The cost of being gay: The average gay couple pays $41,196 - $467,562 more over a lifetime.

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: blackangst1
This is an inflammatory article (intentionally). The proper topic should be "The High Price of Being an Unmarried Couple". The fact is, although the article may be true, it is also true for a much larger segment of society - straight unmarried partners. But to intentionally target a smaller section of society is definately inflammatory.

Anyway.

Not really. The article discusses the financial penalties dealt to the theoretical homosexual couple that would otherwise be married if not for the legal impossibility of that status. Heterosexual couples face no such hurdle.

In any case, even if there was equality, highlighting the financial penalty for being married as opposed to not for any segment of the population, no matter how small a percentage, is not "inflammatory".

It is when the target of the article is gay couples, and not any couple.

Ah. So if I write an article about the lack of responsible government in Iran, I'm being inflammatory because I'm not targeting the lack of responsible government in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China, North Korea, and most of the rest of the world. Interesting logic at work here.

The article isnt about the unfairness of gays not being able to marry. The focus of the article is money, and the cost associated with not being married.

Per the article,

Our goal was to create a hypothetical gay couple whose situation would be similar to a heterosexual couple?s.

which is false. The correct premise of the article should have been written "Our goal was to create a hypothetical couple whose situation would be similar to a MARRIED couple?s" (emphasis mine). You can easily substitute hypothetical gay couple with unmarried couple and it wouldnt have changed ANYTHING about the core of the article. Again, the premise of the article isnt about gay rights, but ratyher the numbers between a married and an unmarried couple. To throw gay in there is inflammatory.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
which false. The correct premise of the article should have been written Our goal was to create a hypothetical gay couple whose situation would be similar to a heterosexual MARRIED couple?s (emphasis mine). You can easily substitute hypothetical gay couple with unmarried couple and it wouldnt have changed ANYTHING about the core of the article.

One can debate the merits of marriage incentives all one likes, but one must first acknowledge the inequity of our laws. My heterosexual parents chose to be unmarried for thirty years. In 2005, they reluctantly got married because it would save them a lot of money. My parents had a choice--remain unmarried and not save money, or get married and save money. If my parents were of the same gender, they wouldn't have had that choice.

In short: my parents were able to save thousands of dollars because they are heterosexual and allowed to marry.

 

[sportage]

Hey... I thought it was the gay's that threaten those hetro lifestyles???
I thought it was the hetro's that pay for gays gaining rights?
I thought, according to NOM (national organization for hetro marriage), gays were
cost hetro's ka-billions? You know... that "storm" a-comin...

that number of $41k to $467k is quite a ridiculous estimate for an "average" gay couple.

NOT AT ALL !!!
When you consider most gay couples do not have wills, and no legal rights as a couple, so when one partner dies the family of the deceased can and "WILL", move in and take EVERYTHING the couple owned as partners. Even real-estate, when challenged in the courts, the surviving gay person finds he or she has basically NO rights.
All the family of the deceased has to do is get a good lawyer, if a will exisits.
And break it. Happens every day in America.
But... How would YOU know THAT???

This scenario is not the exception, it is the norm.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: blackangst1
which false. The correct premise of the article should have been written Our goal was to create a hypothetical gay couple whose situation would be similar to a heterosexual MARRIED couple?s (emphasis mine). You can easily substitute hypothetical gay couple with unmarried couple and it wouldnt have changed ANYTHING about the core of the article.

One can debate the merits of marriage incentives all one likes, but one must first acknowledge the inequity of our laws. My heterosexual parents chose to be unmarried for thirty years. In 2005, they reluctantly got married because it would save them a lot of money. My parents had a choice--remain unmarried and not save money, or get married and save money. If my parents were of the same gender, they wouldn't have had that choice.

In short: my parents were able to save thousands of dollars because they are heterosexual and allowed to marry.

There are plenty of threads to discuss the rights of gays. I dont think this is one of them, based oin the core of the article. But hey, shit gets derailed in here all the time lol

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: blackangst1
which false. The correct premise of the article should have been written Our goal was to create a hypothetical gay couple whose situation would be similar to a heterosexual MARRIED couple?s (emphasis mine). You can easily substitute hypothetical gay couple with unmarried couple and it wouldnt have changed ANYTHING about the core of the article.

One can debate the merits of marriage incentives all one likes, but one must first acknowledge the inequity of our laws. My heterosexual parents chose to be unmarried for thirty years. In 2005, they reluctantly got married because it would save them a lot of money. My parents had a choice--remain unmarried and not save money, or get married and save money. If my parents were of the same gender, they wouldn't have had that choice.

In short: my parents were able to save thousands of dollars because they are heterosexual and allowed to marry.

There are plenty of threads to discuss the rights of gays. I dont think this is one of them, based oin the core of the article. But hey, shit gets derailed in here all the time lol

The article talks about the quantifiable effects of being unable to marry. My post talks about the quantifiable effects of being unable to marry. You make a tangential equivalency ("heteros who choose to be unmarried are in the same situation as homos"), and I'm the one who's derailing this thread?

You gotta be kidding.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: blackangst1
which false. The correct premise of the article should have been written Our goal was to create a hypothetical gay couple whose situation would be similar to a heterosexual MARRIED couple?s (emphasis mine). You can easily substitute hypothetical gay couple with unmarried couple and it wouldnt have changed ANYTHING about the core of the article.

One can debate the merits of marriage incentives all one likes, but one must first acknowledge the inequity of our laws. My heterosexual parents chose to be unmarried for thirty years. In 2005, they reluctantly got married because it would save them a lot of money. My parents had a choice--remain unmarried and not save money, or get married and save money. If my parents were of the same gender, they wouldn't have had that choice.

In short: my parents were able to save thousands of dollars because they are heterosexual and allowed to marry.

There are plenty of threads to discuss the rights of gays. I dont think this is one of them, based oin the core of the article. But hey, shit gets derailed in here all the time lol

The article talks about the quantifiable effects of being unable to marry. My post talks about the quantifiable effects of being unable to marry. You make a tangential equivalency ("heteros who choose to be unmarried are in the same situation as homos"), and I'm the one who's derailing this thread?

You gotta be kidding.

If the slant of ther article was directed to the unjustices of not being able to marry, or the injustices of gays in general, I understand your point; however, the bulk of the article is pointed to the benefits of marriage. I see your point; however, its not (IMHO) the gist of the article. Which applies to straight couples as well. Hell, when the day comes when gays can have the same bennies of marriage that straights do, this article would be just as relevant as it is now.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree on what the slant of the article is. But my point is the same: this article is JUST as relevant and true to straight couples and multiple partner situations as it gays. Im not sure how you cannot see that.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Homosexuality is a huge disease vector (much worse than IV drug use) where homosexuals are vastly the victims of other homosexuals (nobody does more damage to homosexuals than other homosexuals). I have little sympathy for homosexuals and their behavior-added higher health costs/issues. I have some because homosexuals usually can't help themselves and innocent people often end up suffering diseases they help propagate - like the hemophiliacs who got poisoned from AIDS blood from homosexuals (who are now banned for life from donating blood by FDA - and rightly so). The CDC (very subject to Gay lobbies) says Homosexuals are most of the AIDS cases, 65% of syphilis cases, 10 % of hepatitis cases and are currently causing a huge epidemic of MRSA and VRE in the major cities. Doctors were warning in articles about new epidemics ready to hit the general population but homosexual groups put the hammer down on them"



"A new variety of staph bacteria, highly resistant to antibiotics and possibly transmitted by sexual contact, is spreading among gay men in San Francisco, Boston, New York and Los Angeles, researchers reported Monday.

The study estimated that 1 in 588 residents living within the Castro neighborhood 94114 ZIP code area is infected with that variant, which is resistant to six types of commonly used antibiotics. The risk of contracting this difficult-to-treat bug is 13 times greater for gay men than for the rest of the city's population, researchers found."

sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/15/MNI5UE0L8.DTL

"A potentially deadly and highly drug-resistant strain of MRSA has developed that can lead to a flesh-eating form of pneumonia, Britain's Daily Telegraph reported yesterday. The bug, which is spreading rapidly among homosexual men in several major US cities, can cause boils as large as tennis balls, blood poisoning or a necrotising condition that eats away at the lungs.

"Once this reaches the general population, it will be truly unstoppable," Binh Diep, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, who led the study, told the Telegraph. "That's why we're trying to spread the message of prevention."

theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23067953-23289,00.html

The political pressure to ignore the realities of illness and disease present in homosexual population is very unwise. There is no justice and compassion in spreading disease to innocent people. If people drank water from the gutter and got sick the public sentiment would be "serves them right". The same should be true for anyone that puts their penis in a sewer. Homosexuals have created a huge health and health care crisis for society ( with help from media brainwashing and intimidation tactics). A reason there is a health care crisis is because politicians keep passing mandates to cover more and more people for more and more things. We dont need added coverage for people who get sick doing drugs, sodomy etc. Much money for research into children s diseases has dried up because its gone to AIDS and homosexuals. It's a very sad chapter in the decline of the country.

At long last, a voice of reason on the right. Bless you sir. Bud and FNE, take some notes, this guy has got it going on. With a lot of practice some day you too might reach this level of discourse.