Kurd Cudins Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Economics has no place in this debate. It is a moral/ethical issue. We abolished slavery despite it having a tremendously negative effect on the southern economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 If a business currently chooses to cover spouses, they will not have the option to NOT cover homosexual spouses. As a result, a business will have an instant increase in their employee bennie costI'm still not clear on the difference in coverage from your perspective. Are you saying that homosexual couples would HAVE to be provided benefits while heterosexual couples would still be optional in terms of covering a spouse? I don't think it is so the next response is based on the assumption that it would be optional for a business to cover spouses (all spouses, both homosexual and heterosexual)Let's say I own a small business and I really like John so I'm going to provide health coverage for him and his wife Alice. But I really don't like Stan so I'm not going give him and his wife Sue the same coverage I give John and Alice. Should I be allowed to do that? It's cheaper for me to provide coverage for three people (Stan, Alice, and John) than to provide coverage for four people (Stan, Sue, Alice, and John). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Economics has no place in this debate. It is a moral/ethical issue. We abolished slavery despite it having a tremendously negative effect on the southern economy. Who get's to make the decision? It has a place in the debate because it's a legitimate issue to discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I'm still not clear on the difference in coverage from your perspective. Are you saying that homosexual couples would HAVE to be provided benefits while heterosexual couples would still be optional in terms of covering a spouse? I don't think it is so the next response is based on the assumption that it would be optional for a business to cover spouses (all spouses, both homosexual and heterosexual)Let's say I own a small business and I really like John so I'm going to provide health coverage for him and his wife Alice. But I really don't like Stan so I'm not going give him and his wife Sue the same coverage I give John and Alice. Should I be allowed to do that? It's cheaper for me to provide coverage for three people (Stan, Alice, and John) than to provide coverage for four people (Stan, Sue, Alice, and John). No, either all married couples are provided bennies or none are. Allowing gay marriage expands the pool and therefor costs businesses and govt more money. There is also an additional risk involved with the lifestyle choice. But it's miniscule compared to the simple addition of homosexual spouses. It will also increase if polygamists are granted the right to marry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 If a business currently chooses to cover spouses, they will not have the option to NOT cover homosexual spouses. As a result, a business will have an instant increase in their employee bennie cost. They will also have an additional cost if several straight people go out and get married. Obviously we should ban all new marriages. To save small business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurd Cudins Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Who get's to make the decision?It has a place in the debate because it's a legitimate issue to discuss. It's not really an individual decision. Bringing economics into a moral debate is misguided. Economic impact should have no relevance when deciding such an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Michael Steele: 21st Century Republican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 No, either all married couples are provided bennies or none are. Allowing gay marriage expands the pool and therefor costs businesses and govt more money. There is also an additional risk involved with the lifestyle choice. But it's miniscule compared to the simple addition of homosexual spouses.So address the point I made above:Let's say I own a small business and I really like John so I'm going to provide health coverage for him and his wife Alice. But I really don't like Stan so I'm not going give him and his wife Sue the same coverage I give John and Alice. Should I be allowed to do that? It's cheaper for me to provide coverage for three people (Stan, Alice, and John) than to provide coverage for four people (Stan, Sue, Alice, and John). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renaissance Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 SAVANNAH, Ga. — Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday. Sounds like he just made an argument for getting rid of marriage entirely. LOL /thread. I can tell Republicans are really going to do well the next few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 So address the point I made above:Let's say I own a small business and I really like John so I'm going to provide health coverage for him and his wife Alice. But I really don't like Stan so I'm not going give him and his wife Sue the same coverage I give John and Alice. Should I be allowed to do that? It's cheaper for me to provide coverage for three people (Stan, Alice, and John) than to provide coverage for four people (Stan, Sue, Alice, and John). No. Currently John and Alice have the same relationship standing as Stan and Sue. So you cannot make that choice. If we allow Bill and Ted to have the same recognition as John and Alice, we would have to provide them the same bennies. That's why it will cost the business more. Now, Im sure there are lots of you who think businesses SHOULD have to pay this. Just dont deny that their WILL be an additional burden on the small businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 No. Currently John and Alice have the same relationship standing as Stan and Sue. So you cannot make that choice. If we allow Bill and Ted to have the same recognition as John and Alice, we would have to provide them the same bennies. That's why it will cost the business more.Now, Im sure there are lots of you who think businesses SHOULD have to pay this. Just dont deny that their WILL be an additional burden on the small businesses. I haven't seen anyone in this thread say "requiring coverage for same sex couples won't cost additional money".What I see is Michael Steele arguing against same-sex marriage from a financial standpoint and people saying that if he wants to take that approach that's fine but he needs to apply it to ALL marriages, heterosexual and homosexual. So let me re-iterate, if Michael Steele is so gung-ho about saving small businesses money, let's do away with requiring companies to pay workers since salaries cost money. Let's do away with charging small businesses for electricity and internet service since they cost money. Let's allow businesses to pick and choose which employees spouses they provide coverage to. All of that would save small businesses money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 He's arguing that there is an ADDITIONAL cost. That is correct. Businesses are already paying the cost for hetero couples. I think the better argument is that allowing homosexual marriages will ultimately hurt hetero couples. Because businesses will begin to simply exclude bennie for all spouses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 He's arguing that there is an ADDITIONAL cost. That is correct. Businesses are already paying the cost for hetero couples.I think the better argument is that allowing homosexual marriages will ultimately hurt hetero couples. Because businesses will begin to simply exclude bennie for all spouses. Well than let's follow the approach that someone suggested earlier and say that if Bill marries Erin while Bill is employed he can't get coverage for Erin since it will cost his company more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 He's arguing that there is an ADDITIONAL cost. That is correct. Businesses are already paying the cost for hetero couples.I think the better argument is that allowing homosexual marriages will ultimately hurt hetero couples. Because businesses will begin to simply exclude bennie for all spouses. But if those people were straight instead of gay, they would be paying for their benefits anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 But if those people were straight instead of gay, they would be paying for their benefits anyway. Straight people are better than gays though, therefore deserve benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 No, either all married couples are provided bennies or none are. Allowing gay marriage expands the pool and therefor costs businesses and govt more money. There is also an additional risk involved with the lifestyle choice. But it's miniscule compared to the simple addition of homosexual spouses.It will also increase if polygamists are granted the right to marry. LOL @ "lifestyle choice." I didn't think anyone was still invested in that discredited term. Maybe you were just trying to differentiate between being gay and acting gay, as if a biologically gay person has any other honest options. At what age did you consider your options and make the conscious choice to act straight? By the way, polygamists are allowed to marry. So are prisoners, NAMBLA members, and sadistic cult leaders. Boogety-boogety-boo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 LOL @ "lifestyle choice." I didn't think anyone was still invested in that discredited term. Maybe you were just trying to differentiate between being gay and acting gay, as if a biologically gay person has any other honest options. At what age did you consider your options and make the conscious choice to act straight?By the way, polygamists are allowed to marry. So are prisoners, NAMBLA members, and sadistic cult leaders. Boogety-boogety-boo! They sure are. But we arent asking for the Govt to force recognition similar to Dick and Jane's marriage. And if they did force that, then that too would cost us all more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
renaissance Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Many companies are scaling back coverage for family members because of the rapidly rising costs of healthcare. Likewise, if a business is faced with increasing costs due to covering more participants it can change its policy on coverage. Steele is a clown for making this argument against gay marriage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Straight people are better than gays though, therefore deserve benefits. No-one deserves anything. It's what their employer decides to grant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 wouldn't this same thing be a problem if dick and jane decide to have 6 kids while dick is working for this small business? so should there be a limit on the number of kids one can have if they work for a small business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 wouldn't this same thing be a problem if dick and jane decide to have 6 kids while dick is working for this small business? so should there be a limit on the number of kids one can have if they work for a small business? No ... coverage is usually capped, but having kids does increase costs. Steele is really saying that he's in favor of abortion. Healthcare, schools, child tax credit ... these unproductive parasites are costing us hundreds of billions and contribute little to the economy. None of them pay taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 wouldn't this same thing be a problem if dick and jane decide to have 6 kids while dick is working for this small business? so should there be a limit on the number of kids one can have if they work for a small business? Businesses already accept this as a cost. Now if the Govt forced them to add kids that arent there own (birth,adoption etc), then THAT would be an addition that would be similar to forcing businesses to cover new types of spouses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Businesses already accept this as a cost.Now if the Govt forced them to add kids that arent there own (birth,adoption etc), then THAT would be an addition that would be similar to forcing businesses to cover new types of spouses. But then why don't they add in the cost of people getting married? What difference does it make if they are married to the same sex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Businesses already accept this as a cost.So why is a homosexual spouse different than Bill marrying Erin (while Bill is employed) and having to provide her coverage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.