Reaction To Article On Planning For Non-Traditional Couples

To The Editor:

It appears that those who are active homosexuals have been getting significant positive press as it pertains to financial planning. Your publication is another contribution to this cause. The themes of the articles I’ve read tend to weave a thread of common financial planning issues related in many ways to the needs of all singles.

There is also included in these articles an admonishment not to be judgmental about the homosexual behavior. It is the latter point that is more disturbing. By arguing for a non-judgmental attitude, the proponents reveal their indirect approval of homosexual practices. If you agree to set aside judgment regarding the moral implications of homosexual behavior and focus strictly on the financial dimension, I believe that the cost to our culture in the name of tolerance has been understated.

Your magazine should, of all places, be able to research and measure the cost to society for the financial impact sexual behavior outside of marriage has had for health and life insurance companies (as well as our national capital). While these figures can depict the financial impact, it alone would be insufficient to disclose the pain and agony family members endure from the break-up of the nuclear family.

There is a disconnect taking place to absolve the individual of his/her responsibility for their “private” actions and shift the financial burdens resulting from their consequences to the government or pooled risks. It appears that the homosexual community is looking for more than financial planning techniques–it wants the approval/acceptance from the 99.4% of households representing traditional couples.

In exercising financial discernment, we as a society should withhold our approval of homosexual behavior and reinforce that which will preserve our culture. In the long run, cultural stability will further our financial well-being. Why should the 1% be able to create such cultural turmoil and the 99% be forced to expend tax dollars and increased cost sharing through insurance premiums to reflect the consequences of their sexual practices?

D. Dahl