Are we being "Punished" for not being gay?

[Charade]

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.

Ok, so for the OP, since they(she?) chose not to be married, she shouldn't expect any marital benefits provided by businesses or employers.

The other side of the argument is why not? Why should marriage be the deciding factor for getting such benefits? Are we rewarding some people or are we punishing others?

 

[froglady]

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.



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).

This is especially true if the genetic problems are eliminated ( menopause or hysterectomy), which is the "logical" reason why close relatives are not allowed to marry. That only leaves the religious or "ick" factor, which is the same impediment that gays face today.

 

[TnKrBeLlA012]

So many people are without healthcare in this world. The cost is out of control. If my company started paying for partners, friends, dogs,ect how much of us legally married people would the company be able to keep insured. I didn't have health coverage until I married my husband. Society is always looking for excuses and ways to work the system. That's the number one reason the cost of insurance is becoming unattainable for so many people.

 

[Lisa F]

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).

Slippery slope for sure. My concerns for the long term have a lot more to do with the erosion of rights than the expansion of them.

Of course since neither of us can predict the future it's kind of useless to argue about it. I think it's a huge stretch to say that there are going to be tens... if not hundreds of thousands of people who are lobbying the government because they want to marry their sibling, or they want to marry everyone on their block, or maybe even both so they can marry everyone in their whole family! But you seem to think that it's a real possibility (does sound a little paranoid to me though).

IMO we should not refuse to extend the same benefits to gay couples who are life partners because we are worried that it MAY lead to something terrible in the future. We should probably take a little of that worry and think about where our current foreign policy and the way we are viewed by the rest of the world is going to lead to in 50 years. Somehow I am much more unsettled by that thought than by the fact that Bob might be able to get medical benefits from Ted's employer based on the fact that they are in a long term, committed and legally binding relationship.

 

[snoopy]

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).

Well at least you didn't bring up the person marrying a goat argument. That one always cracks me up. I really don't think people who equate gay marriage with the marriage of a human and a goat (or polygamy or siblings marrying) really for one minute think this will be an epidemic if we give gays the right to marry. They just use that as an excuse, but what they are really saying is gays aren't worthy of the same rights as straight people.

 

[snoopy]

Ok, so for the OP, since they(she?) chose not to be married, she shouldn't expect any marital benefits provided by businesses or employers.

The other side of the argument is why not? Why should marriage be the deciding factor for getting such benefits? Are we rewarding some people or are we punishing others?

Because marriage is the highest honor of commitment. You don't want to make that commitment, no problem.....you don't get the rights extended to married people. All people should have the right to make the commitment of marriage.

 

[bicker]

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'm not sure if that was your point, but you've presented the most forceful and convincing argument against State-recognized marriages. Marriage should be either (1) between the people married; and/or (2) between the people married and the institution(s) of their chosen belief system(s); as they see fit. The State should only be in the business of recognizing civil unions, and that institution should be open to all committed couples, surely, all on an equal and fair footing with each other. That would solve all of this, with emminent and unequivocal fairness.

That is, of course, if you believe fairness is important.

Always an interesting dicussion, surely. This one is moving so fast that I'm sure it'll be over before I have a chance to check back in. Nice chatting with y'all.

 

[InderellaCay]

I agree. They should be allow to marry. The good , the bad, and the other.

I don't think that overcompensation is "fair" either. To allow a short-term couple benefits and not allow another is wrong, IMO. Not every gay couple wants to marry. Not all are like TV "couples." Real life is much more hard-core and transient. It just doesn't make good tv. Many of the gay men I know relish that life-style. And it is entirely their business. I just don't want to pay their insurance, etc.

 

[toto2]

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.

Well ,in this case . it is not the law that is being change to accomodate anyone , but a business policy , very different.

Secondly , I went to consult the Neederlands marriage law , and nowhere is it written that 3 people can can marry. Everywhere , we can only read " when two people". So , what you heard is probably only hearsay. Outside some African nations or middeleast nation , almost no country recognise multiple partner marriage. It is a bit tirening to read those things about gay relashionships , as if they would be the end of civilisation as we know it. So far , nobody lobbied the Canadian Governement to have the right to marry there pet rat.

Some people that are very logical and very poised when discussing anything , suddenly loose all perspective when it come to recognising same-sex relashionship. The law is and will be the law , and it is two people that get married or legal-recognized. And some people might and will abuse that right , but we have to realize that , when you can get married is five minute in Vegas , and then go to the Librairy and get a divorce on a machine , it is not the gay community that is not repectfull of the marrigae institution ..

So agin , this story is about a business deccision , not about an unjust law.

 

[Charade]

So many people are without healthcare in this world. The cost is out of control. If my company started paying for partners, friends, dogs,ect how much of us legally married people would the company be able to keep insured. I didn't have health coverage until I married my husband. Society is always looking for excuses and ways to work the system. That's the number one reason the cost of insurance is becoming unattainable for so many people.

Maybe someone could explain to me why a trip to the ER and one nights stay in the hospital costs $6600?

Limited meds, a CTscan, spinal tap, lousy food and fairly decent (except for nurse Ratched in the ER) beside care. And they still weren't sure what caused the severe migraine but there was evidence of a viral infection.

$6600!!!

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

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).

All of these agrguement in fear of the "slippery slope" are baseless. America is built on a slippery slope...taxation can become confiscation, our police force could become an occupying army, etc.

Honestly, if we could take the fear of political correctness away, we would find that there is something deeper, and more sinister behind the actions of those who refuse to give a minority group the same rights as the majority.

 

[Charade]

Because marriage is the highest honor of commitment. You don't want to make that commitment, no problem.....you don't get the rights extended to married people. All people should have the right to make the commitment of marriage.

Why extend such benefits to only married people? More people are getting divorced today than ever. Heck, I just ended number two (not by my choice). Many people are in life long deeply committed relationships and never get married. They chose not to marry for a multitude of reasons. But why should they need a piece of paper that's been notarized and legally recognized by the government to prove such a commitment? I thought feelings or love shouldn't have anything to do with the governments recognition of two peoples commitment to each other?

And then some get married *just* for the benefits.

 

[Charade]

Well at least you didn't bring up the person marrying a goat argument. That one always cracks me up. I really don't think people who equate gay marriage with the marriage of a human and a goat (or polygamy or siblings marrying) really for one minute think this will be an epidemic if we give gays the right to marry. They just use that as an excuse, but what they are really saying is gays aren't worthy of the same rights as straight people.

I don't believe it will be an epedemic either (that's the slipper slope anti-argument used) but it's just the next logical step.

 

[swanmom]

Without re-hashing the gay marriage issue that has been so thoroughly 'discussed' on the last couple of pages, I have an observation specifically about the OP's situation. It seems to me like when it works FOR them (e.g. health insurance coverage -paid for by employer or dining card benefits, etc.) then they WANT to be treated by society as if they were married. When it doesn't work FOR them (division of assets, avoiding certain legal obligations of an official marriage,) they DON'T WANT to be treated by society as being married. Isn't this a 'can't have it both ways' scenario?

 

[froglady]

Well at least you didn't bring up the person marrying a goat argument. That one always cracks me up. I really don't think people who equate gay marriage with the marriage of a human and a goat (or polygamy or siblings marrying) really for one minute think this will be an epidemic if we give gays the right to marry. They just use that as an excuse, but what they are really saying is gays aren't worthy of the same rights as straight people.

I am NOT against gays marrying. I'm only suggesting that we may be facing more changes to the "status quo" due to legalizing gay marriage/unions, and should think LOGICALLY about WHY there are certain restrictions in our society.

Of course the animal examples are ridiculous; any marriage/civil union should be legally restricted to consenting human adults; I doubt an animal is the equal to an adult human. (When I meet an animal who can ennuciate his assent, I'll change my mind.)

 

[phorsenuf]

Without re-hashing the gay marriage issue that has been so thoroughly 'discussed' on the last couple of pages, I have an observation specifically about the OP's situation. It seems to me like when it works FOR them (e.g. health insurance coverage -paid for by employer or dining card benefits, etc.) then they WANT to be treated by society as if they were married. When it doesn't work FOR them (division of assets, avoiding certain legal obligations of an official marriage,) they DON'T WANT to be treated by society as being married. Isn't this a 'can't have it both ways' scenario?

Excellent post!

 

[Charade]

Honestly, if we could take the fear of political correctness away, we would find that there is something deeper, and more sinister behind the actions of those who refuse to give a monority group the same rights as the majority.

But they *DO* have the same rights!!! Right now *any* man can marry *any* woman (except your mother/father/brother or sister. Heck, in some states you can marry a distant cousin!).

When (and if) my state passes a law that allows same sex marriage/unions, that law will apply to *all*. Just as the current laws do.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Without re-hashing the gay marriage issue that has been so thoroughly 'discussed' on the last couple of pages, I have an observation specifically about the OP's situation. It seems to me like when it works FOR them (e.g. health insurance coverage -paid for by employer or dining card benefits, etc.) then they WANT to be treated by society as if they were married. When it doesn't work FOR them (division of assets, avoiding certain legal obligations of an official marriage,) they DON'T WANT to be treated by society as being married. Isn't this a 'can't have it both ways' scenario?

Absolutely!!

 

[Mackey Mouse]

SwamMom, thank you for putting it eloquently.....I thought I had it said it earlier in this thread, but the only person who noticed was Laughogram.... you cannot have your cake and eat it too....or can you??

 

[Quackmore]

Ok, I am sure this topic will get tons of flames. But I don't mean it to be, I just need to vent.
I am female and a male moved in with me a few years ago. I have no intention of getting married again. Been there, done that. My boys are 29, 27, and 22 and they understand how I feel about marriage for me. I encourage them to get married and on has already, so I am not down on it for everyone, just for me. I don't feel I need to be married and I have worked hard for everything I have and intend for my children to get it all when I die. I have done the will and my friend won't be able to claim cohabitation because of the will, but if I was married he would automatically get everything when I die. I am not planning on that for a long time I hope but I did have a scare last year and looked into everything.
Last summer I signed up for the Disney Dining card. I was able to get the card in my name but they wouldn't give me one for my friend because he didn't have the same name as I did. They told me that if I was in a same sex relationship they could give me a 2nd card in my "live-in's" name but since we are opposite sex they can only give one to me.
My place of employment just got a new clause on our insurance that they will cover insurance for "partners". I would love to cover my friend because he is disabled and has no health insurance of his own and goes to the VA for medical care. He has to pay $75 per visit and all his medication and tests come out of his disability check. He gets very little in disability because he didn't put much into SS before he was disabled.
I called Human Resources and they told me that the insurance is only for "same-sex" partners, not for opposite sex cohabitators.
I can't understand how companies can make this claim, that they will cover same-sex but not opposite unless you are married.
what do you think? Peggie

It is totally unfair!!!!