Clambake: You born in 1982 ?
You will figure it out go to collect a pension cheque that isn't there in 40 years because we didn't treat unions between men and women any different than any other union.
Different countries - different regulations, but here's a different story.
Australia doesn't permit gay marriage yet (but only because the very Catholic-and therefore religiously biased- PM wont permit a bill to come before the national parliament- which is not very democratic, because polling consistently indicates around 70% of ALL Australians are in FAVOUR of legalising gay relationships).
So on with the story - my longtime friend (another XJW) is gay, after being a JW for over 35 years, he was pursued by a young man (early 20s) and succumbed to the young man's charms, letting loose his long repressed same-sex desire and was DF'd.
Suddenly the imaginary world he had created as a Christian vanished - and his family. - resulting in deep psychological shock. He gave himself 6 months to change back to being a Str8 JW or he would kill himself. Six months went by and his same sex desires were still strong. He was on the verge of suicide when a met a 30 year old guy who made him laugh again - they have now been together for near 25 years.
Gay relationships were not officially recognised then, so when he got to his early 70's he decided to retire and take the old-age pension, which he was entitled to. A few years ago, after about 10 years on the pension, the then government (Rudd's for Aussie's information) changes the rules again. Gay relationships were recognised (but not called marriage) and my friend lost his right to the pension. Why? because his still-working partner earned too much money (and, also because they were thrifty and always saved money) so therefore, now counted as a couple he was no longer entitled to a pension.
So consider that case, Clambake.
Clambake:Marriage=families=future tax payers.
Now children aren't in the cards for everyone but that is the expection, not the rule.
I presume you meant to say, exception, not expectation.
The facts do not support your statement generally.It does not appear you have bothered to study demographic trends. In Australia, there are more and more DINKS, or at least one-child families. Without migration (mainly Indian and Chinese these days), the Australian population would be shrinking, as is the case with Japanese, Korean and Russian populations (which I study). Likely western European nations are also in this category.
The desire to use sex to procreate has lost ground to the idea of using sex for recreation. That can probably be attributed to the use of hormones (birth-control pill) to regulate fertility. My uncle had 16 kids, who would want that burden today. Women were just baby factories prior to birth-control, and had no room for anything else in their lives. Few women want that today!
So if, in a man/woman relationship, the couple decide they do not want kids, to be consistent you should advocate their de-licencing as a married couple. Is that your position also?
