Reply With Quote
I'm sure divorce lawyers would definately be all for gay marriages.
CC, maybe I'm a little dense here, so tell me if I misinterpreted your post. Are you saying that since you provide hetero married couples health insurance, and you don't want to cover gay married couples insurance, you would be in violation of the law? Why wouldn't you want to offer benefits to gays in your employ? Because of your personal beliefs?
(I'm very curious about this, with gay family members and being an employer myself.)
I'm sure divorce lawyers would definately be all for gay marriages.
BTW, CC, as somone in the insurance industry, you're a good man for paying 100% of the insurance. Thats expensive as all .
I haven't really heard a convincing argument on why gay marriages should be illegal. I think they should marry but not force the church to participate. I think this is more than about "marriage", but about benefits, inheritance, etc. The rights a spouse receives in a traditional marriage would be available for those in a gay marriage without the need of a legal do ent (although these days it would not hurt to have one).
I think Canada is on the verge of passing gay marriage laws if it hasn't been passed already.
Last edited by blaze89; 06-30-2005 at 03:34 PM.
I think we need to worry about keeping the divorce rate under 50% for same-sex marriages first. Marriage, whether you like it or not, is a cornerstone of western society. Making even more changes to it is not going to be productive.
yes, even though employers are not required by law to furnish insurance at all, if gay marriage was legalized all employers that currently provide insurance benefits to familys would be required to furnish and pay for the same benefits to gay spouses no matter what their personal beliefs on gay marriage was or they would be in violation of federal law.
Look...I am not a gay basher and am about as open minded as they come concerning gay couples rights to do whatever they want to do but I don't think it is morally right to force employers that DO have strong religious and personal beliefs against same sex marriage to financially subsidize those marriages.
I agree with this, but for a different reason. I would be in favor of throwing out marriage out of the law and replace with "civil union" or something similar.
At this point, marriage comes with an assortment of benefits. Why? The only coherent reason I can think of is to help support families, specifically children in our society. However, the equation of marriage=children in our society has pretty much broken down.
If we want to grant benefits (of the tax money kind) to children, let's do that directly. If you want to have a way to grant the legal rights that marriages currently have, that a-ok with me. Personally, I do not want to pay extra taxes to help keep up childless marriages, civil unions, or whatever you want to call it.
As far as CC's company benefits are concerned, it's a messed up system when we expect/hope our employers to help pay for our non-working (or maybe working without any benefits) significant others. Helping out with the kids though is still a good thing though.
Well, what if your significant other can't work for some reason? Is that just too bad? Well, it is too bad right now if it's your sibling or your parents or your grown children that have problems that keep them from working. Where does our system take that into account? I don't have answers here, but I think a compassionate, caring framework of some kind ought to be there. If not the employer, maybe the government?
So, just out of curiosity, if we turned the situation around to where the employer is not you but an ardent member of the Nation of Islam and you are the white employee, you don't think that he should be required by law to provide the same insurance for your white wife as for you since he has a "strong religious and personal belief" towards the white man? I don't understand how what you're proposing isn't very judgemental.
That really upsets me when I hear people say that.
First of all, I am not a phobe! I dont have any problems with sexuals. I have gay friends and I dont judge them or think of them badly because of their lifestyle. But I just dont like when I hear people compare gays to blacks of the civil rights era.
Nothing against sexuals and the things they have to deal with, but you cant compare the two. Not being able to get married is not the same as gettin beaten by police, lynched, getting sprayed with fire hoses, not being allowed to eat at certain places, sit in certain seats on the bus, or go to public schools with other white kids. I dont think it is fair to the civil rights era blacks to compare the two.
Please dont take this as me saying anything bad about gays, or gay marriage. Its just men not liking people comparing todays gays to civil rights era blacks.
I just fail to understand why straight people give a and constantly parade their sanc y of marriage concerns. If your marriage will somehow be tainted by the actions of complete strangers who never intersect with your life except in passing - then maybe you have other problems you need to address.
ummm....that's a fashion term. For a while black clothing was the color to wear. So every season, something else is the new black."Gay is the new black"
Reel classeey s ie.
Some people just don't follow the fashion trends....
Black is the new throwback jersey.
Oh ok.
No I dont.
But I have hear/read people saying that Gay people are facing the same type of issues that civil rigts era blacks were. So I guess I was commenting on those things.
uhhh...in my opinion it's his ing money to spend as he wants and it's my choice whether I want to work there or not...but thats just me.
the courts see it differently.
How do they see it differently? He can't hold back insurance money because you are white while providing insurance for his Islam brethren. You obviously didn't have a problem hiring a gay person to work for you and make you better off financially - why should you have a problem with giving him insurance?
The current laws already force people to accept lifestyles they don't like, so allowing sexual marriage isn't the cause of that. It's that simple.
it...you guys are right. I am just being narrow minded. ...lets not stop at same sex marriages...lets expand marriage to include animals as well. TLong deserves to claim his sheep as a dependent.
Oh ok.
No I dont.
But I have hear/read people saying that Gay people are facing the same type of issues that civil rigts era blacks were. So I guess I was commenting on those things.
Your subscription to Vogue in in the mail
Not really the answer I was looking for Cosmic. I'm geniunly interested in your opinion, whether or not it jives with mine.
Actually I was being semi serious. I just think male/female marriage (as opposed to civil union granting certain mutual legal rights to consenting adults) is a reasonable place to draw the line. It's a slippery slope and where do you stop it? Polygamy? Pedophilia? Beastiality? Incest? Use your imagination...what sexual minority becomes the next to demand equal rights?...was the guy they drug out of the tank of the womens outhouse in the story I posted yesterday being opressed from exercising his own vision of his sexual iden y?
I agree there is a "slope", but I don't see it as slippery. Gays to be wed are still adult human beings. In that respect, I don't see the jump to pedophilia, incest, or animals. It is fairly well established that you must be of a certain age to act of your own volition, aside from any moral implications there are actual scientific and genetic problems with incest, and animals are not humans and are clearly unable of acting in accordance with their own volition.
The only immenent threat on the slope is that of polygamy.
good argument. One of the standard arguments for being gay is that they "can't help" being gay. They were just "born that way". Are they then acting on their own volition?.
Interesting point, but I'm not sure if it necessarily applies. The act of marriage/civil union/going steady isn't a conscious decision to to be straight or gay - its just a decision to be married. So I would argue yes, they are acting on their own volition in respect to the decision to be married.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions