Ask the Gay Guy II!

Shoot, how is Exprix getting in posts ahead of me? His response was so brilliant, I would have saved the energy
used in posting my drivel.

Called “brilliant” twice in one day? Good heavens, you people don’t get out much, do you? :wink:

Esprix

I would point out that I did not start a thread complaining about this topic, or even bring it up in this one. I responded to others who made the comparison.

It seems like you are suggesting a new standard for this forum in which certain ideas cannot be expessed or refuted if some people will find this distasteful. It is my understanding that this forum is not based on such principles. If any moderators read this and disagree, I would appreciate if they would chime in.

Granted, but it’s been your responses that have generated such, shall we say, spirited discussion. I’m just asking if you see the reason behind everyone’s ire.

I’m not quite sure where you get the impression I’m suggesting people not share ideas in this forum or even in this thread. When I pointed out that people here are miffed that it’s even being discussed, I did not mean specifically discussed in this forum, but rather that it seems such a nit-picky point when compared to the greater topic at hand, that is the equal treatment of gay men and lesbians in this society.

Clearer now? Please don’t stop giving your opinions, even if others disagree.

Esprix

Esprix: Thank you. Now try and tell him.
Lissener: I could, but he would never ever take you up on it. Maybe if ya sent him a photo :wink:

http://www.hrc.org/worknet/dp/index.html

You have to prove the basics, of course. They have to show proof that they are not related, are over 18, and not already married to someone else. Additional requirements can include:

“proof of a joint checking account, mortgage or rent agreements, utility bills or drivers’ licenses.”

Pretty much everything that has been mentioned already.

Mind you, I am so not a DP expert since my company doesn’t offer DP benefits at all.

Tried, failed, whatever.

And if I recall correctly, I tried to tell you as well. I’m just sorry I failed there, too. :frowning:

Esprix

Still things an opposite-sex married couple never has to prove.

I’m still fairly certain the City of Philadelphia’s requirements include proof of longer-term commitment, but if you’re going to get joint finances, rent and a mortgage, obviously there’s a commitment there that’s not just two friends getting benefits on a lark.

I’m going to do a little more research into the requirements, though. Thanks for the info, beaker!

Esprix

In looking more at the Human Rights Campaign website, I’ll quote the following under their guidelines for instituting domestic partnership benefits at the company you work for:

Obviously this is just what the HRC suggests, and obviously not all employers are the same, so we’d need to get specific policies from specific companies to see who requires what. I haven’t been able to find a list of “average” requirements from the companies that offer DP benefits.

I do want to note to Izzy that the HRC recommends proof that the relationship is at least six months old. I did a little more research into the City of Philadelphia’s requirements and found this from the phila.gov site:

[quote]
To register a Life Partnership, same-sex couples need to provide evidence of their interdependency. Applicants must submit to the Commission a Life Partnership Verification Statement and proof of at least three of the following:

[ul][li]Common ownership of property or common leasehold interest in property.[/li][li]Common ownership of a vehicle.[/li][li]Driver’s license listing a common address.[/li][li]Joint bank or credit accounts.[/li][li]Designation as a beneficiary of life insurance, retirement benefits or under partner’s will.[/li][li]Assignment of durable power of attorney or health care power of attorney. [/ul][/li][/quote]

So, no, it doesn’t look like the relationship needs to be a year old as I had been lead to understand, but after going through all that, one would think the couple has been together for quite some time and plans to continue together for quite some time further (see power of attorney) - just like a married couple.

They go on to say:

Nice benefits, but still a far cry from everything Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the US government have to offer.

And, yes, it seems Philadelphia restricts its DP benefits to same-sex couples only.

I think, though, that even following the minimum of the HRC’s suggestions still proves the inequality of same-sex relationships versus opposite-sex relationships. As it says above, I’ve never heard of any company requiring to see a marriage license, yet same-sex couples have to prove their relationship exists and sign legal documents to that effect.

Again, no one is saying that offering DP benefits to same-sex couples while not offering them to opposite-sex couples is entirely fair, but the greater picture is that opposite-sex couples still have things overwhelmingly easier.

Esprix

Not really. What it says is that they must sign an affadavit stating this. This is what I’ve been saying.

I don’t think this issue is a big deal, and see the main difference as being that it can be difficult to prove a historical relationship.

In the cases I’ve dealt with, there have been requirements that the DPs sign an affadavit asserting (among other things) that they have had the relationship for six months, or, in some cases, only that they have not had another DP relationship within the past six months.

The main reason for all this is that there is concern that someone might be tempted to claim a DP relationship for the purpose of getting benefits. For this reason, the insurance companies will insist on this provision even if the employer does not - they don’t want people who discover that they will be facing huge medical bills to suddenly decide that it would be in their interest to form DP relationships. This would push up the average cost of coverage. In fact, several HMOs insisted on jacking up their rates (by about a percent or so) as it were.

Well, affidavit or no, certainly showing you have power of attorney, joint checking accounts and both names on the mortgage proves both history of and intent to maintain a relationship, I’d say.

Esprix

Esprix: Thats okay. Better now than later.
To thine own self be true, eh?

Wow, vanilla - quite a turnaround from a few months ago, but I’m glad to see it. Live and learn, eh? :wink:

Esprix

Esprix wrote:

Just so you folks know, Vanilla and I broke up over religious reasons, not sexual ones. It seems that I want an LDS temple marriage sometime in the future and she doesn’t. This breakup had nothing to do with whether I was gay or not.

On that subject, though, I do admit that I was deluding myself to think I could change so easily from homo to hetero. I admit I’m attracted to other men sexually, and I believe that it will probably be a lifetime weakness, but one which I will struggle to control and overcome. Having a weakness and embracing a weakness are two different things.

Esprix: Can we have some cites on the success record of those who have tried and failed?
You must keep them somewhere; check under the desk!

Snark, I’ll refrain from commenting simply because both issues have been beaten to death, and we both know where we both stand on them. (I will warn you that someone else might take up the discussion anew, so be prepared.) Just remember, the Dopers love ya. :wink:

vanilla, I actually don’t have those statistics because none exist to my knowledge. The ones who say it’s possible either don’t quote statistics or say it’s close to 100%, and the ones who say it’s not don’t have never done a reliable study or say it’s near 0%. No independent third party to my knowledge has ever seriously studied the success rate of such programs.

Of course, My Humble Opinion is it’s all self-delusionary bunk n’ hooey, but that’s just me.

Esprix

I was watching “One Nation Under God”, a documentary about reparation therapy the other day. They spent quite a lot of time interviewing the former leaders of Exodus International. The two said that they were approached by two psychologists wishing to do a study. They were asked to provide patient records. Of the approximately 400 files on hand, they could only come up with thirty that would reflect positively on the program. The psycologists examined those thirty files, and determined that only 11 fit their definition of a cured homosexual. Therefore, they determined that Exodus International had a 36% success rate. However, if they had used the actual number of files the rate would be closer to 2-3%.

This is just one classic example of how stats can’t be trusted. If an organization like NARTH, Exodus, or GLAAD wanted to tilt the numbers in their favor, they could very easily.

Of course, personal accounts are just as slanted, but they are much more readily available than statistical studies. In fact PlanetOut just did a feature where they interviewed both ex-gays and ex-ex-gays.

Then there is the “One Nation Under God”* feature I mentioned earlier. According to the interviews with the founders of Exodus International, there was a pattern to the therapy. For the first year, the patient would be happy and optimistic. The second year, the optimism would fade. By the third year, they would be putting patients on suicide watches. These patients go in expecting the feelings to go away, and they don’t.

Some organizations have even adjusted their goals. They are no longer trying to get rid of the homosexual urges, but rather, submerge them. They tell patients that if they have an urge, it’s a sign that something is off balance in their life. That if, they rebalance their life, the urges would fade to the background.

*One Nation Under God is, admittedly, a biased source that favors the pro-gay point of view, but a pretty good history of reparation therapy in this country for the past 50 years or so.

Esprix, fair enough. We really have beaten this dead horse long enough. I just want to say that, in all fairness to Vanilla, I really am attracted to her in spite of my main orientation. She floats my boat. :wink:

There are several programs out there - some claim to be able to change one’s innate sexual orientation (which the American Psychological Association and all reputable psychological and psychiatrical professionals assert is impossible), but other, newer ones claim merely to be able to change one’s sexual behavior (I believe “20/20” or some such news program did a story on one of them). Basically, grin and bear it for the Lord. :rolleyes:

Esprix

I hope I’m not repeating an earlier discussion, but there’s an absolutely crucial difference in the tax treatment of employee benefits for married and unmarried persons:

Employer-paid benefits extended to legal spouses (and children) are tax-free. Employer-paid benefits extended to domestic partners are taxable to their full value as ordinary income to the employee. Although the benefit is going to the partner, the value (what the employer is paying for it) is actually considered income to the employee.

Sam and Diane are married. Sam’s in grad school, has minimal coverage as a student and is listed on Diane’s health insurance. Diane’s employer is very generous and covers the entire amount, which otherwise would cost Diane an extra $400 per month. Diane pays no taxes on the $400.

Sam and Dan are registered domestic partners. Same deal: Sam’s in grad school and Dan’s employer pays all of $400 for covering him. Dan must pay federal and, in all likelihood, state and local income tax for the entire $400.. Also remember that under this scenario Dan is likely to be in a higher tax bracket than his grad-student husband, so the $400 may be taxed at, say, a 39% federal rate. Sam’s health insurance thus costs Dan at least $160 a month in federal taxes.

It’s a major reason many gay and lesbian couples don’t bother using the benefits. Where married couples can decide which spouse has the better or cheaper plan without suffering any tax consequence, for same-sex couples the extra tax cost often outweighs any other advantages one partner’s plan might have over the other.