Gay lobby’s next target: Benefits in all 50 states

Well duh!?! That's been the goal all along. But, what's to stop two college buddies from claiming to be gay to get health care for one without coverage?

How long until private businesses are sued for not providing SSM couples benefits?

 

What is stopping a couple a girl and guy from doing that now?

Business will offer the same benefits to same sex and heterosexuals. If they don't they are making a bad management decision and deserve to be sued.

- - - Updated - - -

What is stopping a couple a girl and guy from doing that now?

Business will offer the same benefits to same sex and heterosexuals. If they don't they are making a bad management decision and deserve to be sued.

 

What stops a woman and man from doing that now?

Just a cursory logical glance renders your argument invalid.

Yeah, the goal is equal rights in all states. You act like this is somehow a surprise.

 

And this is the feature that I find most unfair. Heterosexual couples provide the next generation of little taxpayers and deserve something for the effort and expense.

The anal sex crowd doesn't kick in. Homosexuality is truly unsustainable. Why would we subsidize it?

 

Herpaderpderp

Because gays don't have kids and don't adopt.

Keep up those tried and true arguments, they get you no where.

 

Actually, Corporate America has been well ahead of the government and has been providing same-sex couples benefits since the 90s.

 

And here I thought it was all about love....

silly me.

 

How about this: if they get less rights, they should pay less taxes.

 

I have heard stories about men who "marry" other male friends in the military, just to get the benefits.
They still keep their girlfriend, of course. The marriage is purely one of economic convenience, abuse of the system.

 

Gays depend on the sexual process that occurs between heterosexuals to get their children, just like liberals depend on the redistributed wealth of people who work for a living. They're either bottom-feeders (no pun intended) or parasites. Maybe both.

 

It is. Do you think gays get married for tax benefits? lol

 

They could have loved each other with a civil union. They wanted "marriage" because of tax benefits.

 

No they want marriage because that is their right as equals.

 

A civil union wouldn't allow the same legal and financial benefits. Just because they love each other and are gay doesn't mean that they're entitle to less. But I can see how a gay-hater would want them to be second-class citizens.

 

So that's also your opinion of married couples who can't have a baby on their own?

Oopsie your showing your colors.

 

Except for the gay people who adopt kids, or create new taxpayers through IVF/surrogacy....

To say homosexuality is an inherently selfish or parasitic lifestyle is to ignore the fact that gays often adopt the unwanted children you breeders churn out (who strain the system effectively). No gay family is "unplanned" and very few survive on welfare; gays often being disproportionately high taxpayers. Your claims are nonsense.

 

Wrong calculus. We're paying the breeders to breed. The anal sex crowd gets none of it.

 

If you have kids you get a deduction, hows that work for you?

That way if you enter an opposite sex relationship just for the sex, you don't get a deduction.
But if a same sex couple raises her kids from a previous marriage, they get the deduction.
I'm 61, I don't expect my relationship to produce more taxpayers even though it's an opposite sex relationship, the considerations are all the same things a same sex couple would consider, at this point it's taxes, insurance, survivors benefits, I don't think I'll be impregnating my 59 year old partner, all though I try nearly every day....

 

Equal/higher tax contributions per capita should mean equal treatment before the law, not a sub-class status that has absolutely no recognition in federal law and creates a two-tier, separate and unequal system.

DOMA meant that couples could be split apart/one partner deported if one was an immigrant, even if legally married in their states. A clear example of federal overreach.

 

Microscopic in comparison, a sure sign of a failed argument/position.

There is no greater unsustainable lifestyle than gay males save the self-destructive drug addict. Check that. Some of those addicts DO breed.

 

What is particularly disgusting about the homophobes is they do their best to block their adoption of the cast-off children from the breeders, children who will spend their childhood in the hell of constantly changing and often abusive foster care, who then are tossed into the street at 17 or 18 with no permanent family, no support network, and a childhood of misery and abandonment to remember.

I can only wish the homophobes would get to share that experience in their lives, but being basically abusers and predators, they are the ones who create the hell the childen have to live in.

 

Why gay males only? What about lesbians?

And the population is doing just fine it would seem, with gays actually supporting the system with higher-per-capital tax contributions. To say they are societal parasites is simply asinine. If more heterosexuals and homosexuals had kids there would actually be a more costly and unsustainable system. Some are better off just paying taxes and not procreating.

 

I'd even go as far as to say gays are largely fiscal "providers" for the rest of society. There is no threat of underpopulation: quite the opposite in fact.

 

How about they shut TFU and stop demanding the benes of the breeders?

 

Nah...