Guest #51 November 18, 2003 Quotethe presumption here is that the same sex partners would choose to marry if they could. most companies require registration with the state as "domestic partners" before extending benefits. the hetero couple chooses not to be married, and therefore chooses to decline these benefits. not a perfect system, but the best we can do at the moment. "Benefits". That's what it's really about. Follow the money. mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #52 November 18, 2003 Quote I wonder if gay marriage would be an issue at all but-for the whole entitlement stuff... I agree. It wouldn't be a debate at all if there wasn't some kind of economic gain / loss equation. In this case, I believe that for some to gain, others must lose (because of the finite base available). Perhaps the best answer is to get the state out of the domestic-partnerships business altogether; the silly same-sex nonsense would vanish. This would mean that people would have to be responsible for themselves mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #53 November 18, 2003 QuoteIf gay marriage were legal, I'd agree. If it's not legal, there needs to be another mechanism to provide for medical coverage for someone's partner (in my opinion.) That is my point. Everyone should be able to get medical coverage for their partner. Right now, companies are only providing it for same-sex couples. I couldn't get it if I needed to, that is discriminatory based on my sexual preference. You can't do that with housing, why with medical coverage? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #54 November 18, 2003 Quotethe presumption here is that the same sex partners would choose to marry if they could. A presumption. If it isn't on a legally binding document, it isn't real. Kind of like almost buying a car. I took it for a test drive, but I didn't make the committment to buy. Quote the hetero couple chooses not to be married, and therefore chooses to decline these benefits. No, there are a lot of hetero couples that wish to live together but not get married. Why are they denied benefits that other employees are getting? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #55 November 18, 2003 so let homosexuals marry and solve the inequality problem. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #56 November 18, 2003 Quote The thing that I don't understand is that companies will pay benefits for "same-sex" partners, but not "different-sex" couples who live together. They need to make one rule. I don't think a company can offer it to one couple and not another, wouldn't that be discrimination? Before I got married I had my now husband covered as a domestic partner. We had to sign an affidavit to the fact that we have lived together as partners for a year. JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #57 November 18, 2003 QuoteI don't think a company can offer it to one couple and not another, wouldn't that be discrimination? Yes, it is. As a practicing heterosexual, I find myself discriminated against. The following is a quote from a companys webpage. QuoteTo be eligible for benefits as the domestic partner of a XXXXXX employee, the following criteria must be met: Same sex, adult partners Neither partner is married to anyone else nor is the domestic partner of anyone else Both partners are at least 18 years of age Both partners are mentally competent to contract Partners are not related by blood to a degree of closeness that would prohibit legal marriage in their state of residence Partners live together in the same permanent residence Partners are jointly responsible for each other's welfare and living expenses Domestic partner is employee's sole domestic partner and intends to remain so indefinitely Partners agree to notify the appropriate parties of any changes in meeting the above criteria Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jlmiracle 7 #58 November 18, 2003 Quote[The following is a quote from a companys webpage. QuoteTo be eligible for benefits as the domestic partner of a XXXXXX employee, the following criteria must be met: Same sex, adult partners Neither partner is married to anyone else nor is the domestic partner of anyone else Both partners are at least 18 years of age Both partners are mentally competent to contract Partners are not related by blood to a degree of closeness that would prohibit legal marriage in their state of residence Partners live together in the same permanent residence Partners are jointly responsible for each other's welfare and living expenses Domestic partner is employee's sole domestic partner and intends to remain so indefinitely Partners agree to notify the appropriate parties of any changes in meeting the above criteria That's just wrong. They shouldn't be able to do that. When I got married and changed him over to my spouse, they still charged me for insurance on me, my spouse, AND my domestic partner. JudyBe kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FliegendeWolf 0 #59 November 18, 2003 QuoteI intend to live well by staying the heck out of these hot-button threads. But ten of the posts in this thread are yours!!A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #60 November 18, 2003 Quoteit weakens the social glue that marriage provides. You have Got To Be Kidding! Social Glue??? Sanctity of Marriage is an oxymoron these days.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Remster 30 #61 November 18, 2003 Quote Sanctity of Marriage is an oxymoron these days. Yeah... and its all you gay'ses fault! (yes, that was sarcasm)Remster Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #62 November 18, 2003 QuoteQuoteI intend to live well by staying the heck out of these hot-button threads. But ten of the posts in this thread are yours!! I made an exception in this case. Having given this subject more thought today, I think what I object to is that on an intellectual level, same-sex marriages diminish the value of the real thing, much as a knockoff product from China diminishes the value of a trademarked product. When I was at Customs, I personally destroyed phony Gucci bags, faux Starter brand jackets, and bogus Rolex watches that had been seized from people trying to import them into the US (for those who might think Customs inspectors walk off with this crap...uh-uh. Two-man rule on all destruction, witnessed and signed off. Besides, no inspector is going to risk his career on a phony watch). On the one hand, one can easily say "So what if people buy bogus products? It isn't hurting anyone." One could make the argument that this is a victimless crime, but there are indirect victims - the owners of the trademark and the damage to the label's reputation by being associated with inferior goods. That's kind of the way I see same-sex unions (for a dislike the term marriage used in this context, because it is defined as the religious and/or legal union of a man and a woman). The other reason I object is mentioned elsewhere in this thread - by granting benefits to same-sex partners, this is a form of de facto discrimination against those of the opposite sex who choose for personal reasons not to get married. In effect, this policy punishes them. I've said enough, and I'm certainly not going to change anyone's mind, nor should I try. mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Harksaw 0 #63 November 19, 2003 Who are you to say that the value of their relationship is less than that of a heterosexual? I find the issue of value of each relationship to be a non-issue. No one is buying a marriage, and if I feel that my heterosexual marriage is cheapened by a homosexual marriage, that is my own durn fault. How much are the things you have worth? As much as you think they are.__________________________________________________ I started skydiving for the money and the chicks. Oh, wait. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FliegendeWolf 0 #64 November 19, 2003 QuoteThe other reason I object is mentioned elsewhere in this thread - by granting benefits to same-sex partners, this is a form of de facto discrimination against those of the opposite sex who choose for personal reasons not to get married. In effect, this policy punishes them. Well, no, it doesn't. Granting gays the right to marry has absolutely no effect on a het couple who chooses not to marry. In fact, it does the exact opposite: it allows straight and gay couples to choose to marry as they wish, granting certain benefits to those that do marry, while not granting them to those that do not. How does this punish straight couples? QuoteHaving given this subject more thought today, I think what I object to is that on an intellectual level, same-sex marriages diminish the value of the real thing, much as a knockoff product from China diminishes the value of a trademarked product. On top of Harksaw's objection, I simply fail to see why other people's lives and other people's decisions should have any effect whatsoever on the commitment one would make to their spouse. By your logic, it sounds like instituting same-sex marriage means that your commitment is suddenly weaker. Why should it affect it at all?A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #65 November 19, 2003 QuoteI see this as a case where civilization itself is weakened, because the basic family unit must now share limited social resources with those who for the most part won't sustain society (id est, reproduce. Without any replacement units, there can be no civilization. Ergo, it's an indirect attack upon the underpinnings of modern society itself). Then stop making me pay taxes to support those "social resources" If you don't want me taking from them, Stop making me pay into them!Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Keith 0 #66 November 19, 2003 QuoteI wonder fi gay marriage would be an issue at all but-for the whole entitlement stuff... That's a ridiculous argument. What same sex couples are seeking are equal rights plain and simple. A heterosexual couple can be married for two minutes and have more legal rights than a homosexual couple that's been together for two decades. If a member of a heterosexual couple dies, the other automatically gets rights of survivorship. If a member of a homosexual couple dies, the family of the deceased partner can come in and take Everything, and the surviving partner has to Prove what belongs to them. If a partner in a heterosexual relationship is hospitalized, the other partner has the simple right to visit the other and in critical situations make decisions for them; a homosexual partner doesn't have that right and that's FUCKED UP. I could go on but then I just get even more pissed. Your response is pompous at best.Keith Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest #67 November 19, 2003 Quote Then stop making me pay taxes to support those "social resources" If you don't want me taking from them, Stop making me pay into them! I hear ya! I don't have any kids, but my property taxes are used to send other people's kids to state-run schools, and substandard ones at that. mh"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
