Queer.
Would you like to back that up with something that I can respond to with something other than, “Have you read the thread?”
:dubious: I know you’re joking but there are plenty of countries in Europe where similar issues would arise.
color me unimpressed.
anyone who does about 5 seconds of searching would know that COBRA is federal legislation.
bells and whistles should be going off in even a moderately-intelligent person’s head when you have:
COBRA, federal, government, homosexual, money
in the same issue.
[Somewhere in an HR office near you…]
“Why is there a woman in my office bending over my desk holding a dildo shaped like Bill Clinton and a bottle of AstroGlide?”
“She’s here for her exit interview, and apparently you’re supposed to shove the dildo forcefully up her ass or we’ll be out of compliance with federal regulations.”
“I don’t see that listed anywhere in her packet…”
“She showed me a site and I’ve triple-checked it. She seems to be correct, though there is no mention of the use of lubricants being allowed. You should probably go by the book on this since we already messed up on the packet.”
No, COBRA is an accurate look at what medical coverage *actually *costs in the U.S. Your employer just usually covers most of your actual premium.
Incidentally, this is why I’m a fan of the new requirement that will have your W2 show you how much your employer contributed to your health insurance benefits.
It’s tantamount to a gay tax when any unmarried cohabiting heteros have the option to marry and exempt themselves from the additional cost but gay couples don’t have that option.
no, it’s not.
marriage can carry considerable downside risk. it’s not a status that is absolutely cost-free to obtain.
Would you care to itemize your list while I go scrounge up the latest collection of perks to being legally married in the eyes of the federal government?
the perks are irrelvant. you’re claiming that since the COBRA benefit can be had by anyone getting married, and since gay couples can’t marry, it is a tax on gays. (edited to switch COBRA and married around)
just because group X can’t do something but group Y can, and group Y can get government money for it, doesn’t mean that it’s a tax on group X.
jesus, if this is the state of argument for pro-gay marriage, it’s no wonder you haven’t been able to convince the majority of people as to the propriety of your position. (the propriety of which I agree with, fwiw)
You say that like it’s a choice. Everyone knows no one in their right mind would choose to be Canadian.
Somewhat ironically, between rampant vegetarianism and low-risk sex, most lesbians I know, even the non-monogamous ones, are incredibly healthy.
Do you understand that the phrase “tantamount to” does not mean “the exact equivalent of?”
It’s a tax on gays that wish they could get married. And a tax on unmarried couples that don’t wish to get married too, but that’s not the problem.
Do you understand that the word “tantamount” means “equivalent”
here, let’s use it in a sentence to enhance your comprehension:
“tumbledown’s knowledge of the English language is tantamount to jack shit.”
no, it’s not a tax for fuck’s sake. but at least you see that saying to heterosexual couples who don’t want to get married “well, you ***can ***get married so you don’t suffer like we do” is grade-A stupidity.
So we’re no longer talking about how “marriage can carry considerable downside risk” or how "it’s not a status that is absolutely cost-free to obtain. " or how such things would disprove that this is equivalent in value, significance, or effect to a tax on being gay-and-only-not-married-because-the-feds-won’t-recognize-your-relationship-as-such?
Ok.
To your more recent post, did you forget to include a synonym to tantamount or effectively? It looks you might have, and it would have direct bearing on my response.
no, the point of talking about the costs of marriage is precisely to address the point that **begbert2 **brings up: acting as if marriage is like a lightswitch that you can turn off and on to your benefit-seeking whimsy is stupid. (and, actually, suggesting that marriage is meaningless in this way would not be the kind of thing that I would want to promote if I were fighting for equal recognition of various types of marriages)
but that doesn’t change the fact that, regardless, the situation here is not analagous to a tax.
I can’t comprehend this at all, especially since I don’t know to which post you are referring.
The cost of one unplanned demon spawn for 18 plus years would negate any federal perks I would think.
If I can’t get a federal perk for being a roomy with my same sex high school best friend, I dont see why you should get one for the same situation except you are getting laid to boot.
It’s a tax if I say it’s a tax, dammit. If the poor can pay negative taxes then anything goes.
And it’s perfectly valid to say that there is unfair predjudice against gay couples because they’re denied the option of the ‘marriage loophole’. Claiming that marriage is cost-free is hyperbolic, certainly, but ignoring the limitation on gays in a thread specifically about it is hardly better.