Civil unions for Illinois

[Smash255]

muon,

I've heard that argument before, but I've never heard any "science" for it.  Is there any empirical evidence to suggest that sham marriages are a particularly high proportion of gay domestic partnership cases?  I'm just going to paraphrase the status quo logic here, and I think my issue with it should be evident.

Marriage is broken, because people are abusing entitlements.  Because there are fewer gays, proportionally higher entitlement abuse is likely.  We should allow heterosexuals to marry as stands, but until the system is fixed, we should not allow homosexuals.

This, of course, assumes that the benefits outweigh the costs of entitling more heterosexuals, but not more homosexuals; but no empirical cost-benefits calculations are involved or attempted; and gays are the only ones whose entitlements are contingent on proving their mettle.  Basically, they're required to furnish unspecified proof of an unspecified benefits:cost ratio for including their relationships, and new heterosexual couples aren't.  This seems like distinctly unscientific and unfair public policy to me, or do I misunderstand?

No evidence or any of that, its just an excuse to be pro-discrimination.

[Smash255]

As you know, I'm pretty much in agreement with with Muon, though I'd call it the "actuarial argument."  That does effect me, and all you that do/will get pension funds/Social Security.

Now, I'll tell you what deal I'll offer to all proponents of gay marriage/civil unions.  I'll start favoring full benefits for same sex marriages provided you make it illegal for a surviving spouse to get pension benefits, from this point onward.  The only it will be legal will be if decedent specifically paid in more to cover the costs; single, unattached people (me) don't pay anything.

In other words, when Dad/Gandpa dies, you better be prepared to fully support Mom/Grandma, personally.  If you don't, they starve to death.

Any takers?

Absolutely absurd.  So basically you only favor equality if you can kill off old people.

[Smash255]

As you know, I'm pretty much in agreement with with Muon, though I'd call it the "actuarial argument."  That does effect me, and all you that do/will get pension funds/Social Security.

Now, I'll tell you what deal I'll offer to all proponents of gay marriage/civil unions.  I'll start favoring full benefits for same sex marriages provided you make it illegal for a surviving spouse to get pension benefits, from this point onward.  The only it will be legal will be if decedent specifically paid in more to cover the costs; single, unattached people (me) don't pay anything.

In other words, when Dad/Gandpa dies, you better be prepared to fully support Mom/Grandma, personally.  If you don't, they starve to death.

Any takers?

I take it you favour making it illegal for the surving spouse in current marriages to get pension benefits? Surely 'sham' arrangements are prevailant in heterosexual marriage too.

No,those are factored into the system. 

I also would not have have a problem with paying extra for spousal coverage of pensions.  That would include same sex marriages as well different sex marriages.

Absolutely absurd.  So basically you only favor equality if you can kill off old people.

No, but you apparently do favor destroying the pension system.  He is a compromise.  If a pensioner, in the future, wants their spouse to continue to receive the pensioner's benefit after the pensioner dies, the pensioner pays for the privilege.

Obviously, it doesn't discriminate against anyone on the basis of the sex of the pensioner or spouse.  The pensioner doesn't have to do it.  It doesn't effect anyone that wants to be in a same sex marriage in IL, since they are not permitted.  Since it is prospective, it won't effect anyone getting benefits now.

Seems ideal and representing complete freedom of choice.
[/quote


Ok so if the rate of straight marriage increases would you flip out and call on it to stop because it could destroy the pension system?

really this argument is as absurd as it gets.  It simply something pulled out of thin air as a way to disguise being pro discrimination.