Same-sex health coverage - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Tex · 04-13-2009, 05:15 PM

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.

MikeWaters · 04-13-2009, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

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.

When Gavin Newsome declared gay marriage legal, the local govts got rid of domestic partnership benefits, under the argument that since there was no barrier to marriage, they would require marriage for benefits.

I thought that was great.

Legalize gay marriage and get rid of all domestic partnership benefits.

Cali Coug · 04-13-2009, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

When Gavin Newsome declared gay marriage legal, the local govts got rid of domestic partnership benefits, under the argument that since there was no barrier to marriage, they would require marriage for benefits.

I thought that was great.

Legalize gay marriage and get rid of all domestic partnership benefits.

That seems the pretty clear solution to Tex's dilemma. Just let gay couples get married. Then all are on equal footing.

Tex · 04-13-2009, 05:35 PM

Let's say for the sake of argument that legalizing same-sex marriage is impossible. Then what's your solution?

Indy Coug · 04-13-2009, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That seems the pretty clear solution to Tex's dilemma. Just let gay couples get married. Then all are on equal footing.

What about same-sex or opposite-sex couples that don't want to get married? Why discriminate based on marital status?

Cali Coug · 04-13-2009, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What about same-sex or opposite-sex couples that don't want to get married? Why discriminate based on marital status?

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.

Tex · 04-13-2009, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

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.

Gays do have that choice. They can get married by the existing definition.

Cali Coug · 04-13-2009, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

Gays do have that choice. They can get married by the existing definition.

That is a false choice, and it would be an equally false choice if marriage were defined as being only between a man and a man and all government benefits were tied to that definition.

Tex · 04-13-2009, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That is a false choice, and it would be an equally false choice if marriage were defined as being only between a man and a man and all government benefits were tied to that definition.

There's nothing "false" about it.

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?

Cali Coug · 04-13-2009, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tex

There's nothing "false" about it.

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?

lol! You want a solution to a problem your position has created that doesn't involve the only real solution to your question?

Nice.

How about instead we just agree the best solution to this problem would be to open up marriage to homosexuals?

04-13-2009, 05:15 PM	#1
Tex 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, 05:35 PM	#4
Tex 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