Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Dolphy
I feel the same way. My company does provide benefits for gay partners. Looking around at a recent national meeting I see they also provide benefits for the obese, smokers, pregnant women, etc. It never occurred to me to wonder what this cost me.

Most smokers work and die an early death on the job from heart attacks or lung cancer. Fat people die young. I don't get the jab about pregnant women; It's nature.

I would complain about gay couple benefits. Gays don't procreate. They should not have adopted or artificially inseminated children as they will screw up many young minds. Children need to experience the intimate dynamic interplay between men and women. Denying children this experience is akin to selfish parents who bring up a lonely, only child. I met so many only children who feel left out because they don't have a brother or sister.

Gays are extremely promiscuous, so much so that the hard to acquire AIDS disease is pandemic among them. They just stand out as a big liability.

What really bothers me is most gays are childless. Why does one partner get benefits for the couple? I would think both are working. Is the other just a layabout flower? I thought gays tooted their own horn on how productive they are. The need for domestic benefits is a rouse.

22 posted on 12/09/2003 8:33:11 PM PST by LoneRangerMassachusetts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: LoneRangerMassachusetts
I wasn't jabbing pregnant women, just pointing out that both good and bad choices lead to medical costs. As far as I know, most health insurance premiums are calculated on things like location, age, gender and loss experience. Personal information like weight, smoking, sexual morals, etc. is not part of the equation.

Why does one partner get benefits for the couple? I would think both are working.

Many companies don't provide health insurance. And many married working couples pick whichever coverage they feel best or most cost effective, they don't maintain separate coverage. Domestic partner coverage doesn't mean that one of the partners isn't working. In any event, domestic partnership benefits are offered to help the employer keep employees, not visa versa.

58 posted on 12/09/2003 9:51:31 PM PST by Dolphy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson