If gbaji believed in any of the points he copies and pastes he'd be more about stopping marriages like Britney Spears' and less about George Takei.
This statement kinda indicates you either didn't bother to read my points, or you failed to understand my points. Is Takei going to accidentally get his partner pregnant (or accidentally be impregnated)? No? Then that's how you're wrong.
Well there's no chance i'll ever get accidentally impregnated, or accidentally impregnate someone else, so surely it stands to reason that i should not be granted any marriage benefits, regardless of what *** a person i might marry is, right? ...right?
Current law says that i can marry a woman, and get full marriage benefits, despite no risk of accidental pregnancy. I mean, okay, i get the government might not know that, also, even if i couldn't get accidentally pregnant, i could, if i really wanted to, intentionally get someone pregnant. So maybe it makes sense to give marriage benefits for that. In a few years however, even if the laws do not change, i will be able to marry a man, and still get full marriage benefits, still with no chance of accidental pregnancy. Surely at that point, they would know that i couldn't get pregnant, accidentally or otherwise, right? So why would they still give me any of the regular benefits they normally only give to those with a risk of accidental pregnancy? Is it maybe because that's not really the criteria? Or is this some big mistake that needs to be fixed? Surely i should not be able to get any benefits from a marriage that obviously could not possibly result in accidental pregnancy, right? Edited, Apr 5th 2013 3:15am by Rachel9