UPS provides benefits to Civil Union Partners

[athena]

Too much of this discussion focuses on being gay. the point of being gay is not the issue here in my mind. I want to see how this will be policed since we don't have the traditional marriage and divorce to define the beginning and end of the relationship. I therefore believe the process is rife for fraud as it now exists.

So there just needs to be a system put in place (or use a current system-i.e. the current marriage licensing system) to record the civil unions. A legal marriage in some states does not even require this (common law marriage-people who have lived together in a relationship for a specified amount of time are considered married). Additionally, the marriage/divorce records are just legal papers stating that each person is responsible for the other. We provide this same type of legal relationship between parents and adult children. I don't really see how this can be such a great obstacle that can't be overcome easily.

will you fight for mans right to marry an animal next?

As has been state before, the relationship between 2 consenting adults is not the same as a relationship between an adult and an animal or a child for that matter. Neither animal nor child can understand the true commitment of being in a relationship that requires each being to be responsible for the other being.

Ghandi was an indian. We live in america where our hero's who fought for equality also had marriages, concieved children and lived within the guidelines of christianity.

What does Ghandi being an Indian have anything to do with anything? Oh he wasn't Christian so he can't be right? Likewise, what does having children and being in a marriage have anything to do with being a hero? So the men and women who fought for your equality but never married or had children are not heroes? There have been plenty of "heroes" in our country's history that had children and were married and didn't consider anyone but white males that owned land to be there equal. Everyone else was less in their eyes and in the eyes of the law. (Consider the Declaration of Independence being written and signed in America when slavery was being practiced). The arguments you make sound awfully similar to those arugments used to refuse rights to blacks and women for so long.

I am getting tired of people using Christianity as a foundation for treating people differently. I know I could never agree with all the choices and opinions you have made but that does not give me the right to deny you "certain unalienable rights".

 

[aspenleaf]

Too much of this discussion focuses on being gay. the point of being gay is not the issue here in my mind. I want to see how this will be policed since we don't have the traditional marriage and divorce to define the beginning and end of the relationship. I therefore believe the process is rife for fraud as it now exists.

tie ~ just like heterosexual marriages the homosexual unions would or should have a document. I think there is more of a chance for fraud in heterosexual marriages and I believe that many stayed married even after the “relationship” has ended to keep benefits. Heterosexuals get married for various reasons and undying love is not always the main reason.

I would like to know how many of you view common law marriage as a “real” marriage? Many of you have stated that marriage is “holy” and religious; yet common law does not fit that description. So should only people with “real” marriages be allowed to have “partner/ spousal” benefits? I know that common law is not legal in all the states (I think only 10 or 12) and the “rules” vary by state. What I find odd is there is not proof of when that relationship started since there was no marriage license but they have to get a divorce to end it. (Some States make the couple sign a paper so I guess they would have a start date.)

 

[brett636]

I am with tie on this one. There is just no good way to be sure people that are claiming to be "partners" are really gay or are just saying so to get the benefits. I believe adam sandler has a movie coming out soon highlighting this exact issue. I really don't care if someone chooses to be gay, but they should understand that they are not in a traditional relationship, and they should not expect the same treatment as one. If their partner wants medical benefits they can apply to UPS and work there too.

Lets also not forget the double standard we are setting here. I know plenty of people who live with their signifigant other who is of the opposite sex, and they will not be afforded these benefits. If I wanted to add my girlfriend to my health insurance I would have to marry her first. Now I am not complaining about this, as that is how it should be no matter what your sexual orientation is.

 

[athena]

I really don't care if someone chooses to be gay, but they should understand that they are not in a traditional relationship, and they should not expect the same treatment as one. If their partner wants medical benefits they can apply to UPS and work there too.

Lets also not forget the double standard we are setting here. I know plenty of people who live with their signifigant other who is of the opposite sex, and they will not be afforded these benefits. If I wanted to add my girlfriend to my health insurance I would have to marry her first. Now I am not complaining about this, as that is how it should be no matter what your sexual orientation is.

First, it seems that you are subjecting others to your own sense of what a relationship is (the typical Judeo-Christian ideas) teating people differently because they have different beliefs.

Second, I agree you would have to marry your girlfriend to get benefits. You would have to make that lifetime commitment to her. This is exactly what the GLBT individuals are doing. They are entering into a lifetime commitment to one another. They are getting married even if the law does not recognize it has a "marriage". The double standard is this not recognizing of the "marriage" and treating these individuals different because they don't believe the same things as you.

 

[Fighting4yourRights]

Homophobia is defined as "the fear, anxiety, anger, discomfort and aversion that some ostensibly heterosexual people hold for gay individuals -- is the result of repressed homosexual urges that the person is either unaware of or denies."

A study conducted at the University of Georgia found that men scoring high on a measure of homophobia also expereinced erections, at levels greater than chance, in response to homosexual pornography.

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm

What do you think?

 

[Fighting4yourRights]

Poor kid. That is messed up. You are definately right about AIDS. One fact that gays and the gay cheerleaders out there ignore, or just don't know about, is that the type of sex (anal) gay men have is more likely to spread AIDS then regular hetero sex. Even if a condom is used. I forget that exact stats on that but I remember it was unreal. Maybe they were twice as likely to contract AIDS. Feel free to look it up. AIDS was even called "The Gay Plague" before. Maybe the title was warranted. Yes, heteros can contract diseases that way too but we all know how gays get down. LOL.

Great Piont Big-Arrow, except condoms are used to protect against the contraction of HIV in both gay and straight people. A rubber is not always 100% effective and it does not know the difference between uses and functions. Aids is spread in both populations: gay and straight. The argument you bring up is a great platform for the 1980's.

 

[sendagain]

I think the rise in the homosexual agenda of demanding a removal of the stigma of their behavior is not an elevation in man's thinking but a confusion of their morality. To label Christianity a vehicle of hatred is to completely miss the message of the forgiveness of God leading man to repentance and eternal life. God is dealing with the bigger picture of souls created for eternal destinies, either being spent with him or in opposition to him. If there is no God to stand before; no God who will judge man in his righteousness; then you can be whoever you want. But if God has revealed his truth, failure to receive it will result in a coming disaster for that soul, a realization that you are unable to be your own God.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Great Piont Big-Arrow, except condoms are used to protect against the contraction of HIV in both gay and straight people. A rubber is not always 100% effective and it does not know the difference between uses and functions. Aids is spread in both populations: gay and straight. The argument you bring up is a great platform for the 1980's.

What? A great platform for the 1980's? What is wrong with you? That "arguement" is a good platform for any decade and you totally missed the point and I'll make it again.....anal sex, even with a condom, is more likely to spread AIDS/HIV and other diseases than vaginal sex. And what group of people are primarily having anal sex? Gay men. Yes, anal sex is not uncommon among the rest of the couples but it's primarily a staple of gay male partners.

 

[Fighting4yourRights]

What? A great platform for the 1980's? What is wrong with you? That "arguement" is a good platform for any decade and you totally missed the point and I'll make it again.....anal sex, even with a condom, is more likely to spread AIDS/HIV and other diseases than vaginal sex. And what group of people are primarily having anal sex? Gay men. Yes, anal sex is not uncommon among the rest of the couples but it's primarily a staple of gay male partners.

Detailed Answer: AIDS (a result of HIV infection) is caused by a virus (HIV) that spreads through blood-to-blood or sexual contact with someone who has the virus. HIV can also be spread from a mother with HIV to her baby during pregnancy or through breast feeding. The body fluids that transmit HIV are blood, semen, vaginal fluids, breast milk and other body fluids containing blood. The principal ways that people become infected with HIV are through: •

• Sharing needles and syringes with someone who has the virus.
• Having sex -- vaginal, oral or anal -- with someone who has the virus.
• A baby’s exposure to his or her HIV-positive mother during pregnancy or birth or through breast feeding.

Before testing began in 1985, some people became infected with HIV through receiving blood transfusions, blood components or blood clotting factors, or through transplants of organs infected with the virus. Since 1985, testing of blood products and organs for transplants has improved greatly, and such transmission is very rare now. The virus does not spread from person to person by casual everyday contact, nor does it spread through the air or in water.

 

[Fighting4yourRights]

"The gay plague" ?

 

[brett636]

First, it seems that you are subjecting others to your own sense of what a relationship is (the typical Judeo-Christian ideas) teating people differently because they have different beliefs.

Second, I agree you would have to marry your girlfriend to get benefits. You would have to make that lifetime commitment to her. This is exactly what the GLBT individuals are doing. They are entering into a lifetime commitment to one another. They are getting married even if the law does not recognize it has a "marriage". The double standard is this not recognizing of the "marriage" and treating these individuals different because they don't believe the same things as you.

Its not a matter of religious beliefs as it doesn't have to go that deep. Its just the common sense notion that it takes one male and one female to reproduce and create a family. A man/man or woman/woman relationship can't do that as its not how nature intended. Quite simply you, me and everyone else on this site would not be here had it not been for natures ingenious design for our species to have two sexes.

The only reason homosexual relationships exist is due to our human ability to choose for ourselves relationships that exist outside our best interests. A person who is gay chooses so just as a person chooses to commit suicide. Such a person should not expect the same treatment as two people who exist in a normal relationship.

 

[705red]

I have to chime in on this! If ups will be giving benefits to gay people, who cannot legally be married in most states, then whats stopping them from giving medical beefits to boy friend and girlfriend, how about my grand kids, we can go on and on about this.

Hey mr fighting for my rights how about getting all p-timers that work at ups dependant coverage gor their legitamate families before getting tommy and johnny medical. Imagine the money they will save on viagra now!

 

[cachsux]

Quite simply you, me and everyone else on this site would not be here had it not been for natures ingenious design for our species to have two sexes.

Actually my dad was a beaker and my mom was a test tube

 

[athena]

Its not a matter of religious beliefs as it doesn't have to go that deep. Its just the common sense notion that it takes one male and one female to reproduce and create a family. A man/man or woman/woman relationship can't do that as its not how nature intended. Quite simply you, me and everyone else on this site would not be here had it not been for natures ingenious design for our species to have two sexes.

Nature instead of religion. Ok. The world is now becoming overpopulated. Infant mortality rates are decreasing and more individuals are living much longer. You could make the argument that nature now intends for there to be fewer reproductions of the human species.

The only reason homosexual relationships exist is due to our human ability to choose for ourselves relationships that exist outside our best interests. A person who is gay chooses so just as a person chooses to commit suicide. Such a person should not expect the same treatment as two people who exist in a normal relationship.

How are you defining "normal"? The husband goes to work and the wife stays home with the children they have produced? In whose best interest does this relationship serve, especially considering the problems with overpopulation? What about children that are born in locations where the parents can barely feed them. The child was conceived from a man and a woman. Does this serve "our" best interests? Does it serve the child's? This definition of "normal" sounds a lot like it has a Christian base. I'm not saying you have to agree with homosexuality. But, I do think it is wrong for you to judge these individuals as not being "normal" and then discriminate against them.

 

[upsguysavannah]

Imagine the money they will save on viagra now!

Viagra - and Cialis and Levitra, for that matter - are not covered by our prescription plan. Oh, and straight men use these drugs, too. And since, according to many estimates, roughly 10% of our population is gay, then the other 90% (straights) would collectively save 9x what the gay population would save on these drugs if they were to be covered. Just a little fun fact.

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Detailed Answer: AIDS (a result of HIV infection) is caused by a virus (HIV) that spreads through blood-to-blood or sexual contact with someone who has the virus. HIV can also be spread from a mother with HIV to her baby during pregnancy or through breast feeding. The body fluids that transmit HIV are blood, semen, vaginal fluids, breast milk and other body fluids containing blood. The principal ways that people become infected with HIV are through: •

• Sharing needles and syringes with someone who has the virus.
• Having sex -- vaginal, oral or anal -- with someone who has the virus.
• A baby’s exposure to his or her HIV-positive mother during pregnancy or birth or through breast feeding.

Before testing began in 1985, some people became infected with HIV through receiving blood transfusions, blood components or blood clotting factors, or through transplants of organs infected with the virus. Since 1985, testing of blood products and organs for transplants has improved greatly, and such transmission is very rare now. The virus does not spread from person to person by casual everyday contact, nor does it spread through the air or in water.

Still missing the point aren't you? If you haven't yet then you wont.

 

[cachsux]

If we`re going to inject nature into this subject it has been scientifically proven that in some situations nature will cause changes to species to either allow or curb species reproduction. This includes gender transformation to allow reproduction and gender assimilation (like sexes grouping together) to prevent overpopulation.



Lesbian Frogs.......Cool

 

[moreluck]

Nature can also adjust the other way and a species will have both male & female and be able to reproduce too. I think I read that about some worm.

 

[brett636]

Nature instead of religion. Ok. The world is now becoming overpopulated. Infant mortality rates are decreasing and more individuals are living much longer. You could make the argument that nature now intends for there to be fewer reproductions of the human species.

You call me religious, yet you refer to nature as some divine being making decisions about the population status of our species. I am not attempting to hypothesize what nature may or may not be intending for our future. I am simply stating how we were originally designed to behave. Given our level of conciousness we don't always behave the way nature intended. Mothers have been known to kill their own children. People take their own lives through suicide, or they simply choose to be gay. Either way its not how we were designed to be.

How are you defining "normal"? The husband goes to work and the wife stays home with the children they have produced? In whose best interest does this relationship serve, especially considering the problems with overpopulation? What about children that are born in locations where the parents can barely feed them. The child was conceived from a man and a woman. Does this serve "our" best interests? Does it serve the child's? This definition of "normal" sounds a lot like it has a Christian base. I'm not saying you have to agree with homosexuality. But, I do think it is wrong for you to judge these individuals as not being "normal" and then discriminate against them.

Your paranoia of christianity is blinding you from comprehending my point. Being normal, as I am defining, has nothing to do with how a couple interacts. Its based merely on the fact that a long-term, loving, and sexual relationship involves one man, and one woman. That is a normal relationship, and irregardless of whether those conditions exist between two men or two women doesn't make them normal because the sexes do not match up. This isn't rocket science, just very basic biology.

Expecting the same treatment as a heterosexual couple, or considering yourself discriminated because you aren't allowed marriage is asinine. You choose to be in your current relationship, and society has no responsibility to change its definitions of marriage and normal relationships to fit you. You made your bed, now sleep in it.

 

[govols019]

So, you're saying that being gay is strictly a choice someone makes? Like choosing PB&J over a ham sandwich?