Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 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? Because it's more money. Again, you might think they should add them, but dont pretend it's not an additional cost. Why not make companies add their next door neighbors? Or their nanny? Or the wifes sister? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 So why is a homosexual spouse different than Bill marrying Erin (while Bill is employed) and having to provide her coverage? Because companies and govt already include this as a cost. It's different because it's not the same. I know that's oversimplistic, but if a company has a budget set, this will add to that budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Because it's more money.Again, you might think they should add them, but dont pretend it's not an additional cost. Why not make companies add their next door neighbors? Or their nanny? Or the wifes sister? Please go back through this thread and find someone say that there won't be an additional cost.But why does it matter if the additional cost comes from Bill marrying Erin, or Bill marrying Will? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Because it's more money.Again, you might think they should add them, but dont pretend it's not an additional cost. Why not make companies add their next door neighbors? Or their nanny? Or the wifes sister? So then they shouldn't cover anyone that is married if it's going to be more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Because companies and govt already include this as a cost. It's different because it's not the same. I know that's oversimplistic, but if a company has a budget set, this will add to that budget.Are you saying that when a company does its budget it automatically includes funding for health coverage to cover a spouse of an employee that gets married? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Please go back through this thread and find someone say that there won't be an additional cost.But why does it matter if the additional cost comes from Bill marrying Erin, or Bill marrying Will? The company already counts on the cost for Bill marrying Erin. Why SHOULD a company be forced to pay that additional cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Are you saying that when a company does its budget it automatically includes funding for health coverage to cover if an employee gets married? If they are actuarial sound they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 The company already counts on the cost for Bill marrying Erin.Why SHOULD a company be forced to pay that additional cost? Whats the additional cost of Bill marrying another man? I don't see how that would be anymore expensive... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Pablo 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. There is no debate on economic grounds, unless the moral one is resolved first. We must determine if 'the gays' are human beings worthy of marrying one another. If they are on equal footing as their awesome straight brethren, then there is no question 'the gays' should also receive benefits in the name of equality. This economic BS just begs the question- Should we give benefits to 'the gays' when they will cost us money? Are 'the gays' worth costing us money? Should 'the gays' be allowed to marry when it will cost us money? Should 'the gays' be allowed to marry on equitable grounds? This is not legitimate debate. As for 'the additional cost' of hiring 'the gays' due to their spouses, is it not an additional cost to a small business everytime it CHOOSES to hire straight married man? How about when it CHOOSES to hire a straight married father of five? If a small business CHOOSES to hire a married 'the gay,' then why shouldn't it have to bear the additional costs? Again, it begs the question of 'Should gays be allowed to marry on equitable grounds?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Michael Steele: Gay Marriage Is Bad For Small Businesses. In the veign of Johnathan Swift's modist proposal I would like to agree with Mr Steele. Mariage is bad for small business. I go even further that not only newly married but all marrages are bad for business. We should therefore abolish all marrages and go clothing optional in all temporate zones of the country. think of the population boom, the increase in flowers and chocolates sales. I think Mr Steele is the right man for the job of rebuilding the nations faith in the Republican party with suggestions like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 If they are actuarial sound they do.Okay...so I have 10 employees in my small business (6 of which are married), when I do my budget I include the funding for 4 additional spouses. Why should I care if one of the employees marries someone of the same sex if I have already allocated the money for such an expense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 The company already counts on the cost for Bill marrying Erin.Why SHOULD a company be forced to pay that additional cost? So a company know how many gay and straight employee they have and their marriage status. They know that we have 70% straight employees we need to budge for providing benefits for. I wonder what person in my firm goes around and asking people if they are gay or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I wonder what person in my firm goes around and asking people if they are gay or not. They can tell by your shoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 So a company know how many gay and straight employee they have and their marriage status.They know that we have 70% straight employees we need to budge for providing benefits for. I wonder what person in my firm goes around and asking people if they are gay or not. They dont. They use actuarial tables and statistical analysis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 They can tell by your shoes.At the moment I'm only wearing one shoe at work, what does that say about me.It's a flip-flop from Old Navy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Okay...so I have 10 employees in my small business (6 of which are married), when I do my budget I include the funding for 4 additional spouses. Why should I care if one of the employees marries someone of the same sex if I have already allocated the money for such an expense? I think ya got him there;) Why don't the employers encourage employees marrying each other? Think of the money saved:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 At the moment I'm only wearing one shoe at work, what does that say about me.It's a flip-flop from Old Navy... Bi-curious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Why don't the employers encourage employees marrying each other? Think of the money saved that's a great point! if you work for a small business you have to marry your co-workers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 It's a flip-flop from Old Navy... No-one is arguing that transsexual marriage should be result in medical coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I think ya got him there;)Why don't the employers encourage employees marrying each other? Think of the money saved:D <Insert joke about cost advantages of small family business in West Virginia> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Let's recognize everything then. And force businesses to assume that cost because hetero couples cost money too. Jim in Utah has 11 wives. Let's make his accounting firm cover all of them with their insurance. And lets make sure that when he dies, each of those widows gets full benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 They dont. They use actuarial tables and statistical analysis. So what's the stat on how many gays are in a company? One in 200, 500? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 It would seem to make sense that the company covers only the employee,and offers the employee the option of paying for spouse or dependents. Choice...what a concept Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 So what's the stat on how many gays are in a company? One in 200, 500? I'd wager it's a function of geography and industry. I'm gonna guess there are more gay people working in theater on Broadway than on a construction crew in Mississippi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Let's recognize everything then. And force businesses to assume that cost because hetero couples cost money too.Jim in Utah has 11 wives. Let's make his accounting firm cover all of them with their insurance. And lets make sure that when he dies, each of those widows gets full benefits. You should run for the head of the RNC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.