if it is about homosexual couples wanting to bag social security for a surviving partner, what is it that justifies the public bearing the continuing burden?
why doesn't the surviving partner simply receive the income they themselves have earned from their own efforts during their career?
i get it when there are children. one partner might be the caregiver. in that scenario, both parents may be a joint but unequal income production unit during their children's minority just as they may be a joint but unequal parenting unit. so the surviving parent receives income coloured by the career income of their partner.
in that scenario i really don't give a damn about the sexuality of the parents. and by parents, i include adoptive parents. if a homosexual couple provide for their children, then i see no distinction with a heterosexual couple.
so i agree with the idea of equal treatment amongst parents. i see a reason to discriminate (aka privilege) in favour of people who raise children over those who do not.
but what's the justification otherwise? regardless of sexuality. why elevate married couples over single people and unmarried couples?
this isn't an egalitarian argument. it's a claim of a discriminatory privilege.
seems to me surviving spouses of childless couples should not receive social security other than that which they themselves have earned.
that's egalitarian and it doesn't push the additional burden of unearned social security payouts on to younger generations.
it would also clear away the detritus from the debate about marriage. from my perspective, by all means allow homosexual marriage.
| 