Submitted by mmmarvel on Tue, 04/18/2006 - 10:07pm.
Actually, homosexual 'marriage' IS illegal, per the most recent state constitution change. Regarding if homosexual is a choice or not, the jury is still out - as far as I know there is still no definitive proof that it isn't a choice. Besides, the question/resolution is merely one regarding families - since two gay folks can't be married that part is taken out of the equation, so we're back to what is a family and how/who do you classify such a unit.
It appears that Sam and you would like to make two people living together and whomever else lives with them a 'family' unit. If that is the case then the two cases I mentioned would suffice - to 'beat' the system one man and one woman in each of those living arraignments would be "the couple" and then everyone else would qualify for insurance too. That type of 'beat-the-system' is but one of many reasons that benefits are extended to married couples (easier to verify).
The statement should have read, "Social equality is not an inalienable right." Just as monetary equality is not an inalienable right. In the case of monetary it depends upon how hard you work and what you do to improve your lot in life. In the case of social, it depends upon what society wishes to encourage. Hetro couples have high odds of producing children, hence society continues. Homo couples have much lower chances of having children therefore incouraging those types of relationships does little to give a society longevity; hence society does not encourage those types of couplings.
.thumbnail.jpg "Polaris Dancers, SW Portland")
re: The City should extend its equal benefits law
Actually, homosexual 'marriage' IS illegal, per the most recent state constitution change. Regarding if homosexual is a choice or not, the jury is still out - as far as I know there is still no definitive proof that it isn't a choice. Besides, the question/resolution is merely one regarding families - since two gay folks can't be married that part is taken out of the equation, so we're back to what is a family and how/who do you classify such a unit.
It appears that Sam and you would like to make two people living together and whomever else lives with them a 'family' unit. If that is the case then the two cases I mentioned would suffice - to 'beat' the system one man and one woman in each of those living arraignments would be "the couple" and then everyone else would qualify for insurance too. That type of 'beat-the-system' is but one of many reasons that benefits are extended to married couples (easier to verify).
The statement should have read, "Social equality is not an inalienable right." Just as monetary equality is not an inalienable right. In the case of monetary it depends upon how hard you work and what you do to improve your lot in life. In the case of social, it depends upon what society wishes to encourage. Hetro couples have high odds of producing children, hence society continues. Homo couples have much lower chances of having children therefore incouraging those types of relationships does little to give a society longevity; hence society does not encourage those types of couplings.