There's been a reasonable amount of evidence that people in stable relationships live longer and have better health.
From the acturial point of view, it makes sense to give better premiums to those in committed relationships.
Although I suspect they'd like to exclude fertile women of childbearing age from that, given that this pregnancy and birth thing is a bit of a risk, and the result is high risk too, all those accidents and diseases and genetic defects.
Zebee
The simple answer? Because that's the way the insurance companies sell it.
Care to actually address the questions, rather than attempting to nit-pick 'em into submission?
||>Which are, with great care on the part of our forefathers, carefully ||>constructed and worded in a manner that boils down to "If it isn't ||>*SPECIFICALLY* forbidden, then it is allowed." Again, I point out that ||>here in the US, laws DO NOT grant rights. They *REMOVE* them.
Good point, and one that is often forgotten.
||Although one might point out that any marriage issue does not ||shortstop the "tie them to the truck and drag them" festivals ||like the on in texas. Or was that the fencepost one?
I think Montana was fencepost, (East) Texas was dragging. And the latter was racial, not anti-gay. You are mixing your prejucial stereotypes, and we've spent generations crafting them.
||>Let's face it: Marriage, when you (quite rightly) heave any questions of ||>sentimentality out the window is nothing more or less than two people ||>agreeing to live together, coupled with an official acknowledgement that ||>they're doing so. All the rest, from the gowns to the rice to the tax ||>breaks, is meaningless outside of that picture.
Expensive too!
Texas Parts Guy
that's Kerry's position
From my tiny perspective, everyone that I know with any serious money is a Dem. All the blue collars I know are Repubs. Probably not representative of the rest of reality.
We just need a more comprehensive definition of 'marriage' or 'union'.
Maybe something like; Marriage 1 - 1 man + 1 woman Marriage 2 - 1 man + 1 man Marriage 3 - 1 man + 2 women Marriage 4 - 2 women + 1 man Marriage 4 - 1 man + his daughter Marriage 6 - 1 man + his son etc...... Marriage 32 - 4 men + 3 women + 2 boys + 1 dog etc .....
Why is that? Because FOX copywrited the terms "who wants to marry a millionaire" and "married by America"? (all hail the sanctity of heterosexual marriages!)
If those people railing against same sex marriages took out all the RELIGIOUS arguments, there are no reasons left.
If the people against same sex marriages are all about the "sanctity" of marriage, why not pass laws FORBIDDING DIVORCE, a much larger endangerment to marriage than the two women or the two men down the street getting married, don't you think?
James, Seattle
"Most Gays"? Interesting. How many gay couples do you know... and I'm not talking about the couple down the street that you see as you drive by; I mean the Gay Couple that are your friends, so you can really get to know what they are like.
I think you're confusing a gay bar scene with gay couples. That would be like looking at a drunken Frat Party or a "meat market" type bar and claiming to know all straight men from THAT.
Gay families will give love to a child who needs it. Gay families support each other, emotionally and financially. Gay families sit around on Sunday morning figuring out the family budget, and if they can afford to take a trip to see the in laws. Gay families come home from work tired, make dinner, watch TV and go to bed, exhausted....
Your imagination about what goes on behind the doors of a 'gay couple' is wildly off base.
Why is it when judges decide who should be president (even when it flies in the face of the popular vote) it's "Proof Justice Works", but when Judges rule on "you can't discriminate based on a person's gender" they are running amok?
Marriage is actually TWO ceremonies at the same time... the public/religious exchanging of vows and the signing of a LEGAL CONTRACT. Every church can decide about the ceremony, but most states can't deny its citizens from entering into a CONTRACT based on their gender alone.
Is that REALLY that difficult to understand?
James, Seattle
That is because the real power in the Republican Party know how to push a few emotional buttons like gun control, abortion, gay marriage and "family values" and get them to them vote against their own economic interests.
I find it strange that people would vote for a candidate soly because he says he opposes abortion when he really wants to allow his major backers to continue lead and mercury pollution that poisons their children.
Or says he supports "family values" while cutting child care to pay for a gigantic tax cut for the richest 2% of the population.
Even more mystifying is the idea that Republicans are good for jobs and the economy when the fact is that over the past 50 years unemployment has been lower and economic growth faster during and for the 5 years after democratic administrations. See:
Tom Gardner wrote:
Great!
Yep, but everyone talks the "Big Button" issues yet votes their wallet behind that screen.
Sounds like you figured out the problem right there. Generalizations based on a view from a "tiny perspective" generally do not hold up under even the most modest scrutiny.
I got given 25 to life for marriage 1 :-)
Mark Rand RTFM
Far as Im concerned...the State has no interest in the marriage customs of anyone. If a woman can get to guys to marry her in a poly amorous relationship, go for it, Mormon style, go for it.
The only legitimate social reason the State has to have anything to say, is to satisfy property division and responsibility for any children produced, which would be handled quite nicely by a legal contract prior to marriage.
I know of a number of group marriages and "triples" that are quite happy with their arrangements.
Gunner
That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. - George Orwell
Really you are talking about inheretence rights. The state regulates those by regulating marriage to some degree. I think it *would* be a good idea to get the gummint out of the marriages/divorces (especially the second) businesses.
A secular contract that specifies "who inherets what" could be used to good advantage.
Many states are now embracing 'no-fault' divorce, where a marriage can be unilaterally dissolved by simply having the individual move out and live separately for some specified period of time.
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
Pure political genius. I don't know how they do it, but they *are* masters of the art. Astounding, I know.
Yep, they're now officially "Tax and Spend Republicans" and the Democrats have been dubbed "Blue Dress Ballanced Budget Folks."
Jim
================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================
The State got "into"t he marriage business for all the usual reasons: taxes, legal issues, settling issues of inheritance. And now that we're asking the government to spend all kinds of money on family member, there needs to be some legal definition of who is, and isn't, "part of the family". (As it is, one could argue that welfare for single mothers is merely the government making us all part of the family for child support purposes.)
tschus pyotr
The government does various things with taxes to encourage certain behavior. One example is the deduction for home mortgages. People that own houses tend to be more law abiding or at least that is one theory.
There are some tax advantages to marriage. These are based on the idea that we should encourage people to have children ( or on the idea that people with children can not afford to pay as much in taxes as childless couples ).
So I can care less about gay marriages, but taking the religious arguments out still leaves questions about taxes. Should the States recognize gay marriages, but the Federal Government consider for tax purposes that a gay couple is two single people living together?
Anyway there is more than religion involved. Notice that the issue of gay marriages came up after much of the" marriage penalty " was removed.
Dan
Well, thats not too bad.
At least they've got some of it right. :-)
Lewis.
************************
Inheritance, child custody and fiscal responsiblity and community property are all facets of this. So a contract would make fine sense then the busy bodies at the Gov can go piss up a rope.
Ive lived in a "triple" and it was hard work, but well worth the effort on everyones part.
Gunner
"The entire population of Great Britain has been declared insane by their government. It is believed that should any one of them come in possession of a firearm, he will immediately start to foam at the mouth and begin kiling children at the nearest school. The proof of their insanity is that they actually believe this." -- someone in misc.survivalism
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.