Subject:
|
Re: Gay Marriage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 18 Jun 2004 18:20:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2742 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz wrote:
> 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.
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 unemployed/homeless people together and reaping benefits just for
being acquaintences or friends. But as long as the system really does balance
itself based on the number of participants, then I guess I'm all for having
marriages between more than 2 people...
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
