[towelie]

Originally posted by $tinkle
i bet if you were runnin' caboose you'd be singin' a different tune.

and leave your video library out of this.

Hey- other dogs just seem to find my Golden Retriever very attractive. I can't take him to a dog park without some other dog trying to sodomize him. Even a Dauchsund tried once!

I mentioned this to illustrate that it is a natural condition- not necessarily a lifestyle choice. I don't think dogs make "lifestyle choices". Why would anybody WANT to be gay? Were their lives just too easy before or something? Is it an abnormal condition? Yes- of course. If it were the standard we'd have a hard time continuing as a species. But does it hurt anybody who isn't gay? No- of course not. So why not just let them be, and allow them to live lives that are otherwise similar to the lives everyone else has the opportunity to live? It doesn't hurt the straight people any. How does more people getting married HURT the institution of marriage? People getting divorced or cheating hurts the institution.

Also, is there any other part of the constitution that specifically denies a right to any group? The closest thing I can think of is soldiers aren't allowed to force citizens to provide them with quarters. However, this is no different than with civilians, so that doesn't really count, does it.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
......the other simply wants to be recognized.

Recognized as married? What does that change? (That can't be accomplished in other ways)


Again I ask you what is legalizing gay marriagesgoing to accomplish?

Tax penalties (filing as married) as opposed to filing as singles....

Right to visit loved ones in hospital? No other way to accomplish this?

Allow messy divorces?

What?

Please let me know why? AND how no other means of accomplishing them are available.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by $tinkle
i bet if you were runnin' caboose you'd be singin' a different tune.

and leave your video library out of this.

Wait wait...this just doesn't make sense...you make it sound like these are unconsenting individuals....

What does it matter what people choose to do or not do behind closed doors if it is between two consenting adults?

Pedophelia - wrong, not because it is natural or unnatural but because the very nature of it is between an adult and a child, who whether the child is consenting or not, is not old enough to know better.

Polygamy - heck...again, who cares? So long as everyone is happy with the situation, and can get out of it if they are unhappy, then who cares? I have issues with polygamy where women are given as gifts or are purchased like objects and have no say in the matter...but if it is a consenting relationship then who are you or I or any other creature on this planet to say differently.

Bestiality - gross - most definitely yes very gross, and it is again between a human being who knows that he/she is inflicting this onto an animal...thus wrong, because an animal cannot consent (and most likely would not).

Homo/Bi/Heterosexuality - all okay, so long as between consenting adults. Many people wouldn't care to participate, some would, but it's not up to those who wouldn't want to participate to dictate to those who would what they may or may not do.

Why does any of this have to be a big issue? If two people love each other, then let them love each other and be together and enjoy the rewards that come with being sactified in marriage. Take gender/race/height/color out of the equation. Just because you may have an issue with the concept because you personally do not wish to participate in such a relationship does not give you the right to judge others.

And why does this need to be a part of schools? No one here is advocating that homosexual life become a part of sex ed in 7th grade...and what do you tell little johnny when he comes home and asks about it? You say, they are two people who love each other and wanted to spend their lives to gether. No little child needs to know what goes on in a bedroom, you can have the birds and the bees talk with the kid as an adult...and chances are, by the time the kid hits 13/14 and is ready for a sex talk, he's gonna already have had his first crushes etc....

uuuurrgh...I've been sitting here reading this argument and trying to stay out of it...but the point is, it's not about the sex, it's not about what goes on in the bedroom, and it's not your decision to limit or approve of their behavior. You think by disapproving of their right to marry and love one another legally with the same status you and your wife have it's going to push the 'gay' issue back into the closet? You think that if it gets approved it taints the love that you share with your spouse? Personally I think homosexual individuals are going to lend a lot more respect to the ability to marry than most heterosexuals simply because they had to work so damned hard for the right to have equal status and equal recognition for their affection.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Please let me know why? AND how no other means of accomplishing them are available.

My point is they shouldn't have to ultilize other means - they should have access to the same means as the rest of us.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
My point is they shouldn't have to ultilize other means - they should have access to the same means as the rest of us.

But that is the root of all this crap! A name for goodness sake.

Many people who don't want same sex couples having a "marriage" attached to them, and then there are the ones that want a "marriage." It is a word people!

If they could get everything they wanted and yet not be in a "marriage" you would think that would be good enough. They are already "different" by being in a homosexual relationship. No everything is not the same or equal...no matter how you want to

Still, agian I ask, what do they want other than a title? Medical Benefits? Joint bank accounts? What?

What can't they get without the title of being "married"?

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Pedophelia - wrong, not because it is natural or unnatural but because the very nature of it is between an adult and a child, who whether the child is consenting or not, is not old enough to know better.

Why does any of this have to be a big issue? If two people love each other, then let them love each other and be together and enjoy the rewards that come with being sactified in marriage. Take gender/race/height/color out of the equation. Just because you may have an issue with the concept because you personally do not wish to participate in such a relationship does not give you the right to judge others.

Pedophelia - there is that darn societal judgement again. In nature it happens all the time. Doesn't make it right. We as a society have decided it is bad (and I agree it is wrong) but generally the oldest one feels affection for his victem. And in many times the feeling is mutual even if we say they are confused. Doesn't change the fact that society has labled and seperated pedophiles.

What is the issue? Are conservatives hording the tax penalties to themselves? No. Many in society don't agree but can don't feel the need to force change on same sex couples. It is the idea that marriage be used out side the traditional M/F union seems to be their beef and that is where they have decided to make a stand.

I say love who you love...get the rights without the title of marriage....and live your own life. People before me mentioned "seperate but equal" and somehow the idea of marriage, or the lack of that title, freaks everyone out.

Note: I use pedophilia as it is a nasty thing (personal statement) but something that we as a society decided to condem. as for Beastiality...well them ranchers get lonely on them long cold winter nights Why else would they invent velcro mittons...to chase the muttons. *barf*

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Recognized as married? What does that change? (That can't be accomplished in other ways)


Again I ask you what is legalizing gay marriagesgoing to accomplish?

Tax penalties (filing as married) as opposed to filing as singles....

Right to visit loved ones in hospital? No other way to accomplish this?

Allow messy divorces?

What?

Please let me know why? AND how no other means of accomplishing them are available.

So you want to change property laws, family laws, contract laws in order to avoid allowing marriage. Sounds like a lot of work that could be easily done with one line of legal code.

Marriage- a legal joining of two adults assests and liablitys as a means of communicating legally and socially thier comitmment to each other.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Still, agian I ask, what do they want other than a title? Medical Benefits? Joint bank accounts? What?

What can't they get without the title of being "married"?

I dunno know... the recognition of two people being joined as one in the eyes of the law? Seems silly doesn't it?

To you it might just be a name and a title but to others it might have a bit more significance.

Anyhow, you know me - I'm all about giving people what they want - no questions asked.

I'm not qualified to pass judgement on the moral motivations or actions of others. That's between them and their maker.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by ummbikes
So you want to change property laws, family laws, contract laws in order to avoid allowing marriage. Sounds like a lot of work that could be easily done with one line of legal code.

Marriage- a legal joining of two adults assests and liablitys as a means of communicating legally and socially thier comitmment to each other.

It wouldn't need changing if an equivalent designation could be given for same sex joinings. It would be now more work and probably be met and passed with much less resistance....but what do I know.

Marriage in the eyes of the law...not law, religion, and customs. (yes, I know "separation of church and state!" give it a rest....you know it is true.)

Again WTF is everyones beef with an alternative designation?

Rhino

 

[ummbikes]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA


Again WTF is everyones beef with an alternative designation?

Rhino

The rub is "seperate but equal."

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Again WTF is everyones beef with an alternative designation?

Rhino

Nothing. I designate you as alternatively irrelevant!!! :devil:

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
Nothing. I designate you as alternatively irrelevant!!! :devil:

I accept that

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by ummbikes
The rub is "seperate but equal."

So they will forgo getting everything they want short of a title for a seperate but equal designation? Even if it was nothing more than a name and no other differences were assertainable?

I am sorry that jsut makes about 1% sense to me. But it must be the important 1%.....

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
I am sorry that jsut makes about 1% sense to me. But it must be the important 1%.....

Less than 1% of your life is spent having sex but over 50% of your time is spent thinking about it.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
Less than 1% of your life is spent having sex but over 50% of your time is spent thinking about it.

and that is being conservative.....lol

Over 50%...more like 80%.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Well, I dunno Rhino, I mean - you wanna get married someday right? And it's the 'marriage' part that's important...not living together as 'domestic partners' not living together under a 'civil union' but actually get married. Marriage carries all kinds of stigmas, some that may be uncomfortable to share with homosexual couples, but to them, they love each other as much as any m/f couple will, and in some cases more than a lot of m/f couples....so why can't they have what everyone else can have if they do love each other.

Now I agree with the idea that divorce should be made more difficult to obtain, because marriage should be a true commitment and not just some random flight of desire...but I cannot believe that it is smarter and easier to do more work and change more laws to do something that would ultimately be unsatisfactory and rather rude to those that would like to be married.

And as for the Pedophelia bit...dude...c'mon now, taking advantage of a kid who doesn't know better and doesn't know it's wrong can damage their minds and bodies. Young girls can be physically hurt if violated too young and same with boys...and then think about what's happening in their heads, you cannot possibly associate something that can physically and mentally damage a child to a homosexual relationship between two *consenting * adults...

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
So they will forgo getting everything they want short of a title for a seperate but equal designation? Even if it was nothing more than a name and no other differences were assertainable?

I am sorry that jsut makes about 1% sense to me. But it must be the important 1%.....

So separate but equal is okay?

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Jr_Bullit
Well, I dunno Rhino, I mean - you wanna get married someday right? And it's the 'marriage' part that's important...not living together as 'domestic partners' not living together under a 'civil union' but actually get married. Marriage carries all kinds of stigmas, some that may be uncomfortable to share with homosexual couples, but to them, they love each other as much as any m/f couple will, and in some cases more than a lot of m/f couples....so why can't they have what everyone else can have if they do love each other.

Now I agree with the idea that divorce should be made more difficult to obtain, because marriage should be a true commitment and not just some random flight of desire...but I cannot believe that it is smarter and easier to do more work and change more laws to do something that would ultimately be unsatisfactory and rather rude to those that would like to be married.

And as for the Pedophelia bit...dude...c'mon now, taking advantage of a kid who doesn't know better and doesn't know it's wrong can damage their minds and bodies. Young girls can be physically hurt if violated too young and same with boys...and then think about what's happening in their heads, you cannot possibly associate something that can physically and mentally damage a child to a homosexual relationship between two *consenting * adults...

To quote myself:

Note: I use pedophilia as it is a nasty thing (personal statement) but something that we as a society decided to condem. as for Beastiality...well them ranchers get lonely on them long cold winter nights Why else would they invent velcro mittons...to chase the muttons. *barf*

Now how old before a person can be molested? 18yo? By societal standards. But nature makes them ready well before. I am just stating how the "feelings" pedophiles have for children is jsut as real (and some may argue as sick) as homosexuals. Do you deny that? I don't see how you can. Without getting vulgar I was using pedophiles to showcase a societal taboo (which I don't condone) but that feels real to the people who commit these decidingly hanious acts. But to say it is wrong is a societal judgement, much like poeple saying homosexuals shouldn't be married. There is a legal age of consent (set by the society) and an age (varies) where a being is able to give consent. Not only sexually but to contracts and other life descisions. 18yo is not a magic year when we all become self aware. Pedophilia, as sick as it is, has been decided and ruled against by the majority of society...regardless of how pedophiles feel. Now I know I was going to get some gawkers on continueing the pedophile train of thought but the roots of the discussion are there. Now consenting adults are not the issue...societal acceptance is.

"Married/mariage" is a title....and in the eyes of a law, a similiar title for same sex couples can be given and mean just as much. I don't call an apple an orange, or expect everyone else to fall in line with my feelings so I can feel the as one. Why do they insist on changing what it means historically, to fit them? They are not a joining of a man and a woman....they ARE DIFFERENT so why does the title of marriage have to be the same? A different title shouldn't lessen the feelings or the extent of their love. That is nonsense. An alternative title that gives them the same rights layed out for married couples should be more than enough. I don't see the down side. Heck it might even end this senseless bickering....

But no. They HAVE to have that title. I ask you or anyone else, who is making this a bigger thing than it needs to be? I don't care what you call it...other than marriage. Think up something better than "domestic partner" (Oh boy that is romantic) and recognize your new (and it is new concept ) legal joining of human beings and call it good.

I can't speak for everyone but it seems people are hung up on the word "Marraige." Both sides are.... Does one side argue that they don't want same sex couples to have the same IRS tax filing penalties.... or the mess of a devorce? No. Same sex couples want equal access to rights and status that hetero couples do.

Fine. They already live together and do everything but have a recognized union. Call it something else, and have your rights and union recognized. Now we are arguing over a title of what to call it.....

Why does it have to be "married/marriage"? I have no problem with providing commited homosexual couples rights as partners....just don't try and put a Chevrolet badge on a Saturn. Call them what they are and drive it away (metephorically speaking of course )

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by DRB
So separate but equal is okay?

Why not? They AREN'T the same. But can be equal unions of sorts.

I just don't see it as much more than a small group yearning for a title that wasn't designed for them. It is a new type of union...they are not the same.

Is seperate but equal not OK? Why?

*smart ass remark about MTB wanting to be called a Nascar driver that I couldn't deliver on paper like I did inmy head*

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Why not? They AREN'T the same. But can be equal unions of sorts.

I just don't see it as much more than a small group yearning for a title that wasn't designed for them. It is a new type of union...they are not the same.

Is seperate but equal not OK? Why?

*smart ass remark about MTB wanting to be called a Nascar driver that I couldn't deliver on paper like I did inmy head*

My wife's company (a gigantic bank) within the last couple of years extended benefits to "Domestic Partners". The insurance costs sky rocketed beyond any forecasts as all sorts of domestic partners turned up. When the Human Resource department started digging into this, it turned out that other big companies that had made similar moves had suffered similar circumstances. They have also instituted more rules and reviews to ensure proper and appropriate extenstion of benefits. My wife indicated that the estimate for just this review, policy writing and staffing cost them in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 MILLION dollars to this point. That does not include on-going costs that are going to continue to mount as time goes on. That does not include the benefits themselves.

Now if gay couples had the ability to get married then the company would not have had to do NOTHING extra except pay benefits to legitmately married couples. It is unlikely that gay couples would get married and any greater rate than straight couples to simply take advantage of marriage.

The simple fact of the matter is that marriage in the eyes of the government should be nothing more than a CIVIL union between two people. Any religious implications, preconcieved notions or tenants have absolutely nothing to do with it.

DT hits this on the head in his thread. Why do we have to develop a separate but equal institution when we already have one that serves the exact purpose folks are looking for? In the end it is an extreme waste of time, money and effort. So NO separate but equal is not okay.

 

[zod]

Originally posted by DRB
My wife's company (a gigantic bank) within the last couple of years extended benefits to "Domestic Partners".

Now if gay couples had the ability to get married then the company would not have had to do NOTHING extra except pay benefits to legitmately married couples.

Highly unlikely DRB, those Domestic Partner benefits did not go into place because of homosexuals soley...... They went into place because corporate america is pro-pc crap. It still would have been put in place for cohabitating heteros.....

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by DRB
My wife's company (a gigantic bank) within the last couple of years extended benefits to "Domestic Partners". The insurance costs sky rocketed beyond any forecasts as all sorts of domestic partners turned up. When the Human Resource department started digging into this, it turned out that other big companies that had made similar moves had suffered similar circumstances. They have also instituted more rules and reviews to ensure proper and appropriate extenstion of benefits. My wife indicated that the estimate for just this review, policy writing and staffing cost them in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 MILLION dollars to this point. That does not include on-going costs that are going to continue to mount as time goes on. That does not include the benefits themselves.

ok, there's an elephant in the room, and i'm pulling back the curtain.

why do you think the rates went up? Underwriters whining for more OT pay to make it gender neutral?

Or.....

are there inherently more health/coverage costs associated with gay couples?

ok, it's like this: my fortune 100 company is HQ'd in palo alto, has global reach, and doesn't want to be tied up in litigation when it could be expanding further, so these factors most likely had sway to influence its acceptance of domestic coverages. And "domestic partners" is a non-threatening way to say same-sex cohabitating couples, who most likely have a sexual relationship (which - i remind you - defines a homosexual couple). My buddy can't room w/ me & get coverage just b/c he's my buddy & roomie. I'd get sacked for fraud. bounce this off your wife & see if it jibes.

Originally posted by DRB
DT hits this on the head in his thread. Why do we have to develop a separate but equal institution when we already have one that serves the exact purpose folks are looking for? In the end it is an extreme waste of time, money and effort. So NO separate but equal is not okay.

since DT's motivation is by his own admission fiscal, he does not present (to me) a convincing argument.

Consider this when spouting off "separate but equal": are the genders equally represented in any gay marriage? In this and many other regards, by definition, it is UNequal. Passing gay marriage legislation won't make their relationships equal above & beyond what can already be accomplished through existing contract vehicles. Biology trumps all. So go stamp your feet to mother nature for that.

This will not push their relationships to the closet, it merely won't be state sponsored.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by $tinkle
Blah Blah Blah

You are a tool. I think the facts are against you - domestic partner benefits are primarily being extended to cohabitating straight couples who do not wish to get married but still qualify for company benefits based on preset parameter that are gender neutral.

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Serial Midget
...that are gender neutral.

gender neutral people make me more uncomfortable than queers

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by DRB
My wife's company (a gigantic bank) within the last couple of years extended benefits to "Domestic Partners". The insurance costs sky rocketed beyond any forecasts as all sorts of domestic partners turned up.

What company? I understood thjat the average ecomonic impact was under 3% of the total existing expenses? I don't think there are enough domestic partnered homos in the US to cause such a huge economic impact... please supple HARD data to back up your claim. Anacdotes are for N8 and $tinkle - I expect more of you.

 

[Serial Midget]

Originally posted by LordOpie
gender neutral people make me more uncomfortable than queers

The word queer makes me uncomfortable. Lets stick to fags and dykes - eh?

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
To quote myself:


Now how old before a person can be molested? 18yo? By societal standards. But nature makes them ready well before. I am just stating how the "feelings" pedophiles have for children is jsut as real (and some may argue as sick) as homosexuals. Do you deny that? I don't see how you can. Without getting vulgar I was using pedophiles to showcase a societal taboo (which I don't condone) but that feels real to the people who commit these decidingly hanious acts. But to say it is wrong is a societal judgement, much like poeple saying homosexuals shouldn't be married. There is a legal age of consent (set by the society) and an age (varies) where a being is able to give consent. Not only sexually but to contracts and other life descisions. 18yo is not a magic year when we all become self aware. Pedophilia, as sick as it is, has been decided and ruled against by the majority of society...regardless of how pedophiles feel. Now I know I was going to get some gawkers on continueing the pedophile train of thought but the roots of the discussion are there. Now consenting adults are not the issue...societal acceptance is.

[/B]

Okay - I'm just gonna address the pedophelia thing...I don't entirely disagree with the idea of calling it by a different name, but I do disagree with building into the constitution a definition that while maybe pertinent today, may not look so good in 10 or 15 years....on a federal level marriage should be nothing more than a civil union between two people and genderless...

k - the pedophelia thing...technically for sex, a minor is someone under the age of 16, not 18, and in some states it's even younger - I think... I know you can be married before you are 16 with mom and dad's approval - but don't quote me on the specifics, I'd have to look up the exact ages.

Pedophelia as a moral and social wrong is going after pre-pubescent youngsters. Now, kids are hitten this age a lot earlier nowadays...but that doesn't make going after a 7 year old with modest titties right...even if she coyly looks at you and is all confused because her body is getting ready for adulthood. Nor is it right to go after a young boy whose balls haven't dropped and is only 14, no hair growing whatever. Mom's and Dad's get outraged if you go after their 13/14 year old daughter, but kids are losing their viriginity around that age...I believe the national average is 16....but if you go after a 5 year old, damnit I hope you hang. That's what I meant by pedophelia...sorry for the confusion.

I don't think kids younger than 16 really have what it takes to understand 'consent' very well...so they shouldn't count as a consenting adult. Like many folks who were trained as rape counselors in college, just cause no one screened 'no' doesn't make it okay.

 

[LordOpie]

...but that feels real to the people who commit these decidingly hanious acts.

That's not the point.

pedophelia...

beastiality...

Stop using these as some bizarre example or comparison. It's about consenting partners.

Nor is it right to go after a young boy whose balls haven't dropped...

BS, stop hitting on VB! :devil:

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by zod
Highly unlikely DRB, those Domestic Partner benefits did not go into place because of homosexuals soley...... They went into place because corporate america is pro-pc crap. It still would have been put in place for cohabitating heteros.....

Not highly unlikely. The two banks in our backyard wanted to extend benefits to "domestic partners" specifically to address gay couples. Hetero co-habitation was something they did NOT want to cover and is one of the reasons that this policy has gone so pear shaped. All of a sudden all sorts of folks started living together to "enjoy" the benefit of domestic partner benefits. IF marriage had been the defining criteria the number would have been relatively small.

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by $tinkle
ok, there's an elephant in the room, and i'm pulling back the curtain.

why do you think the rates went up? Underwriters whining for more OT pay to make it gender neutral?

Or.....

are there inherently more health/coverage costs associated with gay couples?

ok, it's like this: my fortune 100 company is HQ'd in palo alto, has global reach, and doesn't want to be tied up in litigation when it could be expanding further, so these factors most likely had sway to influence its acceptance of domestic coverages. And "domestic partners" is a non-threatening way to say same-sex cohabitating couples, who most likely have a sexual relationship (which - i remind you - defines a homosexual couple). My buddy can't room w/ me & get coverage just b/c he's my buddy & roomie. I'd get sacked for fraud. bounce this off your wife & see if it jibes.

If you had paid attention to what I said instead of what you were thinking you would have noticed that I said nothing of the cost of the benefits themselves, ONLY the administration costs that had skyrocketed. The problem is that employees stretched the envelope of the definition of domestic partnerships to include buddies rooming together. There have been lawsuits of all sorts. To sort this mess out has been as I noted the big cost. This is a common experience among companies that take this step. Its the main reason my company has put this step off.

Consider this when spouting off "separate but equal": are the genders equally represented in any gay marriage? In this and many other regards, by definition, it is UNequal. Passing gay marriage legislation won't make their relationships equal above & beyond what can already be accomplished through existing contract vehicles. Biology trumps all. So go stamp your feet to mother nature for that.

This is complete BS and has nothing to do with the discussion. Separate but equal does not apply to the individuals within the relationship but between the two relationships, homo-marriages vs. hetro-marriages. This particular arguement is a deflection MUCH like the issue itself. Bush has brought this to the forefront as he is in deep sh!t in regards to his domestic economic policies and sputtering re-election campaign. I will say that he and his advisors were smart enough to see this and include it in the State of the Union address.

Passing gay marriage legislation won't make their relationships equal above & beyond what can already be accomplished through existing contract vehicles.

This is an excellent quote because it so closely matches this one:

Providing desegrated schools will not improve the experience of colored students beyond what they already have available to them. Joe Greenhill made during the Sweatt vs. Painter case in 1950

In the end it simply didn't fly because Separate is not Equal.

 

[zod]

Originally posted by DRB
Not highly unlikely. The two banks in our backyard wanted to extend benefits to "domestic partners" specifically to address gay couples. Hetero co-habitation was something they did NOT want to cover and is one of the reasons that this policy has gone so pear shaped. All of a sudden all sorts of folks started living together to "enjoy" the benefit of domestic partner benefits. IF marriage had been the defining criteria the number would have been relatively small.

I work at one of the two and I will tell you this, you can assume they did it to address homosexuals BUT you will not get them to admit that. So I am just going on what they say. If they wanted to make it to address only homos then they should have written it that way............would have caused a real stink huh???
See, that's the problem with corporate america, the biggest elephant is always the most scared.
Although I may agree with you, you cannot blame gays not having marriage rights on the spike in benefits, blame the banks that were to terrified to write out "homosexual partners" instead of "domestic partners"

 

[DRB]

Originally posted by zod
I work at one of the two and I will tell you this, you can assume they did it to address homosexuals BUT you will not get them to admit that. So I am just going on what they say. If they wanted to make it to address only homos then they should have written it that way............would have caused a real stink huh???
See, that's the problem with corporate america, the biggest elephant is always the most scared.
Although I may agree with you, you cannot blame gays not having marriage rights on the spike in benefits, blame the banks that were to terrified to write out "homosexual partners" instead of "domestic partners"

Red or blue?

Not putting homosexual partners is the same reason they didn't put partners with sexual relations as well.

In the end the problem was they had to write it at all instead of simply being able to keep it the way it was..... married couples.

 

[zod]

Originally posted by DRB
Red or blue?

green

 

[$tinkle]

Originally posted by DRB
If you had paid attention to what I said instead of what you were thinking you would have noticed that I said nothing of the cost of the benefits themselves, ONLY the administration costs that had skyrocketed. The problem is that employees stretched the envelope of the definition of domestic partnerships to include buddies rooming together. There have been lawsuits of all sorts. To sort this mess out has been as I noted the big cost. This is a common experience among companies that take this step. Its the main reason my company has put this step off.

assuming that these costs must be absorbed, it seems like a logical place to recoup these losses would be in increases benefit costs, no? since your wife can speak w/ authority, i'll be interested to get that point of view. i'll do some digging through our policies as well.

Originally posted by DRB
This is complete BS and has nothing to do with the discussion. Separate but equal does not apply to the individuals within the relationship but between the two relationships, homo-marriages vs. hetro-marriages. This particular arguement is a deflection MUCH like the issue itself. Bush has brought this to the forefront as he is in deep sh!t in regards to his domestic economic policies and sputtering re-election campaign. I will say that he and his advisors were smart enough to see this and include it in the State of the Union address.

these two relationships are so unequal. biologically, there exists no potential to reproduce. socially, their lifestyle may be tolerated, but it's not accepted by (most notably) religious folks. If you want to affect social change, you must deal w/ this portion of the population which will be more difficult to handle for your side than the gay community for their side.

Originally posted by DRB
This is an excellent quote because it so closely matches this one:

In the end it simply didn't fly because Separate is not Equal.

has silver been coaching you? since when did blacks choose to be black? Great junior word jumble, nothing more. On par with "focus on your own damn family", or "hate is not a family value".

it's pure laziness.

 

[Mtbkngrl]

Originally posted by fluff
I don't know and I couldn't give a toss.

In case I'm coming off as a prick regarding the US going to the dogs, I just think that you guys have the potential to achieve so much yet spend so much time and money on crap that doesn't really matter.

I guess it's an inevitable thing in an affluent society. Too much choice can be dangerous.

Exactly! As I was driving through the Mid-West last week, I tried to listen to some music on the radio.........There were about 8 stations with some guy going nuts over the gay marriage issue. It was ridiculous. How bout all these people who are putting so much effort into lobbying against gays tying the knot, direct their energy towards things that really need attention. Poverty, global warming, schools that don't have enough books for every kid.........should I go on........? WTF!

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by DRB
My wife's company (a gigantic bank) within the last couple of years extended benefits to "Domestic Partners". The insurance costs sky rocketed beyond any forecasts as all sorts of domestic partners turned up. When the Human Resource department started digging into this, it turned out that other big companies that had made similar moves had suffered similar circumstances. They have also instituted more rules and reviews to ensure proper and appropriate extenstion of benefits. My wife indicated that the estimate for just this review, policy writing and staffing cost them in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 MILLION dollars to this point. That does not include on-going costs that are going to continue to mount as time goes on. That does not include the benefits themselves.

Now if gay couples had the ability to get married then the company would not have had to do NOTHING extra except pay benefits to legitmately married couples. It is unlikely that gay couples would get married and any greater rate than straight couples to simply take advantage of marriage.

The simple fact of the matter is that marriage in the eyes of the government should be nothing more than a CIVIL union between two people. Any religious implications, preconcieved notions or tenants have absolutely nothing to do with it.

DT hits this on the head in his thread. Why do we have to develop a separate but equal institution when we already have one that serves the exact purpose folks are looking for? In the end it is an extreme waste of time, money and effort. So NO separate but equal is not okay.

Haveing a seperate but equal designation (not calling it marriage) would solve teh same problem.

Domestic partners is not the same thing as a civil union recognized by the government. So the situation above would be less relevant, but does so the troubles we can run into.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by Mtbkngrl
Exactly! As I was driving through the Mid-West last week, I tried to listen to some music on the radio.........There were about 8 stations with some guy going nuts over the gay marriage issue. It was ridiculous. How bout all these people who are putting so much effort into lobbying against gays tying the knot, direct their energy towards things that really need attention. Poverty, global warming, schools that don't have enough books for every kid.........should I go on........? WTF!

Well I can't speak for the guy on the radio....

BUT maybe he feels this issue is important to him. The opposite of you...so I can see you thinking it was rediculous. Doesn't make either side right....neccessarily. Just asking if you can accept that some people feel strongly about the issue? And some of those people may feel equally set back by the push and energy trying to accept gay marriages when thye could be directed elsewhere..... Two sides of the same coin.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by RhinofromWA
Haveing a seperate but equal designation (not calling it marriage) would solve teh same problem.

Domestic partners is not the same thing as a civil union recognized by the government. So the situation above would be less relevant, but does so the troubles we can run into.

Why does it need a different name if it's the same thing?

 

[Mtbkngrl]

I have no problem with the people who are so against this issue, what disturbs me is the fact that there are so many other things that deserve that kind of energy.

 

[RhinofromWA]

Originally posted by fluff
Why does it need a different name if it's the same thing?

That would seem to be the problem, no? They are not the same thing...in reality...and in history. But they can be afforded the same rights (good and bad) it's just people take offense to calling labling it something it isn't, marriage. That description is important to many even if it isn't to others.

I was trying to meet the two sides in the middle and find something to appease both sides.....guess that type of comprimise is wrong. I guess one side winning is the comprimise we are shooting for....

now that sounds like a plan.