This seems like a radical way of thinking IMO. I'm sure that there is some percentage of the straight population that has used marriage as a business arrangement in the past. Nobody has ever seemed to be particularly concerned that this may be happening, as it is likely not a significant percentage of the population. If the same percentage happens in the gay population, so be it. I just don't see it being any more prolific in the gay population vs. straight.
But let's take the extreme point of view and say that it happens. So what? Even if two people form an arrangement of sorts without being in love, doesn't it still provide them with a form of protection that ultimately marriage was designed to encourage? In an ideal world, everyone falls in love and gets married and spends the rest of their lives together, and the couple helps each other out, thus creating the family unit. If some non-traditional family units are created that don't involve the romance part, but still provide some protections, what is wrong with that? We just have to stop thinking that the traditional view of marriage is the only way to do things. People are so quick to frame these issues as "right or wrong", as if there is only one proper way for people to behave, and anyone who deviates from that is not normal. I'm sure religion plays into this heavily, but at some point we have to separate church and state and let people live their lives as they choose, as long as they are not harming anyone else in doing so.
My thoughts in no way said that what I thought might happen was right or wrong ....
The question in the OP's thread asked
Does anyone know how this SCOTUS ruling will affect the future ability of SS/government pensions to pay additional benefits that they had not previously had to consider? I assume that there will be a negative impact on these funds.
Of course, no one "KNOWS" because there are too many variables and much depends on the publics behavior and reaction moving forward.
So one can only give their opnions and those of others.
I do think that the legalization will effect SS, pensions and healthcare dramatically as it will open up the entire populace to the benefits that marriage can have on their financial security and
right or wrong it will remove some of the "stigma" that marriage is reserved for a certain group (intimately involved heterosexuals) -- All folks will begin to see the various angles they can use the system legally as written without regard to any gender.
Heck, for some it might just be the fact of knowing that marrying the same gender will guarantee them certain financial benefits without any possibility of off-spring from the "relationship"
Whether it takes 10 years or 30 years these changes will have a profound effect on the system as we know it and you will then see the laws changed to compensate.
Let's just get personal with this --- If my spouse passed away and my daughter was "living" with a man and had kids I would consider marrying that man on paper ( if I trusted him and in their relationship ) so that when I died my military survivor benefits plan would continue to pay him a check every month as long as he lives, thus providing an additional income stream for my daughter and grandchildren.
There you have it -- and there are soooo many other scenarios that exist
The can of worms is open -- For this discussion "right or wrong" are not the issue --
It is more legal or not legal and for some if it is legal and others are doing it and benefitting from it then that is enough to push them to also consider doing it and reaping any benefits. As that snowball rolls on folks will find it easier and easier to seriously consider it.
Who can blame them
Marriage for all!! Yipee