Single old babes, want to marry again?

[theronware]

This does not sound possible, unless you are using some odd definition of household. Not even 60% of all households are raising children. It would be strange indeed if gays were raising proportionately more children than the entire population of gays and straights taken together.

If your assertion is indeed true, please provide some evidence, as I think this would be a revolutionary social change and would at the very least argue strongly for not only allowing but fostering gay marriage in every jurisdiction.

Ha

I meant gay couples, rather than households (my own form of chauvinism, I suppose). And, yes, there I exaggerated -- but only somewhat. The numbers are as follows:

"Forty percent of same-sex couples aged 22 to 55 are raising children, about 5 percent of whom are adopted, according to the Williams Project, a UCLA Law School think tank. If you include children born in once-heterosexual marriages, raised by single parents and parents of all ages, up to 10 million children are estimated to have a lesbian or gay parent." (This is from the *Boston Globe* March 26 2006)

Doesn't 40% of same-sex couples raising children also "argue strongly for not only allowing but fostering gay marriage in every jurisdiction"?

Theronware

 

[haha]

I meant gay couples, rather than households (my own form of chauvinism, I suppose). And, yes, there I exaggerated -- but only somewhat. The numbers are as follows:

"Forty percent of same-sex couples aged 22 to 55 are raising children, about 5 percent of whom are adopted, according to the Williams Project, a UCLA Law School think tank. If you include children born in once-heterosexual marriages, raised by single parents and parents of all ages, up to 10 million children are estimated to have a lesbian or gay parent." (This is from the *Boston Globe* March 26 2006)

Doesn't 40% of same-sex couples raising children also "argue strongly for not only allowing but fostering gay marriage in every jurisdiction"?

It certainly does, in my book. But then, I have never had a problem with gay marriage, even if all the couples wanted out of it was a sure date for gay power parades.

Ha

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

apologies to the op for this hijack but comments already imbedded within your thread compel me (edit: even if i said i wouldn't do it again)

In the ensuing melee with good4nothingbum, both writers assume that gay people will be outside the purview of this new gov. system...2b indeed suggests that his proposed policy will be perceived as homophobic.

Both writers are therefore assuming that gay people don't have kids. In fact 60% of gay households are now raising children so certainly the proposed policy change would impact them.

i most certainly did not assume "gay people will be outside the purview of this new gov. system." where do you find me expressing such sentiment? where do you find me assuming "that gay people don't have kids"? are you saying you would have preferred i included lesbians as part of my derogatory remark about breeders? you've either got to be kidding or you misread or misinterpreted what i wrote.

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

I'm not sure that living together avoids all those messy legal entanglements ?

for me, obligations of a relationship go far beyond legal, even when not state sanctioned. were i to luck-out a third time & hook-up with someone who, say, this time did not have my means, and let that person become dependent on me to share my new early retired lifestyle, how could i possibly dump that person 10 years down the line without resources? this is especially relevant at this age. if i hooked up with someone 50 years old now who didn't have resources, how could i dump them at 60 with no finances? if i let someone become dependent on me in these later years, don't i become responsible for them for life?

 

[haha]

A judicious observation!

 

[Toejam]

On the other hand . . . While many women may like the idea of being in a committed long-term relationship without marrying, "There's a Lot You Can't Do If You're Not Married". This article points out the many legal restrictions that unfairly penalize unmarried couples, whether straight or gay.

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsour...ug=liztaylor29&date=20070129&query=Liz+taylor

 

[Moemg]

for me, obligations of a relationship go far beyond legal, even when not state sanctioned. were i to luck-out a third time & hook-up with someone who, say, this time did not have my means, and let that person become dependent on me to share my new early retired lifestyle, how could i possibly dump that person 10 years down the line without resources? this is especially relevant at this age. if i hooked up with someone 50 years old now who didn't have resources, how could i dump them at 60 with no finances? if i let someone become dependent on me in these later years, don't i become responsible for them for life?
[/q
I think this is very noble but what if someone hooked up with us because of our means are we supposed to take care of them for life even after the relationship is dead ??

 

[SteveR]

for me, obligations of a relationship go far beyond legal, even when not state sanctioned. were i to luck-out a third time & hook-up with someone who, say, this time did not have my means, and let that person become dependent on me to share my new early retired lifestyle, how could i possibly dump that person 10 years down the line without resources? this is especially relevant at this age. if i hooked up with someone 50 years old now who didn't have resources, how could i dump them at 60 with no finances? if i let someone become dependent on me in these later years, don't i become responsible for them for life?

I agree to an extent. Depending on WHY the relationship ended. If it were due to her infidelity then no way I am going to fund her future life with some jerk. If I am dead then my family is covered in my trust so I can "rest" assured they will get their fair share of what ever is left when I am no longer around to care.

If she left for other reasons and it was a mutually agreed upon split then I would be fair in the settlement (been there done that already). The key here is fair. 50:50 might be fair after 20 years of marriage but not after two.

It all depends on the why and the when.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

how could i possibly dump that person 10 years down the line without resources?
how could i dump them at 60 with no finances?

Good news! We have a forum expert on these matters and its something that he's actually good at!
:

Spotlights on you Johnny!

 

[sgeeeee]

Good news! We have a forum expert on these matters and its something that he's actually good at!
:

Spotlights on you Johnny!

Now you're just being mean. . . Honest perhaps, but mean.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Hey, believe it or not, I have it in me. But i'm only mean to mean people.

 

[Meadbh]

Never lived together, and only married once, so I'm in no way any expert, but I always thought (in Canada anyway) if you live together for atleast 2 years, legally it was pretty well the same as being married. As far as parting ways if you know what I mean. Can't put it in words today.

According to my estate planning expert (in Canada)......if you live common law with someone for three years, he/she has spousal rights to your property. This means that he/she is entitled to 50% of your property after a breakup, or on death - unless you have a will. And I think that the will can be ruled null and void if you cut out your common law partner. If there is a child of the union, the entitlement kicks in after one year of cohabitation. The same rights now apply to gay couples, unless they have actually tied the knot, in which case there is no delay in spousal inheritance or divorce rights. Theronware's numbers sound plausible to me based on the number of gay couples I know who have kids.