It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

RNC chief: Gay marriage will burden small business

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by awake_awoke
 



Originally posted by awake_awoke
Or;
Maybe Steele should consider that businesses that offer domestic partnership/marriage benefits to all will end up being more sucessful because they do not disenfranchize the best workers, gay or not. The free market will decide; and I guarantee those that offer equal rights for their workers will prosper-no matter the size of the company.


Excellent point.
Star for you.

Now, I have a question: Does anyone think that health insurance for same-sex couples will cost more than for heterosexual married couples, since the risks of AIDS/HIV are higher for gays?




posted on May, 17 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Well, you may have a point. But let's consider...if civil unions were allowed for gay couples, would we see the promiscuity that causes gay men to contract HIV at a larger rate than heterosexuals? If they are allowed to create a loving and monogamous environment, how would the disease spread faster than among heterosexuals?

And, do you disqualify them because they are gay, and allow lesbians (lesbians have a much lower rate of infection)?

Many businesses offer incentives to employees that smoke or are obese to change their unhealthy practices. I'm not saying being gay is unhealthy, but rather the unprotected and promiscuous sex aspect is. Perhaps there is a way for business to offer incentives to those whom maintain an intelligent, healthy lifestyle, so that the business saves money and the individual is rewarded for smart decisions.

Of course that probably all depends on whether or not the country is ready to accept homosexuals as equals. When you push folks down into the gutter, don't act surprised when they get dirty.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 11:57 AM
link   
I think people are missing the point. Employers do not have to pay now for same a sex couple to have insurance on the non-working partner. However, when same sex couples are recognized as being married, employers will have to pay. They don't have to pay now, and they will have to pay when same sex marriage is recognized. Their costs will go up. Not because gay people cost more to insure, but because they will have to insure them. The costs will go up. That is the point, as ridiculous as it is.

Should it matter? I don't think so. I think that gay marriage should be recognized.

If you are gay , here is a loophole for ya'. Find a lesbian couple and each of you marry the opposite sex partner. Then collect those benefits



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Avenginggecko
 


I think the promiscuity goes with the person, not the institution. Same as for heteros that have affairs.

And disqualification is not an option, imo, since it would border on discrimination.

But what about pre-existing conditions? Should an employer be allowed to refuse to hire someone with HIV?



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 



Please don't say conservatives. This is how Neo-cons do things.

Oh please, step off the pedestal, I've seen you make broad statements about liberals and I'm pretty sure socialist too. I think you should please not assume what I'm referring to is all conservatives, I'm clearly discussing the conservatives that are involved in combating this movement.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage
 


Wow...i'm sorry. Didn't mean to offend you. That's not what I was trying to do. I certainly don't see myself on a pedestal...i'm just a regular schmuck like everyone else. But you are right...those broad generalizations are done on both sides.

I have not written the world socialism in quite a long time. We already have socialistic programs such as SS and Medicare, so criticizing it would be hypocritical of me to do...other than the fact that we can no longer afford many of these programs. My father is on both.

Once again...did not mean to offend you.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by David9176
 




Once again...did not mean to offend you.

I just dislike it when someone "calls me out" for something I've seen them doing, especially when I do not assume that they are painting with a broad brush for using popular terms.

No worries though, I shouldn't have said that you were on a pedestal anyway, a little overboard probably, so I suppose we're even? :/



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Now, I have a question: Does anyone think that health insurance for same-sex couples will cost more than for heterosexual married couples, since the risks of AIDS/HIV are higher for gays?


So, by your logic, only spouses of heterosexual married couples who contract AIDS/HIV should be allowed to have their treatments covered by health insurance.

Do you happen to deem spouses of heterosexual couples more worthy of health insurance benefits?

Interesting...

Especially since we all know that only homosexuals are capable to contracting sexually transmitted diseases.



posted on May, 17 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by maria_stardust
 



Originally posted by maria_stardust

Originally posted by jsobecky
Now, I have a question: Does anyone think that health insurance for same-sex couples will cost more than for heterosexual married couples, since the risks of AIDS/HIV are higher for gays?


So, by your logic, only spouses of heterosexual married couples who contract AIDS/HIV should be allowed to have their treatments covered by health insurance.

Do you happen to deem spouses of heterosexual couples more worthy of health insurance benefits?

Interesting...

Especially since we all know that only homosexuals are capable to contracting sexually transmitted diseases.


Whoa...you're way off base here. I only asked a simple question that was meant to stimulate discussion. How you managed to extract my "logic" from that is beyond me.


I guarantee you that the question I asked has already been asked by the insurance companies. And, for good cause.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join