do gays and lesbians have less worth than heterosexuals?

I posed this question in the comments on another post, but it occurred to me that it might be interesting to lift the discussion out of the comments and open it up to everyone who reads here. Here’s what I asked in that comment thread.


Are there rights that same-sex couples don’t need, but that heterosexuals do? Or are there equivalent needs in same-sex couples as in heterosexual couples? Are there rights and protections that same-sex couples simply shouldn’t have?I thought it would be interesting to hear what everyone had to say in answer to those questions. But first, it might be a good idea to review what’s already out there.

This is about the best summary I’ve seen thus far of the rights and protections that same sex couples are currently denied. Broadly, they include:

Hospital Visitation Rights - Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured partner in the hospital.
Health insurance - Same-sex couples have no automatic right to visit one another in the hospital or make medical decisions for one another. Having medical power of attorney documents may help, but there’s no guarantee and hospital will recognize those documents.
Spousal Privilege - Same-sex couples have no right to refuse to testify against one another. So everything you say, write, email, fax, etc. to your partner is admissible in court and can be used against. you.
Inheritance rights - Same-sex couples have no automatic rights to inheritance in the absence of a will.
Family leave - Same-sex couples have no legally protected right to unpaid leave to care for an ill spouse.
Pensions - Most pension plans only pay survivor benefits to a legal spouse. Same-sex partners get no pension support for surviving partners.
Nursing homes - Same-sex couples have no legal right to live together in a nursing home and spend their final years together.
Home protection - The laws that protect married couples from being forced to sell their homes to cover high nursing home bills don’t apply to same-sex couples. A same-sex partner can be forced to sell, and forced out of the home to satisfy nursing home bills if he/she lives in the home but does not own it.
Retirement savings - Married people can roll over a deceased spouses 401(k) into an IRA without paying taxes. Same-sex partners must withdraw everything, pay income taxes on it, and lose the tax deferral benefits.
Taxes - Marries spouses may inherit unlimited property from a deceased spouse, tax free. Same-sex partners pay taxes on any amount over set state and federal limits.
Social Security benefits - Unless you’re married, you get no Social Security from a dead spouse. If you have kids, they will get it and you may be custodian of it until they’re adults.
Beyond that, as I’ve said before, the government’s General Accounting office tallied up 1,049 rights and protections based on marital status. It will take longer to detail what all of those are, and just how they might or might not apply to same sex couples. But in the time I’ve been writing this blog, I’ve posted about some stories that underscore just how this stuff shakes out in real life.

My god, I am glad we never had and will have this discussion in Holland. Married people have the same rights, straight or gay, there is no difference. As it should be! Just like that!

I am a christian and do not believe being gay is right, but I WILL NOT JUDGE peoples decisions. That decision is between you and GOD come the day you meet him. Who am I to tell you your wrong with whom you love, or wanna be with. Let gays be gay. Its very simple, and the fact that we are losing sleep over it as a nation makes me laugh....there are WAY more important things in life that worrying about peoples sexual orientation...

Mr. Einstien, you're a genius.

The reasons you have laid out here are the exact reasons that same sex marriage is having such a hard time in the States. Sure there are a few who look at this from a religious standpoint but the REAL issue is economic.

So to answer your question coming from that aspect I would say that gay people DO have less worth because the PTB want it that way due to monetary reasons.

I don't think it's related to economics, at all.

If they are in a "straight" relationship, they get the benefits.

So, the economy would be duly impacted, as such.

Are you (Intrepid) trying to say that the benefits are with-held, to
save money ?

If everyone were "straight", what type of people would be excluded
in place of the "non-straight" people, to gain the same economic
advantage ?

I think it's a social/religious issue, personally.

If someone is committed to a relationship, straight or gay and they
are doing the things the "norm" require (i.e. job, law abiding) then
IMO, they have equal rights.

Just my 2 cent,
Lex

Originally posted by Lexion


Are you (Intrepid) trying to say that the benefits are with-held, to
save money ?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Not in all countries but I'm assuming we're talking about the States. Remember, money makes the world go round.

I think it's a social/religious issue, personally.

That's what the PTB want you to think. They use this(and other "social" issues) to divide the people. BUT who really runs that country? Big Biz and they don't like shelling out ANY money.

If someone is committed to a relationship, straight or gay and they
are doing the things the "norm" require (i.e. job, law abiding) then
IMO, they have equal rights.

Just my 2 cent,
Lex

In a perfect world I would agree with you. This isn't a perfect world though.

No, it's not a perfect world.

Sad, I know.

But, reality is that whether straight or gay, people are people and
as I've said, as long as they are law-abiding productive citizens,
they should be treated as such.

Rose-tinted glasses and all that, I know.

I'm still not understanding how it's economic.

Insurance : We all pay for it, or use some form of social service.

Visitation rights : Cost nothing.

Spousal Priveledge : Cost nothing.

Inheritance Rights : Cost nothing. Well, the cost would be the same as
far as legal fees. Still no economic impact.

Family Leave : Perfect World comes into play. If we were all "straight",
what class would be excluded to make up the monetary difference ?

Pensions : They are due to be paid. Whether to a "straight" or gay partner,
they are to be paid. Where is the economic impact ? (unless you want to
say the pension with-held is an economic plus to a company)

Nursing Homes : Paid for by either the recipient, the family or the Govt.
One way or the other, it's paid. Whether "straight" or gay.

Home Protection : The OP states this rather well.

Retirement Savings : I'm sure you'll say that the PTB are grabbing taxes.
Is that sort of money really worth it ?

Taxes : This can be construed and twisted in many ways. I'll opt out on this
subject.

SSI : Again, it's to be paid. If not to a wife or husband, why not a "life-partner" ?

And, what are the "other" social issues you refer to ?
The race card ?

If so, I got over that hurdle, years ago.

Interested,
Lex

Originally posted by Lexion
But, reality is that whether straight or gay, people are people and
as I've said, as long as they are law-abiding productive citizens,
they should be treated as such.

BINGO. "Should" is the operative word.

I'm still not understanding how it's economic.

If you can't have benefits paid to a same sex partner, HUGE savings.

SSI : Again, it's to be paid. If not to a wife or husband, why not a "life-partner" ?

Damn good question.

And, what are the "other" social issues you refer to ?
The race card ?

If so, I got over that hurdle, years ago.

Interested,
Lex

Nah, issues like stem cell research and abortion. Those ones REALLY divide people.

Intrepid,
This debate could go on for days.

I'll bow out, but keep my opinion.

I don't think it's economic.

I truly respect your opinion, and hope debates such as this continue
here on ATS.

Much respect,
Lex

Thanks for the pleasant debate, I hope you don't bow out. This has been a nice discussion. Some could learn from how we've conducted ourselves here.

I DO see your point about this being religosocialtal(did I just create a word there ) but the reason behind the reasons are economic imo.

Initially, only marriage legitimised partnership as far as automatic inheritance etc. was concerned. Divorce terminated such rights. If a person remarried, his/her new spouse was legally recognised with regard to the issues listed in the above post (re: medical and other decisions, etc.)

Then, in recent decades, de-facto/common law marriage partners were accorded virtually all the 'rights' previously enjoyed only by 'legally married' partners, particularly if the de-facto relationship had produced offspring.

For example, if a man had terminated his relationship with a women to whom he had once been legally married, after which he lived in a de-facto relationship with another woman, who in turn had one or more children -- the law would recognise the rights of his de-facto wife (and child/children of that relationship) to make claim on the man's estate --- regardless of whether or not he had troubled to legally divorce his first wife.

Such may cause a prolonged legal wrangle, were the first wife to contest the claims made on the estate by the de-facto partner. The outcome would depend on the contributions made to the deceased man's estate by his legal and de-facto wives, also the length of each relationship and the length of time to have passed between his separation from his first wife (and possible offspring from that relationship) and his death, etc.

Personally, I see no appreciable difference between heterosexual and homosexual marriages/partnerships. Why should same-sex partners not be accorded the same recognition by medical practitioners, insurance companies, etc. ?

Certainly, it may be that the person in question may have two or more partners contesting for the right to make medical decisions and/or claim inheritance rights, etc. But these could be dealt with in the same way as conflicting claims lodged by heterosexuals in similar circumstances.

It's not all that long ago that Katherine Hepburn believed herself obliged to defer to the 'rights' of the estranged, legal wife of her long-time partner (Spencer Tracy) at his death and funeral. Many mistresses (and their offspring) were left penniless upon the death of their de-facto husbands, all rights and inheritances enjoyed by the legal wife and children, despite that the man in question may have severed all contact with them years earlier.

It's to be strongly suspected that religious beliefs favoured the legally married partner, particularly in cases where the religion of the participant/s forbade and therefore did not recognise divorce. Financial and other institutions did not 'benefit' in such cases, but merely complied with the 'morality' of the day.

Until such times as equality is granted partners within homosexual marriages, it behoves same-sex couples to make such arrangements as are possible concerning the future welfare of their partners and to persist in seeking recognition from authorities as regards medical decisions, etc.

It's almost certain that in the not too distant future, same-sex partners will be accorded 'de-facto' status, as is currently enjoyed by heterosexual couples who have not undertaken to legally marry.

As to the topic heading: ' Do gays and lesbians have less worth than homosexuals ? ', my response is: I don't judge a person's 'worth' upon either their sexual orientation or preference and I'm confident that at base, neither do most.

I've employed a number of self-declared 'gays' and have found them to be no better or worse as employees than those from the 'straight' population.

When my children were in their early teens, I several times employed a gay-male to live in our home with my children while I was required to travel interstate and overseas. I never had the remotest qualms or anxiety about doing so. If I had, I wouldn't have selected the gay male in question when dozens of others (gay and straight) were available.

By the same token, there have been gays of my acquaintance (in common with many more 'straights') who I wouldn't have allowed within a mile of my children.

A person's character is foremost. Their sexual orientation is their business.

Why one's sexual orientation is even a topic of conversation, or concern, is mind boggling. Love is blind, or so they say...

I still can't figure out why an insurance company would, or should, care who they are paying someones death benefits to. 'Course I'm just a simpleton who doesn't understand why such simple matters have to be so complisticated. You pay in over the course of your working life, you name the benificiary and they get the money. Simple. But for some reason it doesn't work that way...

Originally posted by seagull
You pay in over the course of your working life, you name the benificiary and they get the money. Simple. But for some reason it doesn't work that way...

The reason it doesn't work that way is because of other family members wanting that money (and fighting in court for it). It happened to me. My boyfriend died of kidney cancer in '99. I was entitled to $10K from the will. His sister was executor (I was asked first but wanted it to be one of his relatives...bad mistake). I thought his sister was pretty cool....until he died that is. I ended up recieving only $6.5K. I was just too upset to fight it.

But, simply put, family members can take away your money. Even with the correct papers. That's the reason gay people want full equality marriage. Because even with the correct documents, family members can contest and most of the time win.

i have seen this thread in BTS and i will post the same thing here as i did there, people like me who arent "normal" in the sexual way have less worth.

Originally posted by outrider
i have seen this thread in BTS and i will post the same thing here as i did there, people like me who arent "normal" in the sexual way have less worth.

Think about it in this way. Gay people aren't allowed to marry the one that they love. But, both Menendez brothers (the two boys plotted and killed their parents....violently) got married in jail. That kinda sounds like to each other but you know that it was with their girlfriends. One even over the phone. Sanctity of marriage indead. Anyway, that pretty much puts us at 3rd class citizens as oppossed to 2nd class. 2nd class (convicted murderers) citizens can marry whom they love. But, 3rd class (law abiding, tax paying) citizens can't. There's the proof that we are not worth as much as even a convicted murderer.

so then I guess what you are all saying is screw the single people, right.Special Rights for people that have someone, but if you don't then screw you? With special Rights comes special Responsibilities, they are never discussed that would be ridiculouos to include anything that wasn't heart string attached.

Oh by the way, in case you haven't heard, LIFE ISN'T FAIR...

What I find most interesting of all is that you all keep saying Government recognized Rights and government recognized privileges. Since it is their system you want into you have to play by their rules. There are many ways to beat most of those examples given by the OP. And the OP was wrong on some of the legalism's of taxation. For anstance anyone can give anyone a one time TAX FREE Gift. There are legal and binding contracts as per the hospitalization visits too, and powers of attorney they must all abide by under Law. Seems to me that staying out of the governmental system of taxation and privileges would be the better road, but that is just me.

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
Oh by the way, in case you haven't heard, LIFE ISN'T FAIR...

Exactly. Get used to it.

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
There are legal and binding contracts as per the hospitalization visits too, and powers of attorney they must all abide by under Law. Seems to me that staying out of the governmental system of taxation and privileges would be the better road, but that is just me.

Yes, there are binding contracts. But, do they always work? No. I can give you hundreds of stories (examples) that say differently. Can you give me the same amount where it has worked?

Why do you think we want marriage EQUALITY? BTW, do you heteros have to make all these "binding contracts"? Didn't think so. So what makes you more special than me?

Edit: As far as the arguement that gays are looking for "special" rights. Give me a freakin break. We are looking for EQUAL RIGHTS. There is nothing that the gay community is asking for that heteros don't have already.

Special rights indead.........don't let the religious right and GOP run your life so much.

[edit on 5/30/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 5/30/2007 by Griff]

[edit on 5/30/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by theindependentjournal
There are legal and binding contracts as per the hospitalization visits too, and powers of attorney they must all abide by under Law. Seems to me that staying out of the governmental system of taxation and privileges would be the better road, but that is just me.

Yes, there are binding contracts. But, do they always work? No. I can give you hundreds of stories (examples) that say differently. Can you give me the same amount where it has worked?

Why do you think we want marriage EQUALITY? BTW, do you heteros have to make all these "binding contracts"? Didn't think so. So what makes you more special than me?

Edit: As far as the arguement that gays are looking for "special" rights. Give me a freakin break. We are looking for EQUAL RIGHTS. There is nothing that the gay community is asking for that heteros don't have already.

Special rights indead.........don't let the religious right and GOP run your life so much.

thats right, we have less rights than everyone else, we just want the world to give us the same rights the "normal" person has.

"Yes" If you are a Heterosexual

"No" If you are a homosexual

Its the truth.

Just like Heterosexuals have less worth to homosexuals weither they will tell the truth or not.