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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (37448)	2/15/2005 6:24:02 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

"The issue with medical benefits is that if a company offers spousal benefits, it must extend that benefit to all full time employees within the group. However, it does not have to extend those benefits to same-sex couples. That is, there is no protection for same-sex partners to enjoy the same benefit as heterosexual married couples." There is no law that forces the company to extend those benefits to three-somes either. Granted a threesome is something very different than a couple engaging in the life long commitment of a vision of family and community and projecting that into the future. Likewise, a gay couple is a different relationship. Your point is, dependent 'partners' need benefits and it is your premise that the law should enforce some sort of equity in this matter. I agree. I think the law should force employers to include any members of the household including great aunt Mildred ... seriously. But, this is not accomplished by redefining marriage. Where there are inequities in the Tax laws or those effecting benefits to household members I agree that we should push for change. Redefining marriage is missing that particular target.

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (37448)	2/16/2005 2:42:34 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

I am going to try to clarify where we are at in this discussion Kevin. We agree that the members of any relationship should be entitled to constitutionally based ‘rights’ and constitutionally based ‘protections’ under the law. I would include in that large or extended family/households, that we would describe in America as ‘alternatives’; and all other alternatives. However, the terms ‘Gay Marriage’ and ‘Gay Rights’ are not synonymous. Rights for individuals and sub-groupings are guaranteed by the constitution. Where there are cracks in the legal system we can and should do the work to repair that. I think this is entirely do-able and see no reason to hesitate in getting the work started on it. However the 'Gay Marriage' issue is a barrier for either getting support from the left or the right wing in doing the work. ‘Gay Marriage’ implies a much broader social agenda. It includes issues for such things as gender crossing that we have a more difficult time discussing and alternative lifestyles that the American conscience is hard set against. In the case of gender-crossing, I just read a story about a little boy with three moms – two of which were born men. Where as, the American conscience has become softened toward discussions of gay issues, the piggy back issues waiting in the wings of the agenda are not discussible at this point. This defines the secret agenda behind either the right wing resistance or the left wing promotion of 'Gay Marriage' issues. I have pointed out the fundamental difference between gay families and hetero-families. It is: There is an obvious distinction in the underlying premise of a traditional heterosexual family that is likely to be founded on the notion of progeny and continuance of a family centered community. A center that has defined the society from which the individual came and that envisions a future. This model is juxtaposed with and counter to a more couple centered and one generational homosexual union that is not as likely to be focused on future generations that will continue its fundamental modeling in which the gay family is undertaking. You came back with an anecdotal comment about how you know several (gay) couples and they are exactly the same. That doesn’t have a resonant ring for some reason. Maybe you could clear this up for me?