Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (71249)	8/1/2003 5:13:17 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

The reason number 3 that you didn't care for (tradition) is a lot strong er with most people then it is with you. As for health insurance I don't think marriage should be the only way to join in on the plan. You could have "domestic partnerships", or even provisions allowing other people to specify any one (or more then one) other person as a someone covered by the policy with the understanding that either preexisting conditions would not be covered or that they would pay more for the flexibility of the insurance policy. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (71249)	8/1/2003 7:23:55 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I can't find any way to justify letting male-female buddies marry so one can get access to the other's health insurance when female-female buddies can't do the same thing. It seems to me that implicit in there is the assumption that that is a common reason for marriage. That certainly contradicts my observations. Doesn't it yours? Also, that's only one aspect of the economic security provided by marriage. The other (at least these days and fairly commonly) is simply having a second income in yours evaporates.