who has come of age cannot access this support.
So how does this show that we should allow people of the same sex to marry? Step-parents already *are *married, so SSM would not solve any of these problems, would it?
The same holds true for those who are in detention or incarcerated. Lists of visitors are limited to blood relatives, even if the teen finds another adult more supportive or attentive. It is really tragic.
Again, how would SSM change this? Suppose a teen finds a teacher and her husband to be more supportive adults, how would SSM fix this problem?
I don’t think this is true. Lack of health coverage for anyone is what raises the cost of health care.
Lack of health care coverage is not what raises health care costs, but that is a topic for another thread.
However, even were this to be true, it is not a rationale for allowing SSM. One, that would allow coverage for under 2% of the population, even if all the uninsured people afflicted with SSA were to find and “marry” insured people with SSA.
Moreover, the rationale for extending health care to families is that families provide the future of our society. Homosexual couples do not procreate, and are therefore not contributing children to society and therefore have no claim to family benefits.
Adding non-relatives to a plan ulitimately reduces the burden on indigent provider systems, since those who cannot quailify for a plan ulitmately will strain the healthcare system by using resources not supported by insurance.
So why is SSM a solution to this problem? What about all the people who are unmarried for other reasons? How many of the homeless men would end up being covered if SSM were to go into effect?
I wish I could add my adult sibling to my plan for just this reason. If it were legal, I would create a civil union, just because I am sure if he had sufficient treatment, he would be employable. It is much more beneficial to society to have everyone who is able to work, employed.
Is the legalization of SSM going to help your brother? What if you had 3 brothers in that situation? Maybe we should just allow anyone to marry as many anybodies as they want to get on their health insurance? That sounds like it would cover way more people than SSM would.
Yes. It is while people are still alive that problems exist.
Of course it is death which necessitates funerals.
This is a common myth. While I don’t disagree that the best environment for a child is a two parent heterosexual couple (this is God’s plan for families) there are a number of erroneous assumptions at work in such a position. One is that a two parent heterosexual couple is healthy and able to parent. Whereas there are some that are frought with violence, substance abuse, and sexual abuse, in which cases, it causes less harm to a child to place them with ANY other kind of living situation where these problems do not exist, regardless of the sexual orientation.
Oh, that’s right, compare the worst heterosexual parenting situation to the “ideal” SS couple. Not a valid argument, and certainly not a valid argument for *experimenting *with other people’s children.
People do not “become homosexual” as a result of “the example” set by others. While environment can be a factor in lifestyle choices, sexuality is hard wired prior to birth.
There is no evidence for this hard-wired before birth idea.
And there is one large meta-study of children with homosexual parents done by people sympathetic to SSM which showed increased experimentation or willingness to experiment with homosexual activity. This was not considered a bad outcome by those who did the studies involved, but if homosexuality is so bad that that is itself used to justify the “hard-wired” argument (no one would be this way by choice, ergo, it must be hard-wired), then what can one make of this finding?
Being homosexual also does not prevent procreating, as there are ways for homosexual couples to arrange for procreation outside of the natural marital embrace.
Of course being homosexual does not prevent procreating; there are many stories of people marrying a person of the opposite sex, having children, and then announcing or discovering one’s homosexual temptations.
And if the procreation you are referring to through “ways for homosexual couples to arrange for procreation outside of the natural marital embrace” is what you mean, well, first, this is not “the natural marital embrace,” and second, just goes to prove the already obvious lack of procreativeness inherent in the act.
