Arguments against SSM not in any way based on faith or tradition?

[Gyrate]

@BrainGlutton

[shrug] Well, allowing SSM won’t make women any poorer, and will make some lesbian couples slightly more materially comfortable.

In fact, allowing SSM will have a huge financial benefit (or rather prevent a huge financial disbenefit) for many same-sex couples and their children.

I strongly encourage you to read this article by the Avatar of Gayness himself Dan Savage: I Can Die Now

Because we weren’t married in the eyes of the federal government—because of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act—Terry, who has been a stay-at-home parent for more than a dozen years, wouldn’t be able to collect Social Security survivor benefits, something he would be entitled to if we were an opposite-sex married couple. He would also face a crushing federal tax burden, taxes he wouldn’t have to pay if Terry were my wife.

We talked to a tax lawyer about it once. She had two words of advice for me: “Don’t die.”

For 15 years, this weighed on me. If I died, my husband would be made to suffer. If I died, my son would be made to suffer. Parents are supposed to protect their children from harm, and here was this thing—DOMA—that I couldn’t protect him from. If something happened to me, DOMA would impoverish my husband and son. Terry and D.J. would lose the house. They would lose everything.

[Learjeff]

@puddleglum

Think of Marcus Aurelius " This thing, what is it in itself, in its own constitution? What is its substance and material? And what its causal nature [or form]? And what is it doing in the world? And how long does it subsist?"

Think of Sartre, “Existence preceeds essence.”

@Bryan_Ekers

What’s that, poverty that won’t ask for directions?

snicker

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@BrainGlutton

I thought all sexually transmitted diseases were tested for.

No, only some diseases.
And only in some states. (I even think there are some states that don’t test for any diseases.)

[BrainGlutton]

@t-bonham@scc.net

No, only some diseases.
And only in some states. (I even think there are some states that don’t test for any diseases.)

NY v. Md. See Guys and Dolls.

[Lord_Feldon]

@t-bonham@scc.net

I even think there are some states that don’t test for any diseases.

Nearly all states have gotten rid of their blood test requirements.