Really? Where? Just curious. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color = lightgreen>I personally know of three couples here in the Metroplex area. In fact, Tom had David on his medical coverage as a "domestic partner" while I couldn't carry <font color = red>Belle</font> because she was a female who was not (at that time) my wife.

This alone leads me to the conclusion that the only thing homosexual couples cannot attain right now is an official Certificate of Marriage. By itself, that piece of paper doesn't add anything they cannot already have.

I think this whole "gay marriage movement" is simply a collective desire to prove something, to force acceptance and recognition of their lifesyle by the general population. [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] If you have to force recognition of something upon others, is it really worth having? Are you not content with your own personal acceptance? Why the need for external recognition?

*shrug* It's the 2000s. It's hip to be homosexual.</font>

Really? Where? Just curious. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color = lightgreen>I personally know of three couples here in the Metroplex area. In fact, Tom had David on his medical coverage as a "domestic partner" while I couldn't carry <font color = red>Belle</font> because she was a female who was not (at that time) my wife.

This alone leads me to the conclusion that the only thing homosexual couples cannot attain right now is an official Certificate of Marriage. By itself, that piece of paper doesn't add anything they cannot already have.

I think this whole "gay marriage movement" is simply a collective desire to prove something, to force acceptance and recognition of their lifesyle by the general population. [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] If you have to force recognition of something upon others, is it really worth having? Are you not content with your own personal acceptance? Why the need for external recognition?

*shrug* It's the 2000s. It's hip to be homosexual.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry, but I find this reasoning to be shallow and inneffectual. Not to mention the total ignorance of some ( more than 1,000) crucial financial and legal rights granted by legal marriage unattainable to unmarried and same-sex couples (except in MA).

Your example is flawwed as well. I was able to add my fiance to my insurance under the domestic partner heading. I think the real problem is with that employer's benifits package if they only include same-sex couples as domestic partners.

To Azred -- G'on Girlfriend!!!!

To Chewie -- yes, in light of the current situations, it would seem apropos to include same-sex domestic partners.

Of course, if there were "Civil Unions" or "Marriages" universally in place for those folks, the rules could revert to how they were -- requiring couples to obtain legal validation of their union/marriage prior to obtaining benefits.

<font color = lightgreen>Shallow and inneffectual? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] Perhaps...there are worse mistakes I could make. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] Total ignorance? [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img] I would beg to differ with that assessment, but I never beg.</font>

<font color = lightgreen>It is impossible for my example to be flawed, as it was a fact. I certainly didn't imagine that ridiculous cannot-think-for-herself Human Resources director! [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

*****

Personally, I support those who happen to be homosexual and would like to add an offical, state-authorized marriage into their relationship. However, I have not yet heard any compelling argument as to why homosexuals should be allowed to obtain marriage licenses other than "Because we want to." Perhaps a better argument might win them some more legal battles.... [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img] </font>

I'd say not. I've known far too many homophobic people. Maybe my experience is just jaded.

I'd say not. I've known far too many homophobic people. Maybe my experience is just jaded. </font>[/QUOTE]You may simply need to "get out more". Chelsea and the West Village are the hippest areas in NYC precisely because of the gay element. As is Oxford St. and Paddington in Sydney for the same reason. Homosexual "chic" is "hip". Designers, pop stars, movie stars. Since Andy Warhol and Oscar Wilde, mardi gras and fashion trends. The politically correct answer is "I'm bi".

But what happens when it's politically correct to NOT be politically correct?

See above post.

Really? Where? Just curious. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color = lightgreen>I personally know of three couples here in the Metroplex area. In fact, Tom had David on his medical coverage as a "domestic partner" while I couldn't carry <font color = red>Belle</font> because she was a female who was not (at that time) my wife.

This alone leads me to the conclusion that the only thing homosexual couples cannot attain right now is an official Certificate of Marriage. By itself, that piece of paper doesn't add anything they cannot already have.

I think this whole "gay marriage movement" is simply a collective desire to prove something, to force acceptance and recognition of their lifesyle by the general population. [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] If you have to force recognition of something upon others, is it really worth having? Are you not content with your own personal acceptance? Why the need for external recognition?

*shrug* It's the 2000s. It's hip to be homosexual.</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Well said. I agree wholeheartedly. [img]smile.gif[/img]

I agree. I can't see why it's such a big deal. But it obviously is, else they would've been allowed to marry each other ages ago.

Gnaarf, its an "in your face" thing. a desire for official recognition. no matter what happens though, some people are just never going to recognize those marraiges as valid... no matter what certificate the government gives them.