If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Post)   In an interesting twist, a heterosexual man files human rights complaint to get the same benefits afforded to homosexuals   (news.nationalpost.com) divider line 98
    More: Interesting, gay parents, paid parental leave, heterosexuals, gays and lesbians, complaints, British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal  
•       •       •

11070 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 May 2014 at 4:51 AM (19 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



98 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-09 08:49:02 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: Here: according to the Male Privilege Checklist:

10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.
11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I'll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I'm even marginally competent. (
12. If I have children and a career, no one will think I'm selfish for not staying at home.
...
39. If I have children with my girlfriend or wife, I can expect her to do most of the basic childcare such as changing diapers and feeding.
40. If I have children with my wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we'll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.


Because  any perceived gender inequality always favors men.


Sounds like a lot of women out there have REALLY sh*tty taste in men.
 
2014-05-09 08:57:07 AM

Because People in power are Stupid: Here: according to the Male Privilege Checklist:

10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be called into question.
11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I'll be praised for extraordinary parenting if I'm even marginally competent. (
12. If I have children and a career, no one will think I'm selfish for not staying at home.
...
39. If I have children with my girlfriend or wife, I can expect her to do most of the basic childcare such as changing diapers and feeding.
40. If I have children with my wife or girlfriend, and it turns out that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are we'll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.


Because  any perceived gender inequality always favors men.


Numer 11 is the most wrong of all. Who are these people praising fathers? All I ever hear is "bfd it's easier for you because kids treat you differently."

/yeah because I'm more fun and don't coddle his ass
 
2014-05-09 09:02:01 AM

Tommy Moo: If you are a feminist and you support equalizing wages for women, and you do not support men being given paternity leave rights, then you are biting off your nose to spite your face. You can try all the wage-shoehorning you like, but the free market will get around it until we stop addressing the symptoms and start addressing the underlying causes. Women are at risk to take long leaves from work, while men are not. If men suddenly are seen as having the same risk, then employers will have to factor that completely out of the equation, and the relative value of women will increase, along with their compensation.


Well the ironic thing is that men actually don't earn that much more than women for equal positions (I think it is like 2-3% more for men, which is within the margin of error), it's just the study that Obama referenced took into account all jobs, so if more women are waitresses or teachers versus more men being STEM jobs (which, AFAIK, is true), basically makes it a real flawed study.

And childless people should get more vacation in this case, too
 
2014-05-09 09:08:16 AM

Luven: What about the single person who's paying higher rates and working longer hours so you can go fertilize your crotch fruit ?


There is no tax benefit to being married to a working spouse.   My wife and I pay taxes at the same rates as everyone else.   There is marginal benefit to having children, but it's really not much.  Certainly no where near the costs of raising a child (or even a non-refundable credit near the costs of raising a child.).

What you are paying for is education.  And when single folks biatch about that, I say: You can pay for schools and grow the economy, or you can pay for jails and shrink it.  By the way, the second option will cost more.
 
2014-05-09 09:11:44 AM

Tommy Moo: The more you eat the more you fart: Luven: What about the single person who's paying higher rates and working longer hours so you can go fertilize your crotch fruit ?

Its not a new parent's fault that you cant get someone to fark you.

Paying for your kids also isn't his problem.


That's how group insurance works. I also pay for other people who end up with cancer, heart disease, ALS....
 
2014-05-09 09:14:30 AM
This is over his employers top up plan. During maternity/parental leave the parents only get 60% of their salary from the government (up to $39,000/year). Many companies have benefits that top up the compensation on top of the federal ei payments.

When I adopted my son, I was told by my company that they only topped up the maternity portion of the leave (first 15 weeks that only biological mothers can take) and not the parental leave portion which adoptive parents and fathers can take.

Sounds like his company only tops up the maternity leave portion as well, but said the primary gay parent also gets to claim this benefit.

As an adoptive female parent who had heard all about my company's amazing benefit package for parents and didn't get squat because I didn't squeeze my son out of my body, I'd get all Sue-y too if they said Jimmy got them because he was married to Bob.
 
2014-05-09 09:43:59 AM

hasty ambush: Parental/maternity leave is stupid. If you cannot afford to take the time off to commit parenthood (for the most part a voluntary decision) why should others, tax payers and/or employers, have to assume the financial burden of that decision?


Presumably because it is in society's interest (as a whole) that people generate more future taxpayers. Keeps the civilization running, and we'll have people to take over running the place when we're old and just want to watch Matlock all day.
 
2014-05-09 09:46:15 AM

Tommy Moo: Paying for your kids also isn't his problem.


Same argument can be made against universal health care

hasty ambush: Parental/maternity leave is stupid. If you cannot afford to take the time off to commit parenthood (for the most part a voluntary decision) why should others, tax payers and/or employers, have to assume the financial burden of that decision?


Same argument can be made for having kids period.

QueenMamaBee: That's how group insurance works. I also pay for other people who end up with cancer, heart disease, ALS....


Yep, pretty much this.
 
2014-05-09 09:48:10 AM

BumpInTheNight: Luven: What about the single person who's paying higher rates and working longer hours so you can go fertilize your crotch fruit ?

Sucks to be you, forever alone guy.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-05-09 10:19:27 AM
What's it gonna take for a heterosexual man to get a fair shake in this world?
 
2014-05-09 10:19:56 AM
movieboozer.com
 
2014-05-09 10:32:37 AM

SpdrJay: Hey, if you can't suck the penefits, you can't get the benefits.


Nice. Also, what's good for the gander is good for the gander.

BRB, off to become a chalk-coloured Newfoundland Aboriginal. SCORE!
 
2014-05-09 10:42:02 AM
The only law that cannot be changed is the law of unintended consequences.

Make a change to the law to allow same-sex couples to enjoy the benefits afforded to heterosexual couples?  I have no problem with that, but folks shouldn't be surprised if some time down the road something else happens that wasn't predicted or fully thought through at the time of the change.
 
2014-05-09 10:42:49 AM

Di Atribe: What's it gonna take for a heterosexual man to get a fair shake in this world?


It effects his wife too. And as others have noted, it's a step toward overall gender equality.
 
2014-05-09 10:43:59 AM

Tommy Moo: If you are a feminist and you support equalizing wages for women, and you do not support men being given paternity leave rights...


img2.wikia.nocookie.net

Your comment sure does apply to a lot of people.
 
2014-05-09 10:48:47 AM

QuesoDelicioso: hasty ambush: Parental/maternity leave is stupid. If you cannot afford to take the time off to commit parenthood (for the most part a voluntary decision) why should others, tax payers and/or employers, have to assume the financial burden of that decision?

Presumably because it is in society's interest (as a whole) that people generate more future taxpayers. Keeps the civilization running, and we'll have people to take over running the place when we're old and just want to watch Matlock all day.


Childless couples opened the door for this argument. You already get a separate tax break for children anyway.
 
2014-05-09 10:51:51 AM

QuesoDelicioso: hasty ambush: Parental/maternity leave is stupid. If you cannot afford to take the time off to commit parenthood (for the most part a voluntary decision) why should others, tax payers and/or employers, have to assume the financial burden of that decision?

Presumably because it is in society's interest (as a whole) that people generate more future taxpayers. Keeps the civilization running, and we'll have people to take over running the place when we're old and just want to watch Matlock all day.


Please don't feed the trolls.
 
2014-05-09 11:04:44 AM

Theaetetus: Tommy Moo: If you are a feminist and you support equalizing wages for women, and you do not support men being given paternity leave rights...



Your comment sure does apply to a lot of people.


Yeah, I thought feminists fought for equality? Any "feminist" who would be against paternity leave is likely a misandrist instead.

Anyway, I know this is a story out of Canada, but parental leave in the US is downright abominable. I'd love to see Americans enjoying the level of healthcare our Canadian pals enjoy.
 
2014-05-09 11:06:22 AM

Tommy Moo: If you are a feminist and you support equalizing wages for women, and you do not support men being given paternity leave rights, then you are biting off your nose to spite your face. You can try all the wage-shoehorning you like, but the free market will get around it until we stop addressing the symptoms and start addressing the underlying causes. Women are at risk to take long leaves from work, while men are not. If men suddenly are seen as having the same risk, then employers will have to factor that completely out of the equation, and the relative value of women will increase, along with their compensation.


As a feminist who knows many other feminists, I can't think of ANYONE who wouldn't support full paternity leave. We would love for men to be able to be the primary parent, if they (and their partners) want! I totally agree re: wages. As a lady scientist, I would like to be paid the same as gentleman scientists in an equivalent position, thank you very much.
 
2014-05-09 11:13:09 AM

QueenMamaBee: Tommy Moo: The more you eat the more you fart: Luven: What about the single person who's paying higher rates and working longer hours so you can go fertilize your crotch fruit ?

Its not a new parent's fault that you cant get someone to fark you.

Paying for your kids also isn't his problem.

That's how group insurance works. I also pay for other people who end up with cancer, heart disease, ALS....


Difference is, no one chooses to get cancer or ALS. Some people lead unhealthy lifestyles and so choose to have a higher risk of heart disease, but we justly make these people pay higher premiums. Choosing to have a child should also be taxed.
 
2014-05-09 11:17:15 AM

dstrick44: Luven: What about the single person who's paying higher rates and working longer hours so you can go fertilize your crotch fruit ?

Who's forcing you to put in longer hours?
Seems like more money, split one
way = Good Thing


LOLLOLLOLLOLLOL

"More money." You're a funny Farker!

"Salaried work" proved to be the greatest hoax ever perpetuated on the working person. Especially given that we demanded it.
 
2014-05-09 11:19:44 AM

HAMMERTOE: It doesn't stop there. Keep fighting until true equality is achieved. Those of you heterosexuals who would join the military, make it clear that being segregated from the opposite sex in the barracks is a clear and indefensible denial of equal rights.


You're just fishing for someone to post the nude coed shower scene from Starship Troopers.
 
2014-05-09 11:25:30 AM

jso2897: This guy will win without a fight. If there even IS a rule that says he can't be designated caregiver - he is basing his protest on hs own reading of the rules. But you can tell by what the official said that if he's right, they are going to change the rule. That would just be stupid. Assuming we are talking about the parental benefits.
On the other hand, neither partner in a gay male marriage is going to get maternity benefits, and he shouldn't either.


A major employer in MD was potentially facing a fight over denying opposite-sex unmarried partner benefits even though they offer same-sex partner benefits. Then MD voted in gay marriage.

Now they're trying to figure out how to eliminate the same-sex unmarried partner benefit with as little fanfare or fight as possible.
 
2014-05-09 11:30:58 AM

brimed03: jso2897: This guy will win without a fight. If there even IS a rule that says he can't be designated caregiver - he is basing his protest on hs own reading of the rules. But you can tell by what the official said that if he's right, they are going to change the rule. That would just be stupid. Assuming we are talking about the parental benefits.
On the other hand, neither partner in a gay male marriage is going to get maternity benefits, and he shouldn't either.

A major employer in MD was potentially facing a fight over denying opposite-sex unmarried partner benefits even though they offer same-sex partner benefits. Then MD voted in gay marriage.

Now they're trying to figure out how to eliminate the same-sex unmarried partner benefit with as little fanfare or fight as possible.


I hope unmarried people with roommates riot over it.
 
2014-05-09 11:34:52 AM

Ruiizu: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Luven: What about the single person who's paying higher rates and working longer hours so you can go fertilize your crotch fruit ?

Since you've chosen to forego your evolutionary duty and not produce offspring, your role in society as a sterile worker is to produce additional resources for the benefit of breeding pairs and thus improve the prospects of the community's young.

I'd argue that with current population, not breeding is actually doing a service  to our species in and of itself. Besides, breeding should only be done with those whose genes stand to benefit the whole in the longterm. Only way to get rid of bad genes (genetic illness, etc) is to prevent said genes from being bred forward.


And who determines the bad genes? Sickle-cell anemia is prevalent in those of African descent because it also confers an immunity to malaria, a much bigger killer in Africa.

Plus, even stipulating that you could draw up a list of wholly bad genes, how do you determine which balance of good/bad genes is a keeper and which is not? As an extreme, yet valid example, to my knowledge while there are a lot of smart people today there's only one Stephen Hawking. Not every field-revolutionizing genius can be as healthy as an Einstein.
 
2014-05-09 11:36:58 AM

zzrhardy: Luven: What about the single person who's paying higher rates and working longer hours so you can go fertilize your crotch fruit ?

I remained parasite free and was able to retire at 42. Have no qualms whatsoever about throwing a bit more into the kitty, to ensure when I am in the nursing home there is someone around who speaks English to tell the foreign workers to wipe my arse front to back, and not the other way around.


Have you considered a more permanent form of retirement? No? How about just retiring your mouth then.
 
2014-05-09 11:44:44 AM

moothemagiccow: Luven: What about the single person who's paying higher rates and working longer hours so you can go fertilize your crotch fruit ?

You're getting farked by your employer, not the breeders.


Not entirely true. The "breeders" are the ones demanding the benefit, and threatening to go work elsewhere if they don't get it. If employers want to keep the talent, they give in.

So in that sense, both the employers *and* the singletons are getting farked by the breeders.

I happen to think it's a good policy, fwiw. I also happen to agree with you here because, in practice, the reason singletons are getting farked over is that businesses expect the singletons to pick up the slack instead of hiring temp replacements.
 
2014-05-09 11:46:35 AM

Tommy Moo: QueenMamaBee: Tommy Moo: The more you eat the more you fart: Luven: What about the single person who's paying higher rates and working longer hours so you can go fertilize your crotch fruit ?

Its not a new parent's fault that you cant get someone to fark you.

Paying for your kids also isn't his problem.

That's how group insurance works. I also pay for other people who end up with cancer, heart disease, ALS....

Difference is, no one chooses to get cancer or ALS. Some people lead unhealthy lifestyles and so choose to have a higher risk of heart disease, but we justly make these people pay higher premiums. Choosing to have a child should also be taxed.


Do you know how group insurance rates work?
 
2014-05-09 11:46:46 AM

Danger Avoid Death: dready zim: moothemagiccow: dready zim: Luven: What about the single person who's paying higher rates and working longer hours so you can go fertilize your crotch fruit ?

They should get maternity/paternity leave too.

Paternity benefits, the key to wage equality for women.

If a guy has just as much chance of taking 6 months off every 2-3 years for the next couple of decades then you`ll pay them less too.

What? You didn`t think they would raise womens pay to create equality did you?

Six months? What do you think this is, France? You're lucky to get six weeks.

Sorry, I live in the UK where we get decent amounts of time with the newborn.

Pffft. Nanny state.


Technically, this policy makes them an anti-nanny state.
 
2014-05-09 11:50:02 AM
If this were the U.S. and not Canada, we'd be rightfully mocking this moran for choosing not to realize that not even mothers get paid maternity leave, same-sex coupled or not.

/seriously, WTF is WRONG with the U.S.??
 
2014-05-09 11:52:58 AM

hasty ambush: Parental/maternity leave is stupid. If you cannot afford to take the time off to commit parenthood (for the most part a voluntary decision) why should others, tax payers and/or employers, have to assume the financial burden of that decision?


Because those who choose to become parents produce the next generation of taxpayers? The ones who will keep society running when your crotchety useless ass is demanding service at the senior center?
 
2014-05-09 11:59:00 AM
Luckily in 'Murica we don't have to worry about this. No one has any right to any time off. Don't try to hide behind some commie labor-rights, we'll still fire your arse.
 
2014-05-09 12:02:56 PM

machoprogrammer: Tommy Moo: If you are a feminist and you support equalizing wages for women, and you do not support men being given paternity leave rights, then you are biting off your nose to spite your face. You can try all the wage-shoehorning you like, but the free market will get around it until we stop addressing the symptoms and start addressing the underlying causes. Women are at risk to take long leaves from work, while men are not. If men suddenly are seen as having the same risk, then employers will have to factor that completely out of the equation, and the relative value of women will increase, along with their compensation.

Well the ironic thing is that men actually don't earn that much more than women for equal positions (I think it is like 2-3% more for men, which is within the margin of error), it's just the study that Obama referenced took into account all jobs, so if more women are waitresses or teachers versus more men being STEM jobs (which, AFAIK, is true), basically makes it a real flawed study.

And childless people should get more vacation in this case, too


Wow you're obtuse.

Never occurred to you that those low-paying professions are female-heavy because women have until recently been locked out of the higher-paying ones, especially STEM jobs?

And btw, there was a famous study done not long ago at, I believe, MIT where it was discovered that female STEM researchers were systematically being given lower pay, smaller lab spaces and staffs, and less institutional research money. This was discovered by a female STEM researcher there who actually set out to prove the opposite. That case also goes on to show a textbook example of how an institution should respond to such discoveries. MIT is now one of the most equitable places to work, and it was accomplished in less than ten years without lowering male researchers' pay/support.
 
2014-05-09 12:18:53 PM

mightybaldking: Luven: What about the single person who's paying higher rates and working longer hours so you can go fertilize your crotch fruit ?

There is no tax benefit to being married to a working spouse.   My wife and I pay taxes at the same rates as everyone else.   There is marginal benefit to having children, but it's really not much.  Certainly no where near the costs of raising a child (or even a non-refundable credit near the costs of raising a child.).

What you are paying for is education.  And when single folks biatch about that, I say: You can pay for schools and grow the economy, or you can pay for jails and shrink it.  By the way, the second option will cost more.


That's not, I think, what Luven is referring to. Employers routinely charge singletons higher insurance rates than they'd otherwise pay in order to lower the rates for married-with-kids. Singletons being more mobile than employees with families, employees would rather appear more competitive to you since you're more likely (to their way of thinking) to stay put... plus, married-w-kids are more likely to be farther along in their careers-- i.e., higher up the company ladder-- and thus more expensive to replace.

Luven is also saying that, while you're away on family leave, your employer typically doesn't hire a skilled temp worker to do your job. Instead, the singletons in the office are tacitly or explicitly expected to take over your duties, resulting in longer hours and usually little or no extra pay.

Speaking as a singleton, I agree with you about the tax thing and I routinely vote for higher local taxes that go towards education. But I hope that you can agree that businesses are screwing singletons. Luven's sole mistake here is blaming married-w-kids for unfair *employer* policies.
 
2014-05-09 12:20:21 PM

QueenMamaBee: Tommy Moo: The more you eat the more you fart: Luven: What about the single person who's paying higher rates and working longer hours so you can go fertilize your crotch fruit ?

Its not a new parent's fault that you cant get someone to fark you.

Paying for your kids also isn't his problem.

That's how group insurance works. I also pay for other people who end up with cancer, heart disease, ALS....


Great point. Lots of married-w-kids are paying extra to support singletons with expensive medical conditions.
 
2014-05-09 12:26:20 PM

Zasteva: QuesoDelicioso: hasty ambush: Parental/maternity leave is stupid. If you cannot afford to take the time off to commit parenthood (for the most part a voluntary decision) why should others, tax payers and/or employers, have to assume the financial burden of that decision?

Presumably because it is in society's interest (as a whole) that people generate more future taxpayers. Keeps the civilization running, and we'll have people to take over running the place when we're old and just want to watch Matlock all day.

Please don't feed the trolls.


Sadly that's not trolling. In workplaces over the years I've heard *a lot* of people voice that opinion. Usually single twenty-somethings lacking in a wider understanding of the world.
 
2014-05-09 12:33:51 PM

Tommy Moo: QueenMamaBee: Tommy Moo: The more you eat the more you fart: Luven: What about the single person who's paying higher rates and working longer hours so you can go fertilize your crotch fruit ?

Its not a new parent's fault that you cant get someone to fark you.

Paying for your kids also isn't his problem.

That's how group insurance works. I also pay for other people who end up with cancer, heart disease, ALS....

Difference is, no one chooses to get cancer or ALS. Some people lead unhealthy lifestyles and so choose to have a higher risk of heart disease, but we justly make these people pay higher premiums. Choosing to have a child should also be taxed.


I'm not aware that people choosing "unhealthy lifestyles" are charged higher health insurance premiums, at least not in the group health plans that make up most of the market. I do know it has been discussed, and it's a chilling concept. Might seem obvious in the case of someone who chooses to smoke. What happens when they extend it to people who choose to take up "risky" behaviors like rock climbing? Or "choose" to have longer commutes, and are therefore at greater risk of auto accidents with attendant health risks?
 
2014-05-09 12:39:49 PM

genner: brimed03: jso2897: This guy will win without a fight. If there even IS a rule that says he can't be designated caregiver - he is basing his protest on hs own reading of the rules. But you can tell by what the official said that if he's right, they are going to change the rule. That would just be stupid. Assuming we are talking about the parental benefits.
On the other hand, neither partner in a gay male marriage is going to get maternity benefits, and he shouldn't either.

A major employer in MD was potentially facing a fight over denying opposite-sex unmarried partner benefits even though they offer same-sex partner benefits. Then MD voted in gay marriage.

Now they're trying to figure out how to eliminate the same-sex unmarried partner benefit with as little fanfare or fight as possible.

I hope unmarried people with roommates riot over it.


And maybe they should stop covering one's legally married partner of either gender, since women are no longer shut out of the working world and can therefore get their own insurance.

See how stupid your comment sounds when mirrored back? Or did that, also, actually sound like a good idea to you?

Good lord, I think I'm talking to Catbert here.
 
2014-05-09 01:04:12 PM
www.dairyqueen.com
 
2014-05-09 01:17:45 PM
Equality for all.

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting, Nancy.
 
2014-05-09 01:43:05 PM

brimed03: genner


brimed03: genner: brimed03: jso2897: This guy will win without a fight. If there even IS a rule that says he can't be designated caregiver - he is basing his protest on hs own reading of the rules. But you can tell by what the official said that if he's right, they are going to change the rule. That would just be stupid. Assuming we are talking about the parental benefits.
On the other hand, neither partner in a gay male marriage is going to get maternity benefits, and he shouldn't either.

A major employer in MD was potentially facing a fight over denying opposite-sex unmarried partner benefits even though they offer same-sex partner benefits. Then MD voted in gay marriage.

Now they're trying to figure out how to eliminate the same-sex unmarried partner benefit with as little fanfare or fight as possible.

I hope unmarried people with roommates riot over it.

And maybe they should stop covering one's legally married partner of either gender, since women are no longer shut out of the working world and can therefore get their own insurance.

See how stupid your comment sounds when mirrored back? Or did that, also, actually sound like a good idea to you?

Good lord, I think I'm talking to Catbert here.


No you don't have to remove benefits. Just allow people to put another person on their insurance regardless of marital status.
 
2014-05-09 01:49:49 PM

HAMMERTOE: It doesn't stop there. Keep fighting until true equality is achieved. Those of you heterosexuals who would join the military, make it clear that being segregated from the opposite sex in the barracks is a clear and indefensible denial of equal rights.


You never saw a WM in the AM.

Fubini: I'll give you a hint: there isn't a big silo full of babies where you can drop by whenever you want.


You have to eat your way out of a babby silo, everyone knows that.
 
2014-05-09 02:35:04 PM
I find it funny that a straight man wants rights.
 
2014-05-09 02:38:34 PM
As a dude who likes dudes I think this is completely reasonable.
 
2014-05-09 04:13:11 PM

genner: brimed03: genner

brimed03: genner: brimed03: jso2897: This guy will win without a fight. If there even IS a rule that says he can't be designated caregiver - he is basing his protest on hs own reading of the rules. But you can tell by what the official said that if he's right, they are going to change the rule. That would just be stupid. Assuming we are talking about the parental benefits.
On the other hand, neither partner in a gay male marriage is going to get maternity benefits, and he shouldn't either.

A major employer in MD was potentially facing a fight over denying opposite-sex unmarried partner benefits even though they offer same-sex partner benefits. Then MD voted in gay marriage.

Now they're trying to figure out how to eliminate the same-sex unmarried partner benefit with as little fanfare or fight as possible.

I hope unmarried people with roommates riot over it.

And maybe they should stop covering one's legally married partner of either gender, since women are no longer shut out of the working world and can therefore get their own insurance.

See how stupid your comment sounds when mirrored back? Or did that, also, actually sound like a good idea to you?

Good lord, I think I'm talking to Catbert here.

No you don't have to remove benefits. Just allow people to put another person on their insurance regardless of marital status.


OK, 'cuz it sounded awfully like you were trying to argue-by-hyperbole against allowing unmarried hetero partners to be insured through one's health care.  What you suggested was-- coincidentally-- a rephrasing of a common, if stupid, argument raised by people who didn't want to let gays and lesbians list their partners before gay marriage started becoming legal.  That is: it was argued that you'd have "hund thou millions perpetuating unproveable fraud by claiming to be partners when they're just roommates!!1!"  The counter-point to which is: shut up, there will be some fraud but no more than already exists with hetero people getting paper marriages so they can get on someone's insurance and you're not screaming about that so.. shut up.

I apologize if I misunderstood you.  I'm not sure I'm willing to go quite as far as letting people put just anyone on their policies regardless of marital status, but I'm glad to hear we're not just debating whaargarble.
 
2014-05-09 07:32:12 PM

timujin: Good.  Either parent should be able to claim "primary caregiver" rights to an infant and get the benefits that come from that.  It shouldn't be based on the parents' sex or sexual orientation.

/heterosexual who has no plans to have kids and, therefore, doesn't benefit from this in any fashion


Exactly dad's should get parental leave.
 
2014-05-09 07:37:53 PM

Glenscotia: This is over his employers top up plan. During maternity/parental leave the parents only get 60% of their salary from the government (up to $39,000/year). Many companies have benefits that top up the compensation on top of the federal ei payments.

When I adopted my son, I was told by my company that they only topped up the maternity portion of the leave (first 15 weeks that only biological mothers can take) and not the parental leave portion which adoptive parents and fathers can take.

Sounds like his company only tops up the maternity leave portion as well, but said the primary gay parent also gets to claim this benefit.

As an adoptive female parent who had heard all about my company's amazing benefit package for parents and didn't get squat because I didn't squeeze my son out of my body, I'd get all Sue-y too if they said Jimmy got them because he was married to Bob.


The maternity leave portion is for recovering from childbirth. You were not recovering from childbirth. Ergo you did not get it.

Think of it as medical leave. Hell, in the states its the same thing. It's NOT leave to take care of the kid. That's the fathers job while she's recovering, at least.
 
2014-05-09 07:43:43 PM

Slam1263: HAMMERTOE: It doesn't stop there. Keep fighting until true equality is achieved. Those of you heterosexuals who would join the military, make it clear that being segregated from the opposite sex in the barracks is a clear and indefensible denial of equal rights.

You never saw a WM in the AM.

Fubini: I'll give you a hint: there isn't a big silo full of babies where you can drop by whenever you want.

You have to eat your way out of a babby silo, everyone knows that.


Almost peed myself.. I don't know why but that really made me laugh. Kudos.
 
Displayed 48 of 98 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report