Marriage equality argument

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-20-2013
Marriage equality argument
213
Tue, 03-26-2013 - 8:21pm

So the sole argument against marriage equality is that marriage is for procreation? Where exactly does that leave menopausal women? Or men with ED? Or the infertile? 

I can not believe we are STILL having this discussion in 2013. I have noticed that it is generational though--many of boomers I know are against it. Gen Xers like myself and younger are generally in favor...

On Wednesdays we wear pink.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Sun, 03-31-2013 - 2:05pm

just_another_marla wrote:
<p><blockquote class="quote-msg quote-nest-1 odd"><div class="quote-author">Quote:</div>How could you or anyone be a sahp without the benefits of the working spouse?</blockquote></p><p>YES! Yes. And without those benefits, gay parents have more difficulty staying at home with their children. </p><p>If you feel that SAH is best, then why reserve it as an option only for some children?</p>

That is what I don't understand.  I know many here are adovatces of a sahp and unless one is independently weatlhy, there is a very real dependence on the working married spouse in the sahp household.  

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Sun, 03-31-2013 - 2:00pm

<<Did you know that 23% of current married seniors and 46% of unmarried seniors rely on ss a their sole source of income? I'm not ready to throw them under the bus by squeezing their benefits. Are you, Jams?>>

Yes, this point and while ss is not going well I can't see tossing off the spouses who are living off of the benefits of their working married spouses.  That is not a solution, imo.  

PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Sun, 03-31-2013 - 1:58pm

<<This post is nonsense, Laughing out loud!  The only double standard is on you. >>

No, not really. There are no double standards in my comments and I think if the comments were read as written and not through a magic filter of biased debating, that would be clear.  Wow.


PumpkinAngel

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-27-1998
Sun, 03-31-2013 - 1:51pm

jamblessedthree wrote:
These subsidies weren't even around in my grandparent's generation and before her, She didn't die a poor woman. Right of survivorship and asset allocation should be as equal to me as it is to anybody else, gay or single person alike! Nice try tho, Are you only banking on ss and pension or are you more diversified than that chestnut?

But the point is that it's not equal at the moment.

PumpkinAngel

Avatar for jamblessedthree
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2001
Sun, 03-31-2013 - 1:48pm
Thardy?? I could really use that spill at the grocery store pic right about now.... Happy Easter!

 

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-31-2011
Sun, 03-31-2013 - 1:25pm

A chaplain at the University of Sussex makes the case for a homosexual Jesus in the Guardian.

Quote:

Jesus was a Hebrew rabbi. Unusually, he was unmarried. The idea that he had a romantic relationship with Mary Magdalene is the stuff of fiction, based on no biblical evidence. The evidence, on the other hand, that he may have been what we today call gay is very strong. But even gay rights campaigners in the church have been reluctant to suggest it. A significant exception was Hugh Montefiore, bishop of Birmingham and a convert from a prominent Jewish family. He dared to suggest that possibility and was met with disdain, as though he were simply out to shock.

After much reflection and with certainly no wish to shock, I felt I was left with no option but to suggest, for the first time in half a century of my Anglican priesthood, that Jesus may well have been homosexual. Had he been devoid of sexuality, he would not have been truly human. To believe that would be heretical.

More.

Avatar for rollmops2009
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-24-2009
Sun, 03-31-2013 - 10:19am
"Right of survivorship and asset allocation should be as equal to me as it is to anybody else, gay or single person alike!" -------------- How would you make it equal?
iVillage Member
Registered: 05-31-2011
Sun, 03-31-2013 - 9:31am

Quote:
How could you or anyone be a sahp without the benefits of the working spouse?

YES! Yes. And without those benefits, gay parents have more difficulty staying at home with their children. 

If you feel that SAH is best, then why reserve it as an option only for some children?

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-13-2009
Sun, 03-31-2013 - 9:12am

Those benefits were certainly around for my grandparents, who lived into their 90s, but my great grandparents, farmers all on both sides, died in the 40s and 50s, which was fairly typical. If the parent lived a long life, they depended on their, usually many, children to take care of them.

Did you know that 23% of current married seniors and 46% of unmarried seniors rely on ss a their sole source of income? I'm not ready to throw them under the bus by squeezing their benefits. Are you, Jams?

I do know my financial position is much better than yours because I am eligible for ss by my own earnings, I have a small pension, and my own 401K savings. I plan to retire in 5 years, and even if my husband left, I have already reached my retirement savings goals that would keep me comfortable well into my 90s.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-08-2009
Sun, 03-31-2013 - 8:06am
The right of survivorship and joint tenancy have been around for centuries for married people, Jambles. It's not new. Glad you agree that gay couples should be able to benefit. Now, who are these single people going to inherit from?

Pages