 | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) Don't you? I mean, the way US laws are written, I believe there are rights provided to married couples that wouldn't be to anyone under something like 'civil unions'. Speaking of which, is that what you're advocating? If so, how would a 'civil (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| "David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:HzIHou.1yEv@lugnet.com... (...) example. (...) they (...) you (...) wives (...) could take (...) able (...) Insurance companies have always had to deal with an unbounded number of dependants - (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| I don't see a problem with this either, except.... Some insurance companies essentially provide a "Bulk Discount" for dependents - the more you have, the less you pay per dependent. I think this is wrong. You are encouraging multiple dependents in (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) Does it? Why must marriage be a special case of contract? (...) I think that if polygamy became popular the insurance companies would have ways of covering their budgets worked out way before it mattered. It is frankly startling to me that (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) And that's all a matter for the individual insurance companies to work out with their customers, right? Chris (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) Absent regulation preventing them from doing so, yes. However, in the world today insurance companies are heavily regulated as to who they can or can't cover and how they go about determining risk factors or premiums. So, no. Unfortunately. (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) Huh-- I guess I'm not familiar enough with it not having any spouses or dependants of my own :) I guess basically the extreme case I'm trying to avoid by limiting the number of marriage participants is to keep someone from, say, getting 1600 (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) As I noted to Frank, if the system is set up to handle polygamy in a balanced way, then I'm all for it. My goal isn't to restrict marriage in any way, but more to prevent people from abusing it as a legal loophole. (...) Again, the only reason (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| "David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:HzIopJ.12np@lugnet.com... (...) participants (...) book, if (...) isn't (...) Hmm, but there are genetic conditions that are far more predictable in damaging children. Should we not allow (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) Can you say Gattaca? Chris (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) Good point. Hmm.. I'm not sure. Certainly as I mentioned, marriage isn't the issue in that case-- I'm still fine with brothers & sisters and people with disease X marrying. Procreation? Hmm. I guess it seems sort of cruel to me to have a child (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| |
