Are we being "Punished" for not being gay?

[lovemygoofy]

What if the OP and her guy were in a "common-law marriage?" I don't even know if that is recognized everywhere but I know that in AR it's 7 years of together in one house and you are considered "married" by the state.

I don't know how long the OP has lived with someone but maybe that could be an option if that state recognizes common law marriage.

 

[Laura]

I do think two people who choose to live together in a relationship ought to have the option of having healthcare coverage whether they're gay or not. A lot of couples don't get married for financial reasons (for many elderly couples one might lose a pension) and they're punished.

In the OP's case, it seems to me that they're not being punished for not being gay, they're being punished for not being married. My state doesn't recognize common-law marriage any more unless the common-law relationship began before October 1991.

 

[Lisa F]

But, as they say, "Two wrongs don't make a right."

Well I guess I disagree that it's wrong for certain companies to take it into their own hands and offer benefits to same sex partners even though the government won't offer them legitimacy. I see it as doing what they can to undo a GRAVE injustice.

 

[va32h]

Well, if we are going to extend the rights and priveliges traditionally granted to married couples to any two people who say they are in a committed relationship, why bother having marriage at all?

I don't think the OP's situation is unfair. The gay couple would be married, if they could be. You could be married, but you choose not to be.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

In the OP's case, it seems to me that they're not being punished for not being gay, they're being punished for not being married.

There it is...I'm glad to see that someone is thinking this morning.

 

[Lisa F]

Yes they do. We (hetero's) can't marry someone of the same sex but we can marry someone of the opposite sex. Same thing applies for gay people.

Love has nothing to do with it and it shouldn't. The government isn't (and shouldn't) be concerned about love.

(and yes, I'm channeling Dave)

Wow, substitute "race" for that and see how that sounds. We (whites) can't marry someone of a different race, but we can marry someone of the same race. Same thing applies for black people. Separate but equal worked so well in the 50's.

You're right, though. If love has nothing to do with it and it's a mere business relationship based on who is entitled to benefits then why should gender have anything to do with it either? Why should one group's set of morals have anything to do with it? I think ALL emotion should be taken out of the equation and legal marriage should be a legal partnership between two people and the government needs to get out of legislating who those two people are allowed to be.

 

[Charade]

Well I guess I disagree that it's wrong for certain companies to take it into their own hands and offer benefits to same sex partners even though the government won't offer them legitimacy. I see it as doing what they can to undo a GRAVE injustice.

What GRAVE injustice? The laws (as they have for a long time) apply EQUALLY to everyone. The laws are being changed to accomodate a select group of people and not to the entire population. Actually, it does affect the entire population because now Bob and Ted (or Jane and Jill) who are hetero sexual roommates can get a legal union (or married) just to collect benefits from the others company (or pensions or whatever).

I heard on the radio about a man and two women who got (legally) married in the Netherlands (I think that was the place). What about 3 men? 4 women? 2 men and 2 women? Should companies be forced to provide health care for these "marriages"? Does it end or should we just have a free-for-all? Anyone can marry anyone and as many as they want? I won't even bring up the ridiculous argument of people marrying their pets or cars.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I won't even bring up the ridiculous argument of people marrying their pets or cars.

This arguement always seems to go there, doesn't it? Like that would be a logical jump..."I'm gay and want to legally marry my partner" right to "I want to marry my car or dog"...please...

 

[swilphil]

I heard on the radio about a man and two women who got (legally) married in the Netherlands (I think that was the place). What about 3 men? 4 women? 2 men and 2 women? Should companies be forced to provide health care for these "marriages"? Does it end or should we just have a free-for-all? Anyone can marry anyone and as many as they want? I won't even bring up the ridiculous argument of people marrying their pets or cars.

Do you have a source for that radio story?

Yes, the idea of people marrying pets and cars is ridiculous. I don't know anyone who is seriously proposing that. Gay people want to marry their partners, people they love and want to spend their lives with. The notion that gay people are still free to marry persons of the opposite sex is the most ridiculous argument of all. If they wanted to do that, they wouldn't be gay.

 

[Lisa F]

What GRAVE injustice? The laws (as they have for a long time) apply EQUALLY to everyone. The laws are being changed to accomodate a select group of people and not to the entire population. Actually, it does affect the entire population because now Bob and Ted (or Jane and Jill) who are hetero sexual roommates can get a legal union (or married) just to collect benefits from the others company (or pensions or whatever).

And what's to stop Bob and Jane, who are also heterosexual roommates, from getting married to collect benefits from the other's company? The GRAVE injustice is that gay people can't enjoy the same kind of legal relationship with their partner (not their dog, or their whole neighborhood ) that hetereosexual people can. Why? Because they might abuse the system? Yeah, like that has NEVER happened in a heterosexual couple before. Ever.

I heard on the radio about a man and two women who got (legally) married in the Netherlands (I think that was the place). What about 3 men? 4 women? 2 men and 2 women? Should companies be forced to provide health care for these "marriages"? Does it end or should we just have a free-for-all? Anyone can marry anyone and as many as they want? I won't even bring up the ridiculous argument of people marrying their pets or cars.

Ah, the good old slippery slope argument. I'm surprised you didn't add "should we just let adults marry children?" to that list. But since you're asking, I don't see why taking the gender requirement off of who is allowed to get married would suddenly mean that you had to change the number of people who constitute a legal partnership. What does one change have to do with the other? The Netherlands also has legalized prostitution and abolished the death penalty. Nevada has legalized prostitution but I don't see the death penalty going away any time soon.

 

[InderellaCay]

I don't think the OP's situation is unfair. The gay couple would be married, if they could be. You could be married, but you choose not to be.

Do you honsetly think that any gay couple together for a few months would choose to make a legal bond? Why? Not all gay people are into committed relationships, just like not all straight people.

 

[Dan Murphy]

No opinions from me here, Peg, but did want to take the opportunity to wish you continued remission and good health. My best for you.

 

[Mackey Mouse]

I am confused here......you said you did your will and he cannot claim cohabitation and therefore not be able to get anything from your estate if anything should happen to you. Am I understanding this right?

But, you want him to have your Disney Dining card and maybe insurance with your company...I guess what I am saying here is if you do not want him to have monies from your estate, why would you want him to have benefits from your company or from Disney??

I am not looking to argue, just trying to understand.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

I am confused here......you said you did your will and he cannot claim cohabitation and therefore not be able to get anything from your estate if anything should happen to you. Am I understanding this right?

But, you want him to have your Disney Dining card and maybe insurance with your company...I guess what I am saying here is if you do not want him to have monies from your estate, why would you want him to have benefits from your company or from Disney??

I am not looking to argue, just trying to understand.

Wow...great point!

 

[snoopy]

Wow, substitute "race" for that and see how that sounds. We (whites) can't marry someone of a different race, but we can marry someone of the same race. Same thing applies for black people. Separate but equal worked so well in the 50's.

You're right, though. If love has nothing to do with it and it's a mere business relationship based on who is entitled to benefits then why should gender have anything to do with it either? Why should one group's set of morals have anything to do with it? I think ALL emotion should be taken out of the equation and legal marriage should be a legal partnership between two people and the government needs to get out of legislating who those two people are allowed to be.

Absolutely agree. Its the people who put love into the equation who are usually against gay marriage. No matter how "icky" people think people of the same sex getting married to one another is, the fact of the matter is all people should be extended the same rights regardless of sexual orientation. If you strip away all the emotion, that is what comes down to.

 

[InderellaCay]

Absolutely agree. Its the people who put love into the equation who are usually against gay marriage. No matter how "icky" people think people of the same sex getting married to one another is, the fact of the matter is all people should be extended the same rights regardless of sexual orientation. If you strip away all the emotion, that is what comes down to.

Exactly! Including bennies. If I choose to cohabitate, why shouldn't my partner, male or female have the opportunity to be covered.

 

[snoopy]

Exactly! Including bennies. If I choose to cohabitate, why shouldn't my partner, male or female have the opportunity to be covered.

Uhh, because you have chosen not to be married. Your comparison is apples and oranges.

I believe that all people, regardless of sexual orientation, should be able to marry.

 

[Charade]

And what's to stop Bob and Jane, who are also heterosexual roommates, from getting married to collect benefits from the other's company? The GRAVE injustice is that gay people can't enjoy the same kind of legal relationship with their partner (not their dog, or their whole neighborhood ) that heterosexual people can. Why? Because they might abuse the system? Yeah, like that has NEVER happened in a heterosexual couple before. Ever.

Nothing is to stop Bob and Jane from getting legally hitched to collect benefits. I'm sure it happens already. I'd be surprised if it doesn't. And what if Bob and Jane were siblings? Why should the government be allowed to deny immediate blood related siblings from marrying? Even if they love each other? Or just to collect benefits?

Slippery slope indeed.

Ah, the good old slippery slope argument. I'm surprised you didn't add "should we just let adults marry children?" to that list. But since you're asking, I don't see why taking the gender requirement off of who is allowed to get married would suddenly mean that you had to change the number of people who constitute a legal partnership. What does one change have to do with the other? The Netherlands also has legalized prostitution and abolished the death penalty. Nevada has legalized prostitution but I don't see the death penalty going away any time soon.

Slippery slope or logical extension. Your choice. Do you think that people in the Netherlands ever thought that 3 people would be permitted to be married 100 years ago? I doubt it.

You're thinking short term. But even if it wasn't, you don't seem to be too concerned that in the future (say 50 years from now) that the US could legalize polygamy.

My point is that right now we have a push toward same sex marriages/unions. Some day someone will want to marry their mother/father/brother or sister. For love, benefits or both. In fact, I'm sure that somewhere that's already happened (of course the blood relationship wasn't disclosed).

 

[Charade]

Do you have a source for that radio story?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46583

(didn't realize it was Dr. Evil )

 

[Mackey Mouse]

But wait, what does this have to do with being gay or straight. If you choose not to get married and live with someone, do you have the right to include them on your Disney card or your insurance???? She has not included him in her will, if I read it correctly, then why expect the others to recognize the relationship.

Would roommates, sharing the rent, etc. be expected to have a card in their name for Disney or be covered under their roommate's medical insurance?