Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Brumar89 who wrote (433075)	6/25/2011 6:44:36 PM
From: ManyMoose	6 Recommendations Read Replies (2) of 794169

The premise of that argument is precisely why I always objected to the idea in the first place. In other words, if gays and lesbians marry and gain the right to self-and-family health plans, that effectively distributes the rest of the cost and risk to us; to be more specific: me. I do not want to pay the extra cost, but somebody has to. IF same sex couples are afforded these benefits as opposite domestic partners without matrimony are not, it's even more objectionable. Because: two self-only policies costs more than one self-and family policy to cover the same two people. If same-sex and opposite-sex partners can get shared health benefits without matrimony, why not multiple partners? Why not marry a whole town full of people and cover them with one policy? Why not put dogs and cats under the policy? After all, they're such an important part of the family. To make a long story short, in the arrangement where marriage is defined as one man and one woman in wedlock, EVERYBODY HAS THE SAME RIGHTS. In any other arrangement, somebody has to pickup up the extra costs.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next