Gays at Globe told to marry or lose benefits

[trumptman]

Shotgun weddings (http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional/view.bg?articleid=147383)

Benefits for domestic partners were originally offered to gay employees because they couldn’t legally marry, said Ilene Robinson Sunshine, a lawyer at Sullivan & Worcester.
Now that gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts companies that offer benefits to gay employees’ partners risk hearing cries of discrimination from unmarried straight couples.

Well this could be the start of the a massive, I told you so.

I've asserted here in the past, to the scepticism of some, several things related to this article and to homosexual marriage.

1. That our society only allows one relationship for right now and that we should expand the number of forms without using the word marriage.

2. That not all homosexuals believe marriage an acceptable solution.

3. That homosexual marriage is a way to attempt to reinvigorate marriage and suburbanize and homogonize homosexual couples. This view is put forward by both homo and heterosexuals who believe it will lead to acceptance.

It is clear now that homosexual marriage has been allowed in Massachusetts that what I have asserted is going to happen. Homosexuals, just like heterosexuals who do not want an institution that demands a life-long commitment, that assigns gender roles and that leads to legal entanglements, especially of a financial nature well beyond that commitment will have no alternatives.

It is clear there is a fear that those from the 'burbs will attempt to suburbanize and homogonize homosexual couples by forcing them, whether they want to or not, to adopt the trappings of that lifestyle in order to obtain the same benefits they previous held.

Hate to say it, but I told you so.

Nick

[hardeeharhar]

You told us that homosexuals would have to deal with issues of marriage and not marriage when they were allowed to marry?

Thank you, master of the obvious!

[Fireball1244]

As this is treating homosexual couples just like heterosexual couples, this is a good thing. In a state where gays should marry, there's no reason for unmarried gay partners to have access to benefits and protections not offered to unmarried heterosexual partners.

[Harald]

How odd. trumpt pointing out 'unfair' discrimination against gay people and the 'liberals' delighted that this treatment is occurring.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by Harald
How odd. trumpt pointing out 'unfair' discrimination against gay people and the 'liberals' delighted that this treatment is occurring.

?

Trumpt is pointing out that there is now 'discrimination' against both hetero and queer domestic partnerships that are not marriages.

[sammi jo]

What is it with all these folk who put so much energy into making gay marriage (or domestic partnerships) a part of their own lives? Don't they have marriages and lives of their own to be working on instead? Why are they getting their panties so knotted up about other peoples' personal lives?

Why is gay marriage an issue for people who aren't gay? Gays don't rail about "straight marriage" See what I mean.. it is that absurd

[trumptman]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
?

Trumpt is pointing out that there is now 'discrimination' against both hetero and queer domestic partnerships that are not marriages.

Hardee gets it. Thanks for understanding.

Nick

[groverat]

trumpt:

Hate to say it, but I told you so.

Of the 3 things you listed, which were contested? (Answer: 0)

You don't get to say "I told you so" when making statements no one disagrees with, that's not how "I told you so" works.

"Hey guys, I poured some water on the floor and now the floor is slippery... I TOLD YOU SO!"

[trumptman]

Originally posted by groverat
trumpt:



Of the 3 things you listed, which were contested? (Answer: 0)

You don't get to say "I told you so" when making statements no one disagrees with, that's not how "I told you so" works.

"Hey guys, I poured some water on the floor and now the floor is slippery... I TOLD YOU SO!"

Expanding the number of relationship forms beyond one (marriage) has indeed been contested. Additionally there people on here who wouldn't believe that homosexual marriage has become a fairly recent issue that for many years most homosexuals could have cared less about marriage and still don't.

Those things have all been contested.

That said, what are your views about this policy Grove.

Nick

[groverat]

trumpt:

Expanding the number of relationship forms beyond one (marriage) has indeed been contested. Additionally there people on here who wouldn't believe that homosexual marriage has become a fairly recent issue that for many years most homosexuals could have cared less about marriage and still don't.

Those things have all been contested.

By whom? I think this is yet another case of phantoms in your head making arguments and doing things no one ever has.

Who ever argued that all homosexuals wanted gay marriage? No one. Not even all heterosexuals want marriage. Even if you expand the number of phrases used to describe a civil union, it doesn't matter, that's a completely non-issue.

The issue here is that allowing homosexuals to marry has caused some problems for homosexuals who don't want to marry, something no one has ever argued against.

That said, what are your views about this policy Grove.

I have absolutely no problem with it. Once everyone is given the same opportunity it is perfectly fair to have a uniform policy.

[tonton]

I agree with Groverat. Who do you thing opposes this, Nick? I agree with the decision by the Globe. Now lets expand gay marriage across the nation and allow other companies to make similar logical decisions. Are you against that?

You see, Nick, for many of us, the reason we stand behind certain issues, especially in terms of equal rights, is LOGIC, pure and simple.

It is logical that gays should have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. It is logical that if they have that right, then gay domestic partnerships should be treated the same as hetero domestic partnerships.

It really seems like the issues you latch on to are not issues of logic, but issues of opinion not easily syupported by logic. I'm afraid you'll lose that battle, son.