Benefits for Straight Unmarried Couples, Too?

[Radical_Dreamer]

Edit: Jeez, this post makes me sound Libertarian. Let me reiterate that I'm not for the legalization of drugs. Not yet. As the human race becomes more than Q's "savage child race" (an era whose tail-end we're living in), let's not give humanity another way to screw itself. There are certain people who will use it regardless, and there are certain people who will always profit from it. They have the choice to take part in that savage cycle. Let's not extend that offer to all. Drug usage also fundamentally violates my principle of lucidity -- that if we're to learn and know anything in this life truly or with conviction, we must be decently awake.

You almost sound Libertarian. You've missed the third, and most Libertarian solution to the issue: The government gets out of the marraige buisneuss. But, as Josh has been pointing out, that is not the point of this topic, so I'll try to keep from derailing things further.

If employers are going to offer partner benefits, there must be some criteria of what represents a dedicated partner. Now, the easy way is to just say married people, but for this to work, gay marriage must be made legal, for there is no rational reason why gay couples are any more or less deserving of the benefits of marraige than straight couples. Sadly, this is not likely to be the case, nor is even a "civil union" liable to serve the same function.

So the question becomes how does a corporation define a partner? The answer, I think, is that it doesn't. Simply have a check mark on an HR form if you want to include your partner, defined by you, to recieve benefits, and have an updatable way of letting the company know who this person is. It's tricky how to avoid fraud. Require that this person be an emergency contact? Require that they not list someone else in the same position at their company? It takes some solving.

[CyberSarkany]

My turn 0,5 cent:

...my answer to this question: No.

It is discrimination, but this doesn't seem to be something new in the US...(no offense)
If gays are not allowed to marry, but still get a few rights if they are a couple...it just sucks. Why are they making a big deal about marriage anyways? The world is unfair, and gays had a long era of having no extra rights at all. Now when they finally are allowed to get a few right at least, the straights(not all) are like "Shit, no fair man, we want too!"...

This is just homophobe, and I try to be nice, so no flaming.

Oh, and nice reply ChibiBob. If I would have replied, I would have flamed the hell to heaven *thumbs up*

[Silvercry]

Excuse me for a second while I laugh uncontrollably:

*ahem* BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-snort-HA-HA-HA-HA-deep breath-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Now that its out if my system, allow me to explain why I find this turn of events so amusing:

Whenever the subject of gay marriage comes up, several of my more right-leaning friends insist that if legalized, countless heterosexual individuals would go out and get hitched to members of the same sex the sole purpose of obtaining heal benefits for both of them from any given employer -- in effect, 'defrauding' said employer.  In this way Gary could get some throwaway entry-level position at the company of his choice and obtain health  other benefits for himself and Stu, his best friend from high school while the latter attends college, or tries to write the Next Great American Novel, or simply sits at home all day in his underwear and plays video games (live the dream, Stu!).  Meanwhile, they would still be free to date women, since marriage is a sham, there’s no hard feelings, right?

Yes, you read that correctly.  I counter this absurd assumption by citing they are underestimating the social stigma placed on homosexuality, and overestimating peoples' willingness to love a lie for the length of time it would take to make such a scenario successful.  Some would try -- of that i have no doubt -- but I see it falling apart rather fast for most.

Anyway, the funny part is this: By not legalizing same sex marriage, yet allowing homosexual couples to add their partners to their healthcare plan (and other benefits), they have now opened the door to the very same fraud they allegedly sought to prevent, only to the nth degree.  Now, no one needs to go through a sham gay marriage to achieve the same result.  And here’s the topper: This could have all been prevented by allowing gays to get married in the first place!  Honestly, I wish I could come up with some kind of ticker that counted the number of months, days, hours, minutes, and seconds (and eventually years) since the UK allowed gay marriage that have been absent of the Wrath of Heaven raining down upon them.

Benefits should only apply to married couples -- but same sex couple should be allowed to marry.  Problem solved.  So technically the first poll answer covers me.  *Votes*

I believe these benefits should only apply to those men and women mated together, hopefully together all their lives, and only to those many individuals who have their heads screwed on right.

Again I bring up the statement of what this world is coming to. I haven't been keeping up with the news and to hear these certain individuals who enjoy... ...having intimate relations with the same sex... ...now have some protection, well, I am speechless to say the least.

These people are more than confused. It's disturbing. These certain people don't disserve actual married persons benefits. I don't care what anyone says. I almost want to say it's not fair. How come in certain areas, these selective people can have these benefits, but in some parts of the country/world, there are many people/situations that should be given more attention to.

However, part of me would want these certain people to be treated equally like everyone else. That will never happen. The mroe these crazy people announce their relationship, the more attention they will gain for others who hate their "kind" which would lead to disaster and possibly genocide in the near future. I know that sounds extreme to be taken into account right now, so pretend you didn't read that part.

My answer is a firm "M/F married couple" only.

To Quote ZeaLitY:

[Magus22]

Bisexuality is probably going to become the norm in the human future, before sexuality dies out altogether. In any case, wow! This thread sure went off-topic fast. Can we save the basic pro-gay / anti-gay argument for another thread? It's been done. This thread is to talk about your thoughts on whether employers should offer benefits to straight unmarried couples, given that married straight couples and unmarried gay couples already tend to receive such benefits.

Thank you.

Quote ChibiBob's first post

Some of us have trouble staying on topic I see. Your views are noted, however, this thread is opinionated. Tell us what you think and be done with it. I put in what I think. This topic hasn't turned into a debate, yet. Leave that to Lord J.

[kian]

i am not against homoosexuality, but i am impartial.  meaning i dont care what rights they do or dont get as long as they dont infringe on my rights.  but i do think it is downright comical that gays so strongly desire to be married.  marriage is supposed to be a religious institution.  so it is like they seek approval from something that abolishes their way of life.  you cant help but laugh at the irony. 

as far as the equal rights being given to straight couples, you know that will be abused.  try and tell me one situation where newly given rights havent bee abused.  equal opportunity, sexual harassment issues, affirmative action, illegal immigration, and of course my favorite, the abuse of the welfare system and medicaid system.  there are always going to be assholes that try and take advantage and mess the whole thing up for everyone else.

[Burning Zeppelin]

A certain trend going around the world, (warning, this is offtopic) is that while homophobia is seen as bad, and publicly denoucing gays is basically illegal (which I agree with), insulting homophobics and not giving them fair treatment isn't looked down upon either. The reason why I believe homophobia is bad is because it is being unfair and cruel to people who are different, and have different view points from you. Isn't that the same as being unfair to homophobics?

What I say is, do whatever you want, and as long as you don't trouble me, I won't give you trouble.

[Radical_Dreamer]

A certain trend going around the world, (warning, this is offtopic) is that while homophobia is seen as bad, and publicly denoucing gays is basically illegal (which I agree with), insulting homophobics and not giving them fair treatment isn't looked down upon either. The reason why I believe homophobia is bad is because it is being unfair and cruel to people who are different, and have different view points from you. Isn't that the same as being unfair to homophobics?

What I say is, do whatever you want, and as long as you don't trouble me, I won't give you trouble.

That's a bit of an oversimplification. Homophobes are aggressors, seeking out to deny rights to others, when the gays having those rights would harm no one. You are mistaking the intolerence of injustice with the intolerence of innocents.

[Exodus]

Quote ChibiBob's first post

Some of us have trouble staying on topic I see. Your views are noted, however, this thread is opinionated. Tell us what you think and be done with it. I put in what I think. This topic hasn't turned into a debate, yet. Leave that to Lord J.

This isn't a good defense to her response. This is basically a huge "you've basically told me my opinion is shit and I'm going to try to play the old "stay on topic in the thread pls thx" card."

[Lord J Esq]

A certain trend going around the world, (warning, this is offtopic) is that while homophobia is seen as bad, and publicly denoucing gays is basically illegal (which I agree with), insulting homophobics and not giving them fair treatment isn't looked down upon either. The reason why I believe homophobia is bad is because it is being unfair and cruel to people who are different, and have different view points from you. Isn't that the same as being unfair to homophobics?

What I say is, do whatever you want, and as long as you don't trouble me, I won't give you trouble.

That's a bit of an oversimplification. Homophobes are aggressors, seeking out to deny rights to others, when the gays having those rights would harm no one. You are mistaking the intolerence of injustice with the intolerence of innocents.

Beautifully said. Making that distinction is one of Zeppy's biggest problems when it comes to assessing ideological disputes.

[Burning Zeppelin]

As I said, if someone is homophobic but doesn't go out ripping apart corpses of gay people, then who am I to judge?

[Magus22]

This isn't a good defense to her response. This is basically a huge "you've basically told me my opinion is shit and I'm going to try to play the old "stay on topic in the thread pls thx" card."

Do you think I care about a good defense? She has very good information on her own side of it to say the least, however, I will stick by my opinion regardless of her response. This isn't a topic I want to debate about, so I simply stated my beliefs and was done with it. I am also not getting into a silly debate over such a trifle topic. The world is corrupt enough...

Is it necessary to go on? Must there be a debate? Is it your business?

k thanx...

[Radical_Dreamer]

This isn't a good defense to her response. This is basically a huge "you've basically told me my opinion is shit and I'm going to try to play the old "stay on topic in the thread pls thx" card."

Do you think I care about a good defense? She has very good information on her own side of it to say the least, however, I will stick by my opinion regardless of her response. This isn't a topic I want to debate about, so I simply stated my beliefs and was done with it. I am also not getting into a silly debate over such a trifle topic. The world is corrupt enough...

Is it necessary to go on? Must there be a debate? Is it your business?

k thanx...

So you will continue to hold on to whatever beliefs you hold now, regardless of new information? That is a poor life philosophy.

[Magus22]

So you will continue to hold on to whatever beliefs you hold now, regardless of new information? That is a poor life philosophy.

I think not. If I hold onto the Christain faith, even though the world turns more secular, that's not a poor choice.

But that's a discussion for a later date...

[Radical_Dreamer]

So you will continue to hold on to whatever beliefs you hold now, regardless of new information? That is a poor life philosophy.

I think not. If I hold onto the Christain faith, even though the world turns more secular, that's not a poor choice.

But that's a discussion for a later date...

It is a poor decision to cling to any position when the evidence is against it. Faith is not evidence, nor is it an excuse for willfull ignorance.

[Magus22]

Well we could argue all day long...

It's what you believe and I am sorry I cannot provide concrete evidence for you.