@fairlanefastback

Quote:

I think the bigger question is why does he hate gay people?

I know you'd like to simplify the debate down to the level of let's spot the homophobe but quite frankly the debate is a lot bigger than that and if you'd been around since the start of the thread I think you'd have chosen your questions a little more carefully.

There is no direct correlation between supporting marriage and hating practising homosexuals. Practising homosexuals can and do live and form relationships free from fear of attack or arrest in this country, but they do not have the right to redefine a institution which is in its very core;

The voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

You attempt to propagate the lie that marriage has 'evolve' over time etc ad nauseam. But it has NEVER been bludgeoned and twisted in such a way as to be completely redefined in this manner. This will undermine marriage to the point where getting married will be utterly pointless bar it's religious significance or an excuse for a party. The bill barely mentions children if at all and certainly is more preoccupied with offering ceremonies to same sex couples than it is fostering life long partnerships of heterosexual couples as the government should be doing.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

And we go riiiiiiiight back to pretending the posts haven't happened that prove every word you just wrote have as much credibility as a Chris Huhne car insurance policy

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

And we go riiiiiiiight back to pretending the posts haven't happened that prove every word you just wrote have as much credibility as a Chris Huhne car insurance policy

Write something credible and I'll take it on board. Spout your biased opinions and conjecture and I'll swiftly discount it choosing instead to listen to qualified people who actually look at this issue with some detachment. Your opinion is one among many and you don't hold the over-ride button with the power to discount my statistics and legal advice because it doesn't agree with your world view. Your arrogance really is staggering.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Yeeeeeeaaaahhh Because it's totally you with the credibility and me with the conjecture... You only posted "conjecture" because somebody else used that word recently. You are like a very selective sponge. Somebody posts something that shoots down your claims and then within a page or two, the very words used against you, you then use as if you have come up with the wording.

This is why I raised the issue that you might be an AI that somebody is trying to train using this forum. There's an AI on a webpage that does that with the repeating of words the human types. It might some some kind of attempt at programing a "learning" computer. It's not working in this case though.

I suppose it's perhaps because you do so much cutting and pasting to figure out what your opinion will be today than you sometimes forget where you did the cutting and pasting from?

To address your post

I have posted many things in this thread. Whenever I or anyone else does, you ignore it and then drag up a previous claim which you abandoned. You were just talking about your 10 points of doom and then failed to respond to any of the posts that addressed the lies you claimed.

Then you started the whole "I won cause the Tories didn't all vote for gay marriage" which obviously wasn't going anywhere so then you moved onto answering/rebutting fairlanefastback's post with a bunch of stuff not related to his post and consisting of the same tired dregs you'd previously claimed that were shown to be baseless and untrue.

Oh and it was me that used the word "staggering" in that context just a few post ago so thanks for repeating my words as if they were your own. It really shows how much creative thought goes into your posts... (See, I'm being ironic. I'm using your utterly overused rolling eyes smiley. If you don't think you are arrogant, just try going back through your own posts to see how often you use this icon to arrogantly dismiss any point made against you.)

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 06-Feb-2013 at 11:21 PM.
Last edited by SpaceDruid on 06-Feb-2013 at 11:20 PM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@SpaceDruid

Sounds like the effort of attempting to actually debate is wearing you down! I can't think of the last time you actually tried to argue as to why the centuries old institution should be changed?

If you can't accept that you are peddling a Bill that promotes discrimination, demotion and exclusion of those in the public sector that support traditional marriage, then maybe this isn't the forum for you. Try vegging out to this new 'sitcom' to try and recharge on your 'liberal' energy

The New Normal

Sounds right up your street!

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

The centuries old tradition has been changed numerous times over the years. or has the change to the legal age of concent for marriage or the adjustments for divorce skipped from your memory? Not to mention all the social change sbrought to marriage in the victorian times.

Also the issue of a ubiased debate is a joke within it's self from someone who has used very weighted and biased reports, polls and missinformation to try and propogate that homosexuals are inherently evil in some way. Or have we forgotton all the times you have said about child abuse, adultery, promiscuity and other such things that homosexulaity have supposedly brought? We have all be debating this with yourself but repeatedly you are the one who resorts to the rolly eye smily in order to make a unfounded point that you hold a more morally superior view point from the rest of us.

You even go so far as to bring in the fictional works of others, wich only want to promote equality and educate children that been different is ok, into the debate in order to shift focus. I submit it is yourself that can't debate for toffee. Or do I need to add some smilies to that in order for it to register?

_________________
My personal blog - CritAnime.com

Admin at Commodore Gaming Wiki

@BigD

Quote:

Sounds like the effort of attempting to actually debate is wearing you down!

No, the effort of endlessly repeating a debate you fail to answer is wearing me down. If you seriously want a debate, please just reply to any of the 20+ times I or others in this thread have already gone through all these points with you.

Quote:

I can't think of the last time you actually tried to argue as to why the centuries old institution should be changed?

I did not that long ago. You failed to respond to my answer and instead decided to reply to a single sentence out of my post that had nothing to do with the response to the question you asked. Just like the other 20+ times you keep doing that.

Quote:

If you can't accept that you are peddling a Bill

Excuse me? Do you see my name on the membership of the House of Commons? I'm not peddling anything. As I said the many, many times you keep making this claim and then not acknowledging my answer, this bill doesn't affect me. Wither it passes makes no change to my life, and neither does it have any effect on you.

Quote:

that promotes discrimination, demotion and exclusion of those in the public sector that support traditional marriage,

And again, I ask for evidence of this. I'll yet again point out that there has been one solitary case of somebody losing their job related to this and it wasn't discrimination law that caused her dismissal, it was the failure of her to honour her employment contract.

He legal case was unfair dismissal, she lost her case meaning she wasn't unfairly dismissed.

On a related point, the end of slavery caused thousands of people to loose their jobs. Are you going to try to claim they were unfairly discriminated against?

If I refuse to serve you because you are a Christian, who is the person in the wrong exactly? Is it you for having beliefs not compatible with my own? Would you remain silent and just accept the discrimination? OF COURSE YOU WOULD NOT!

So why would a same sex couple who are legally entitled to a public service paid out of their own taxes have to go through the same discrimination? You can't argue it is against the Christian religion because there is not a single mention in your religious book that prevents same sex marriage. There is only one mention related to gay sex (and even that is pretty vague) and that was overturned by Jesus, so are you saying Jesus was wrong? Are you saying you have more authority than Christ?


Quote:

then maybe this isn't the forum for you.

Hmm, thousands of posts later and lots of people share my opinion on this subject (and of you), yet the silence is deafening regarding your support. Exactly who do you think is less welcome here?


Quote:

Try vegging out to this new 'sitcom' to try and recharge on your 'liberal' energy Sounds right up your street!

Why would that be? I don't watch sitcoms generally and this one has very poor reviews. And why do you think compassion for others is a finite energy that needs recharging?

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 06-Feb-2013 at 11:48 PM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@BigD

400-175, not bad. And almost all of the antis just Tories too cowardly to stand on the UKIP platform. We now need to make sure that the support remains robust against attrition should it get temporarily rejected by the Lords.

Quote:

I can't think of the last time you actually tried to argue as to why the centuries old institution should be changed?

Because its obvious. There are people, religious bodies, celebrants, couples etc, who want to permit same-sex marriage. No valid counterarguments or negative effects exist, despite your repeated lies regarding paedophilia, divorce rates and the state of Dutch and Spanish society.

Freedom of religious conscience and the freedom to choose one's partner form the case in favour.

Your desire to control others' sexual behaviour, and a deeply entrenched internalised homophobia, form the case against. Its not a difficult choice, really.

@T-J

Quote:

T-J wrote: @BigD 400-175, not bad. And almost all of the antis just Tories too cowardly to stand on the UKIP platform. We now need to make sure that the support remains robust against attrition should it get temporarily rejected by the Lords.

Can we also point out to him that this was a free and conciensious vote. No party whips were involved which means the people that voted for this were people that actually wanted this.

_________________
My personal blog - CritAnime.com

Admin at Commodore Gaming Wiki

@BigD

Quote:

Sounds like the effort of attempting to actually debate is wearing you down!

When you actually start to engage in proper sensible debate rather than endlessly regurgitating the same tired out lies and empty propoganda, this thread will be able to advance. Repetition ad nauseam is not a form of intelligent debate, it is how gullible fools get brainwashed. That is why religious services are always so repetitious and children are indoctrinated by rote in sunday schools and the like.

Quote:

If you can't accept that you are peddling a Bill that promotes discrimination,

And exactly how does this bill promote discrimination, apart from the fact that it does not permit lying hypocritical homophobic bigots to impose their hypocritical homophobic bigotry on the world at large. Once again I will inform you that NOBODY IS MAKING HOMOSEXUALITY COMPULSORY. As a direct consequence of this fact, there is absolutely no threat to your marriage. Not permitting some theofascist to force me to become a christian when I have a perfectly servicable set of non christian, moral and ethical guidelines, is not an act of oppression against the so called christians, it is called freedom of choice.
The concept that you will never accept is that freedom of choice not only allows you to choose to be a "christian" it also allows me to choose not to be a sanctimonious, self-righteous mealy-mouthed peddler of hate speech.

You keep mindlessly repeating the mantra that marriage is, always has been, and always will be "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others." as though the repetition will magically make it so. You totally ignore the simple facts that marriage has not always fitted this description, as BrianK pointed out with his long list of different forms of biblical marriage. Also marriage is not currently "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" as the rates of sexual infidelty will demonstrate, and also the existence of something called divorce. Or do you honestly mean to tell us that the "loving christan alternative" to divorce is uxoricide. (Wife murder for the benefit of those who don't know) Also the entire purpose of the forthcoming legislation is to change the status of marriage to become more inclusive. ( the voluntary union, hopefully for life, of two people.) It is because marriage will become more generally available that it is the proposed new law that is pro-marriage, not the homophobes that oppose it by calling themselves pro-marriage.

You seem to be feeling a bit smug because the CoE has a guaranteed representation in the upper house despite representing a dwindling minority of the population, and you seem to be of the opinion that they can permanently obstruct the democratic decisions made in the house of commons. once again, you are wrong. If the CofE blocking vote tries to prevent this the Lords will be overruled, and the CofE will be shown up even more than the fiasco about treating females as subhuman second class minions. As AndyC pointed out, the most that can happen is a delay of the inevitable.

By these persistent attempts to impose "Jim Crow" laws against women and homosexuals, you and others like you are exposing yourselves for the thugs and bullies that you truly are. This is a direct contravention of the attitudes of Wilberforce and Sharp, who stood for justice and equality for all.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@BigD

Quote:

You attempt to propagate the lie that marriage has 'evolve' over time etc ad nauseam. But it has NEVER been bludgeoned and twisted in such a way as to be completely redefined in this manner

Not true. Gay Marriage was allowed in Rome. It was taken away by Christian law around 340AD. Marriage for procreation purposes was a marriage idea. One you cite as a reason today. Even while you site the law of the land which says jackshit about procreation.

Quote:

This will undermine marriage to the point where getting married will be utterly pointless bar it's religious significance or an excuse for a party.

Bullocks. Marriage will continue to be the legal relationship of people with each other and their commitment in a union.

Quote:

The bill barely mentions children if at all

Nor does - The voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Surprise!

Quote:

certainly is more preoccupied with offering ceremonies to same sex couples than it is fostering life long partnerships of heterosexual couples as the government should be doing

DUH! The law extends marriage to same-sex relationships. This has nothing to do with existing heterosexual coupling. Who I'm married to has no impact to who my neighbor is married to. They are unique relationships. And if you're worried about heterosexual couples then outlawing divorce is your answer. However, you argued against that and refused to stand again the largest single factor destroying marriage - divorce.

@BigD

Quote:

I know you'd like to simplify the debate down to the level of let's spot the homophobe but quite frankly the debate is a lot bigger than that and if you'd been around since the start of the thread I think you'd have chosen your questions a little more carefully.

We don't need to work to spot you, you scream out your bigotry over and over. The real question at this point is why are you the way you are.

Quote:

There is no direct correlation between supporting marriage and hating practising homosexuals.

You don't support marriage, you support bigotry and are against equal human rights. You support governments having to follow the definitions of your particular religion and force it on other citizens which means you also support religious oppression.

Quote:

This will undermine marriage to the point where getting married will be utterly pointless bar it's religious significance

Thats just it. You get to keep your religious significance by being able to marry in your church and being able to have you church exclude whoever they want from being married within your church. Your rights are not infringed. And yet you want the definitions of your church to extend to civil ceremonies performed by government so that you can infringe on the basic human rights of others outside of your church.

Quote:

The bill barely mentions children if at all and certainly is more preoccupied with offering ceremonies to same sex couples than it is fostering life long partnerships of heterosexual couples as the government should be doing.

Well it needs to address the primary issue first, which is bringing equal human rights to all. Where government can reasonably foster life long partnerships between any couple, hetero or homosexual is fine of course.

Quote:

But it has NEVER been bludgeoned and twisted in such a way as to be completely redefined in this manner.

Spoken just like a slave owner of old or of someone against equal rights for women in the past.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

As for why does he hate gay people? He seems utterly fixated on the sexual act rather than any emotional connotations. It's like he's obsessed with gay sex. If you go back through this thread, it's all he talks about. One could be forgiven for thinking he is repressing (or at least trying) his own sexual feelings on the subject. For one to be so fixated just seems strange. There was a recent example of this with the school books where sex wasn't mentioned anywhere, but the first thing he claimed was children were being taught gay sex. This is a recurring theme.

I'm glad you said this first.

_________________
Pegasos2 G3 running AOS 4.1 and MorphOS 2.0
Amikit user, tinkering with Icaros VM (AROS)
EFIKA owner
Amiga 1200

@SpaceDruid

Quote:

If I refuse to serve you because you are a Christian, who is the person in the wrong exactly? Is it you for having beliefs not compatible with my own? Would you remain silent and just accept the discrimination? OF COURSE YOU WOULD NOT!

That is already happening; when Christian couples attempt to go through the adoption process they are often declined on the basis of their faith. They are asked whether they'd encourage their child to have homosexual relationships if they indicate they've had homosexual thoughts. When the parents reply they wouldn't they are excluded from this adoption service. The same goes when they are asked when attempting to foster as to whether they'd take a child to church irrespective of their religious background. They are then excluded for not taking the child's 'heritage' into account :

You can't force people to act against their conscience and their faith; that's called discrimination! You are advocating discrimination and intolerance towards people that disagree with you.

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@Thread

Back to the very source of this thread and TPod's original post;

Quote:

he UK government plans to introduce Gay Civil Marriage at an estimated cost of £3.7 million. There are already Civil Partnerships, which provide all the same rights & responsibilities as marriage (they are commonly called gay marriages now anyway). Media Personality Christopher Biggins & many other gay people are happy with Civil Partnerships. In the small number of countries that have introduced Gay Civil Marriage, other odd issues & further legal changes that effect everyone else happen e.g. Spain has civil marriage & Spanish birth certificates now have to read ‘Progenitor A’ and ‘Progenitor B’ instead of ‘father’ & ‘mother’!

Stonewall actually admits that a change to the law could cost a lot more than £3.7 million.

Pink News: Lib Dem equal marriage plan could cost up to £5bn

Quote:

24 hours ago, PinkNews.co.uk carried a report from about a fringe meeting at the Liberal Democrats party conference where Stonewall chief executive was reported to have said he was opposed to gay marriage equality because it could cost £5bn.

£5bn

In a time of austerity how could that be justified for such a contentious and divisive proposal?

_________________
"Art challenges technology. Technology inspires the art."
John Lasseter, Co-Founder of Pixar Animation Studios

@BigD

Quote:

BigD wrote: @SpaceDruid Quote: If I refuse to serve you because you are a Christian, who is the person in the wrong exactly? Is it you for having beliefs not compatible with my own? Would you remain silent and just accept the discrimination? OF COURSE YOU WOULD NOT! That is already happening; when Christian couples attempt to go through the adoption process they are often declined on the basis of their faith. They are asked whether they'd encourage their child to have homosexual relationships if they indicate they've had homosexual thoughts. When the parents reply they wouldn't they are excluded from this adoption service. The same goes when they are asked when attempting to foster as to whether they'd take a child to church irrespective of their religious background. They are then excluded for not taking the child's 'heritage' into account : You can't force people to act against their conscience and their faith; that's called discrimination! You are advocating discrimination and intolerance towards people that disagree with you.

What a load of utter bollocks. And I know this for a fact. Let me ask you some simple questions BigD. Have you tried to foster? Have you tried to adopt?

I have. Thats why I know what you have said is a big fat LIE.

Let me say I have been through the adoption and fostering process. Both myself and my wife have. They look at every aspect of your life. And I mean every aspect. There is a massive form you have to fill in before you start and it states that they do NOT discriminate against anything. What they are looking for is people, single, married, living together, straight, gay, atheist, christian, muslim, or what ever that can provide a nurturing environment. They look at everything from your past to present life. They look into everything including what your own family was like growing up and if anything untoward happened. The moment they think there is an issue they stop and reject you.

We were rejected based on the fact we worked for the NHS. They said that they felt that even though we would offer a nurturing environment they could not allow the process to proceed because of our working patterns. And they also felt that it was unfair on us to have to do our jobs, which we love, and try and split ourself between a foster child. They also stated they weren't rejecting us based on the fact we held no religious beliefs or that we were married in a civil ceremony. We respected that. And it was a very gratifying experience to know that we could provide a nurturing environment and have it confirmed by the social services.

So I want to know where your information has come from. I want to know what experience you have in this. Because it seems to me that whoever went through this is using Christianity and discrimination as an excuse been rejected and really they were rejected for a different reason. And your little bit about a child's heritage makes perfect sense. If you foster or adopt a child that is Muslim or Jewish your hardly going to take them to a Christian church are you. That would be going against their religious beliefs. It would be discrimination.

I call foul on this much like your other so called bit of evidence. I expect your response to be something along the lines of "what would you know your an atheist. You don't know jack and I know because I am a true christian!" but I submit to you that you know jack all unless it's fed to you by some biased medium. I don't think you actually know what goes on in the real world at all.

I am a public servent, I am a nurse, I am a father and a husband (civil ceremony). I have seen more of life than what you probably have and I will see yet more when I go to work tonight. I will see everything that life can throw. And let me tell you that if gay marriage is the ONLY thing to worry about then you must live a very sheltered life.

Get a grip and realise not everyone shares your views. Not everyone see's homosexuals as some sort of monster under your bed.

but again I expect you will see me as some sort of sick atheist hell bent on destroying society and sucking the life out living creatures.

Anyway I am having a cuddle with my child now and I am probably going to have a cuddle with my wife before i go to bed and sleep soundly after helping people.

Last edited by CritAnime on 07-Feb-2013 at 08:46 AM.
Last edited by CritAnime on 07-Feb-2013 at 08:36 AM.
Last edited by CritAnime on 07-Feb-2013 at 08:11 AM.

_________________
My personal blog - CritAnime.com

Admin at Commodore Gaming Wiki

@Thread

There have been dozens of unanswered questions and points put to BigD. I suggest rather than let him dodge them that they are assembled into a list that BigD has to answer before anyone continues to engage in debate with him.

Until he does that, just post the list in response to him. If he makes a new point that begs further questions add it to that list. If he provides a satisfactory and direct answer to a question remove it from the list. Once the list is down to zero, return to the debate.

Whilst it is interesting to read the intelligent insights made by most of the posters on this thread in response to BigD he completely fails to engage with it. Therefore you must use peer pressure to force a proper engagement. If he continues to show disinterest in debating then he is clearly just spamming propaganda and hate speech.

Last edited by Clapper on 07-Feb-2013 at 01:03 PM.

@BigD

Quote:

That is already happening; when Christian couples attempt to go through the adoption process they are often declined on the basis of their faith.

[Citation needed]
Please include an example of this. You said "often" so it shouldn't be hard.

Quote:

They are asked whether they'd encourage their child to have homosexual relationships if they indicate they've had homosexual thoughts. When the parents reply they wouldn't they are excluded from this adoption service.

[Citation needed]

And I can see clear as day you've written that in such as way as to suggest impropriety. What I imagine such a question - should it exist, would say would more likely to ask wither the parent would support the child in their choices.

You seem to be suggesting that the child should be prevented from having free will. If so, then clearly you would indeed be deemed unfit to adopt a child.

Quote:

The same goes when they are asked when attempting to foster as to whether they'd take a child to church irrespective of their religious background. They are then excluded for not taking the child's 'heritage' into account :

[Citation needed]

Where do you get the word 'heritage' from? Without a source I'm left to speculate that this would mean an Arab baby would have to be raised as what? A Muslim? What kind of Muslim? Sunnis? Shia? Salafis?

Right away your claim screams deceit. The only situation in which a child would have a religious requirement would be if they already had a religion prior to their adoption, so what you seem to be saying is it's perfectly fine for the adoptive parents to force the child to convert?

I can't imagine why an adoption agency would find that unsuitable in any way

Quote:

You can't force people to act against their conscience and their faith; that's called discrimination! You are advocating discrimination and intolerance towards people that disagree with you.

And yet, that's exactly what you are doing!

Sometimes a facepalm is just not enough to express how much fail is in your posts...

Last edited by SpaceDruid on 07-Feb-2013 at 01:19 PM.

_________________
"Anyone with a modicum of reasonableness may realize that it is like comparing the ride in the world to descend the stairs to catch the milk in the house."

Google Translate

@BigD

Quote:

Stonewall actually admits that a change to the law could cost a lot more than £3.7 million. Pink News: Lib Dem equal marriage plan could cost up to £5bn

... an old news story from 2010 raising the point that if marriages and civil partnerships were both available to both gay and straight couples, there might be hidden costs in terms of pension and tax credit eligibility. This, the article states, would be due to the expected rise in uptake of civil partnerships by straight couples.

You would know this, if you'd actually read the article instead of seeing a sensationalist headline you liked. First, you reveal yet again your ignorance. And second, the whole argument is irrelevant because equal access to civil partnerships is not part of the present policy.

Quote:

You can't force people to act against their conscience and their faith

Finally, progress! You can't force people to act against their conscience and their faith. You, 'BigD', cannot force a same-sex couple to adopt your opinion and not get married. You cannot force a minister of religion who supports equal marriage to shelve this support and parrot your homophobic line to them when they ask.

You can't stop this minister from conducting a marriage between that couple.

That would be discrimination.

@BigD

Quote:

Stonewall actually admits that a change to the law could cost a lot more than £3.7 million. Pink News: Lib Dem equal marriage plan could cost up to £5bn

Original list of items.
The £3.3-4.7m breaks down as follows:-
◾£2m: Updates to the General Register Office IT system to accommodate same-sex couples
◾£0.19-0.67m: Familiarisation costs for registrars to perform same-sex marriages
◾£0.08m: Updates to the IT systems at the Department for Work and Pensions
◾£0.4m: IT and project management costs in relation to pensions
◾£0.2-0.45m: Updates to the IT system at HM Revenue and Customs
◾£0.2-0.45m: Updates to the IT courts systems by the Ministry of Justice
◾£0.1-0.3m: Operational changes required for the Gender Recognition Panel database
◾£0.2-0.7m (over five years): Additional demand for Gender Recognition Certificates after the Marriage (Same-sex couples) Bill comes into law
◾£0.15-0.2m: IT system updates for the Office of National Statistics

May of the above vents are 1 time items. Your included article that has 100x the costs does not have the detail to support it's assertions. We can't tell either way until they provide some details. The one item I saw new in the article was an estimate of retirement benefits. I seriously question how they counted that. Don't single people get retirement benefits? And does it financially benefit you more if you were married and your spouse is dead?