Given my obsession with midgets (if someone were to invent a midget with Tourette's I might just explode), I find it amazing that I only learned about this movie last week: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukRdEVthmWM
Printable View
Given my obsession with midgets (if someone were to invent a midget with Tourette's I might just explode), I find it amazing that I only learned about this movie last week: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukRdEVthmWM
Guys, this issue is about more than sex- it's about money.
If gay marriage is condoned by a state, then those couples are entitled to full benefits that only married couples traditionally enjoy. And this will drive the costs up for the rest of society.
Another nasty can of worms is parenting- that's a entirely separate discussion.
I for one am against both.
You're the second person to say that this is about money. Please explain to me how this is supposed to cost anyone else money.
Even without gay marriage being approved, the corp that I work for allows for "domestic partners" to be covered on the employee's medical insurance.
My premiums doubled instantly.
This is but one simple example.
Like most crimes and political motivations, ya just gotta "Follow the money".
That doesn't make sense. How can 1% of the population being married (when they could be married anyway) double your premiums?
Agreed, even the original poster (who is clearly against) stated that gays are approximately 3% of the total population. That's not even a blip on the radar for a medium sized companies policy much less a major health insurance's overall totals. This is not about money. If your rates doubled from domestic partners, you must have a huge percentage of gays in your company.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart
First and for most, I'm happily married.
That said, I don't think the .gov should be involved in any of it. Marriage should be between a person, their spouse, and maybe their God, I don't see why the fed has to get involved one iota (other than they love to get involved in everything). I would rather the .gov stay out of stuff they don't need to be in, and if I want my wife to receive medical, insurance, death, etc. benefits, that contractual stuff can be handled without the .gov defining marriage, just existing laws regarding contracts and an afternoon with an attorney.
I dislike how some people can be all for small government, and freedoms, unless they disagree with those freedoms, regardless of their effect on them. I am for liberties, I don't care whose, but if you aren't hurting someone else, I plan to leave you the hell alone, and expect you to pay me the same respect. Leave my guns and my money alone, and you can sleep with whoever you want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hip55
Explain to me why I deserve monetary benefits for tricking a woman into marrying me?
Fixed it for ya-Apparently you haven't been married a long time [Bang]Quote:
Originally Posted by BigMat
I could see the argument that health insurance companies could be concerned about HIV costs or something, except I'd think that a married couple would be less at risk because you would assume that they are monogamous. Not to mention that there is probably not much difference between two single policies and one double policy. Further, with Obamacare taking effect, everyone in the US is supposed to be able to get coverage now anyway, so I can hardly see how that matters. Perhaps this is a recent change in policy due to upcoming Obamacare and the timing made it look like it had something to do with same sex couples.