[Romulus]

So? I could [not]care less.

Well you should, because employee benefits cost money. The fact that many companies discriminate against singles by extending health benefits to marrieds is at least excusable with the argument that marriage serves a social purpose (and it's this that keeps me from complaining too loudly about the disproportionate way premiums -- and tax burdens -- are distributed). But since the gay lifestyle actually imposes additional stress on the social fabric, while contributing nothing, there's no justification for its subsidy.

[sinkspur]

The fact that many companies discriminate against singles by extending health benefits to marrieds is at least excusable with the argument that marriage serves a social purpose (and it's this that keeps me from complaining too loudly about the disproportionate way premiums

What a tight-ass! Most companies cover families as a way to keep the employee happy. And, BTW, I pay extra to cover my wife.

[johnb838]

If homosexual domestic "partners" (and I object to the use of that word in this context) get the same benefits as married people I say no one should get any special benefits. Singles should NOT have to subsidize queers shacking up. I'm with you... traditional marriage benefits I will tolerate but if that's to include faggots, I say do away with them all.