ghre

It happens for heterosexual couples, so a person should assume (or as one poster prefers ASSume , it would happen in this case as well.

 

But if an employer is willing to hire you and offer these benefits, why should they care who you extend them to? Could you imagine an employer making a statement I don't approve of your spouse and thusly will not extend benefits?

 

Benefits are expensive. Most companies pay just as much in benefits to an employee as they do in salary. That's why its the first thing companies look at cutting when the times get tough.

Benefits are expensive. Most companies pay just as much in benefits to an employee as they do in salary. That's why its the first thing companies look at cutting when the times get tough.

 

I agree. And they will fight any effort to increase those costs. But thinking about it, if the person in the next cubicle is receiving benefits for their spouse, why shouldn't the person in the next cost the company the same thing? Is it possible for a company to target employees based on them not being likely to marry? Imagine that being challenged. They hire gays and ugly people because they want to avoid paying spousal benefits

I agree. And they will fight any effort to increase those costs. But thinking about it, if the person in the next cubicle is receiving benefits for their spouse, why shouldn't the person in the next cost the company the same thing? Is it possible for a company to target employees based on them not being likely to marry? Imagine that being challenged. They hire gays and ugly people because they want to avoid paying spousal benefits

 

I'm not saying its right, I am just saying that is why companies have crappy rules about that kind of stuff. Its an expense, and as we all know, the bottom line is what matters to companies.

My brain must not have been firing on all cylinders when I first saw the thread title yesterday. I saw the headline about legalizing gay unions in Jersey and the first image that came to mind was Teamsters in drag.

 

I'm not saying its right, I am just saying that is why companies have crappy rules about that kind of stuff. Its an expense, and as we all know, the bottom line is what matters to companies.

 

I agree. I just thought it was funny thinking some company would be out there trying to hire ugly people with no social skills to save on benefits.

 

Wait, I could use another job, that would be perfect for me.

 

 

My brain must not have been firing on all cylinders when I first saw the thread title yesterday. I saw the headline about legalizing gay unions in Jersey and the first image that came to mind was Teamsters in drag.

 

 

Interesting, I think your Freudian slip is showing.

Do you like gladiator movies? Have you ever seen a grown man naked? . . .

I agree. I just thought it was funny thinking some company would be out there trying to hire ugly people with no social skills to save on benefits.

 

Wait, I could use another job, that would be perfect for me.

Interesting, I think your Freudian slip is showing.

Do you like gladiator movies? Have you ever seen a grown man naked? . . .

 

Surely you can't be serious?

Surely you can't be serious?

 

I'm not, but don't call me Shirley.

 

I picked the wrong week to give up heroin.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 26, 2006 -> 12:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My brain must not have been firing on all cylinders when I first saw the thread title yesterday. I saw the headline about legalizing gay unions in Jersey and the first image that came to mind was Teamsters in drag.

 

I was thinking about the Steelmill from "The Simpsons"

 

Everybody Dance now!

 

I was thinking about the Steelmill from "The Simpsons"

 

Everybody Dance now!

 

 

"Oh be niccccccccce"

Have you ever seen a grown man naked? . . .

 

Yes I have. But it's not nearly as disconcerting as seeing a naked man growing.

 

 

Edited October 26, 200619 yr by FlaSoxxJim

Yes I have. But it's not nearly as disconcerting as seeing a naked man growing.

 

 

 

 

btw, Firefox 2.0 has spell checking. I fixed your post.

 

btw, Firefox 2.0 has spell checking. I fixed your post.

 

Well thank you for that. better get me a new Firefox.

Well thank you for that. better get me a new Firefox.

Can it read and respond to my thoughts, like the plane in the movie with the same name? Because that would be cool.

so back from the threadjack....

 

 

I think Texsox makes the point clearer than i have. It should either be

 

A) everyone is an individual in the eyes of the government.

B ) any two people can "unionize" to take on benefits currently held by a heterosexual couple.

 

that is the only fair thing to do. If it's truly about "human rights" then make it about EVERY human and not just your group.

 

That is the hypcrosie that I'm annoyed about.

so back from the threadjack....

I think Texsox makes the point clearer than i have. It should either be

 

A) everyone is an individual in the eyes of the government.

B ) any two people can "unionize" to take on benefits currently held by a heterosexual couple.

 

that is the only fair thing to do. If it's truly about "human rights" then make it about EVERY human and not just your group.

 

That is the hypcrosie that I'm annoyed about.

 

And to expand from that - even more than two people should be able to declare themselves "family" - regardless of whether it's several gay people or lifelong platonic hetero friends.

 

There are two types of families - the one you're born into, and the one you choose. And the ones you choose should be able to decide what legal rights and priviledges will exist between the legal adults involved.

 

Yes, this opens the door for polygamy. But really, if all involved are legal adults, then what's the problem?