Subject:
|
Re: Gay Marriage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 16:04:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2752 times
|
| |
|
|
"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message
news:HzIHou.1yEv@lugnet.com...
> I think the legal line has to be drawn somewhere. Take health care for • example.
> You're allowed to provide health care for your spouse, which is great if • they
> wouldn't otherwise get it. But as soon as you start getting into polygamy, • you
> have to wonder where the line gets drawn. Provide health care for your 80 • wives
> & husbands? That's rather unfair to the insurance company, and people • could take
> unnecessary advantage of such a lack of restriction. I suppose I might be • able
> to be convinced that the limit should be *raised*, but not eliminated. I'm
> pretty comfortable with the idea of a single spouse.
Insurance companies have always had to deal with an unbounded number of
dependants - children. My employer sets it's rates of employee contribution
for insurance for dependants to account for this (you pay per dependant
basically). So I don't see a problem with multiple spouses for things like
this.
Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | 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
|
| (...) 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)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | 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)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
