04-13-2009, 05:15 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Same-sex health coverage
Had an amusing conversation with a co-worker a little while back. The company I work for provides medical insurance coverage for (1) spouses and (2) same-gender domestic partners.
This co-worker is not gay, and has a live-in fiancee (though they have as-yet no wedding date). He's frustrated that were his girlfriend male (and he claimed her as an "SSDP") she could get coverage, but since she's female and they are not married, she can't. He sees that as a double-standard, and he has a good case. I chuckled to myself afterward ... society continuing to dumb down marriage in any way it can.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
04-13-2009, 05:20 PM | #2 | |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
Quote:
I thought that was great. Legalize gay marriage and get rid of all domestic partnership benefits. |
|
04-13-2009, 05:31 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
|
|
04-13-2009, 05:35 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Let's say for the sake of argument that legalizing same-sex marriage is impossible. Then what's your solution?
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
04-13-2009, 05:35 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Between Iraq and a hard place
Posts: 7,569
|
|
04-13-2009, 05:38 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
It isn't discrimination. They would have a choice to formalize their relationship in the form of a state-sanctioned event, and participation in that event results in some additional legal benefits. The discrimination exists right now- homosexuals do not have the choice to participate in that event and obtain those benefits, while heterosexuals do. Your "solution" of not allowing them to be married but permitting benefits to be extended under certain circumstances is precisely what leads to the silly result Tex noted above.
|
04-13-2009, 06:21 PM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
04-13-2009, 07:10 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
|
04-13-2009, 07:47 PM | #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
In any case, I'm more interested in hearing your solution to the dilemma barring changing the definition of marriage. Let's say you own a company one of the remaining 47 states where that definition is unaltered. How do you answer the complaint?
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young Last edited by Tex; 04-13-2009 at 07:51 PM. |
|
04-13-2009, 09:38 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Nice. How about instead we just agree the best solution to this problem would be to open up marriage to homosexuals? |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|