Just throwing it out here tonight....
I work in a company who's State does not recodnize sam sex partner benefits, yet I am constanty approached by the appeal to make this happen. I repeatedly tell people that our State funding would be seriously comprimised if we were to allow this, but it just does not seem to sink in.
Frustrating as with any other relationship, if you have a two income relationship, seek a job that offers benefits. We are adults and we must remain fiscally responsible as an adult, regardless of sexual orientation.
Any thoughts out there?

Seems like sexual discrimination to me.......as long as they are married oops there is a whole other can of worms there eh

You need to understand that my State does not recognize civil unio of same sex partners. My hands are tied and I am not the decision maker here.

That takes bills and legislation and vise versa if you allowed same sex partners to have medical benefits you would have to open the option up to all unmarried partners......no one person can approve or disapprove legilation like this......and if the majority of the State is against it then it wouldn't pass anyways.............it would be up to legilators to write and put it before voting in order for change to take place..........it should be up to them to launch campaigns pickets etc in order to invoke change......maybe you should suggest this and the challenges they may face......after all without the womens movement womens rights would never have been

You are a good sport lil. (you really need a picture that seems less.....depressed.

Back on topic.


My uncle becky and her squeeze are some of the coolest people and as far as I am concerned, deserve every right to do whatever the hell they want.

I think being a fiscally responsible adult is never a bad idea. The issue of benefits is quite different though. In a nuclear family(traditionally with a husband and wife), the only expectation is that ONE work outside and one maintain the inside of the home (prep for and maintaining childcare)

In the case where a couple has had children, those children become dependents and that spouse who cares for them instead of making their 'own' income also becomes a dependent which should be perfectly fine IF the one income is sufficient for the family.

In the case where two adults only have themself at home to care for, I also am in agreement that both should be capable of working and retaining their own insurance.

I think current benefit packages are set by traditional standards where there is ONE wage earner per family because the other is taking care of home. The idea that one partner provides in return for seperating the other partner from their family is admirable and important to me, but if it is possible to continue promoting the idea without encouraging healthy and capable adults(with no parental duties which otherwise consume what could be working hours) to live off of each other,, I would be ok with that too

I know that this is a hot topic right now, especially wth the "Don't ask Don't tell" issue on the board, but seriously folks....just how different is a same sex partnership than a traditional reationship? Seriously, is this truly an issue? As like in any other relationship, you work together to make things happen, same sex or not. Frustrating to have to deal with the "tender" bias of same sex partnerships.

Not taking a stand either way, but I am certainly tired of either orientation looking for a free ride and these adults not wanting to be responsible adults.

I apologize for the venting this evening, but this has been an unusually difficut open enrollment period this year....."sigh' thanks to administrative bodies who have not clue.

the main(most sensitive) difference is that a man bends another man over and penetrates his behind,

and that the relationship has no reproductive value


the latter reason is probably of least significance in the modern culture, but the idea of government in any way sanctioning the former is as offensive to some as the idea of them outlawing it is to others,,,


other than that,, no differences,,,


I think the union which creates life deserves and continues to deserve to be promoted and encouraged on a pedastal

the same way we encourage safe sex on a pedeastal above unsafe


people have the option to do what makes them feel good but it doesnt mean the government has a responsibility to legally sanction all of it,,,,so long as that choice is not outlawed, I think its fair enough

I wouldnt oppose a system where adults who are working have the option to decide to share assets and legal power with whatever other adult they choose , rather the relationship be a sibling, a mother, or a lover

any two adults should be able to enter into a contract to share their life and assets, if thats their wish


male female unions should continue to receive the promotion they always have through marriage....

I think I'd tend to disagree with you on those being the only differences...the fact that more than a "handful" tend to stay in the closet, or sneak around, whatever you want to call it, says that its not a normal thing, and as prevalent as it is, its still taboo to most ppl...even without gov't sanctioning it or outlawing it..therefore, different

Geez msharmony.....Thank You ......have you ever thought of rnning for office?

Actually they can have children and choose to have a family the same way a hetero couple that can't have children can what's the difference btwn the hetero that can't have kids naturally and the same sex that can't have children naturally.......they both choose family marriage faithfulness and regard of each other

Got some reports and had to do some cleanup on this one....just a reminder, please keep the discussion focused on the issues, and not on seeing who can come up with the most clever putdown of other members, OK?

Unfortunately Seakolony, it is not recognized out side of "traditional" relationships that baring children naturaly is not an issue. Too many people have been squalking otherwise to elude that topic. Adoption is still a viable option for any relationship and has become even more clouded than before.

Personally, I feel that we need to revert back to simpler times to clarify just exactly what the heck is going on. Adults need to maintain adult responsibility....bottom line...end of story...periond.

Yes well the government changed the discrimination laws and in so doing need to address this because it is a discrimination upheld governmentally....maybe they should think about the laws they pass before instututing this type of change.....because not allowing marriages because of sexual orientation is in essence a discrimination against same sex relationships......just saying.....so technically we violate our own laws at our convienence?

depends upon ones idea of normal, which in our culture seems to be turning to 'whatever feels good'

the safe relationship to display is always going to be the one which brought us here (male female), but Homosexual is a close second amongst so called taboos

show me the media numbers and characters practicing asphyxiation or bondage as compared to those characters defined as homosexual, and Im sure homosexuality is the least TABOO of all so called TABOOS

homosexual persons have homosexual communities, just as escorts probably hang with escorts , and swingers hang with swingers

all of those 'alternative' lifestyles dont receive the warmest of welcomes amongst the mainstream of lifestyles(male female), I agree

but there is no reason for strangers to have to be immersed in ones sexual preferences so I dont really feel to bad about that

Just not undrstanding the difference here....you are in a relationship (whatever the orientation) and each individual is capabe of working. Take care of business at your respective employer. End of story

maybe you should talk to the people that are against it...i have said in the past that i am against it, but really, it has no bearing on my life what-so-ever...but if you want it changed in your state, go after the people that are blocking it... namely, since your in the midwest, i would try the churches first, then the corporations... they stand to lose the most by passing such a bill. but, like i said, i don't really care, it really is other peoples problem, not mine...