Gay workers to get family leave (AP)

[David Floyd]

Yes, and if the policy affects federal employees only I agree it's the right thing to do. But the article doesn't say that.

Also, Hilda Solis is pretty much an idiot. Her latest gaffe revolves around a statement by her that illegal immigrants have a right to "fair wages". WTF?

[Hauldren Collider]

No they really don't although the fact that they are illegal is pretty retarded. The solution to illegal immigrants is to make illegal immigrants legal immigrants.

[David Floyd]

Yes, we already have a process to do that. The fact that they ignore the process shouldn't entitle them to a fast track to citizenship.

[Ben Kenobi]

The obvious answer to this is that the fair way around this is to recognize gay marriage.

Which means overriding what the federal government has already passed.

This is completely unworkable. If they leave this thing as is, there's nothing stopping employees from claiming 'partnership' benefits.

Are they restricted to just one? Because if not, then the employees could chain together.

[David Floyd]

Ideology aside, simply recognizing gay marriage quite logically solves your problem. If you aren't married, you don't qualify. Just because you don't think same sex marriage should be recognized doesn't disqualify it from being the most efficient solution.

[Ben Kenobi]

The most efficient solution is no partnership benefits whatsoever.

What I love is this.

You have employees A B C D

Employee A has a partnership with BCD

Employee B has a partnership with ACD

Employee C has a partnership with ABD

Employee D has a partnership with ABC

So for 4 employees you are paying out 12 employee benefits.

B=(N-1!)*2

[Kuciwalker]

how do gay men get newborn babies?

Okay, seriously. You're an idiot. Obviously, they steal them from hospitals.

[David Floyd]

Actually I kinda agree with that. The government should not be in the business of dictating family policy to private business. If my business wants to grant same sex partnership benefits (leave of absence, for example), that should be my right. If your business wants to only grant said benefits to heterosexual couples, that should be yours. In other words, I'm fine with businesses having the right to discriminate, as long as the government doesn't come in and rescue them when/if the results of that discrimination drive them out of business (ie, no such thing as too big to fail).

Of course, the federal government should be non-discriminatory, and grant the same benefits to everyone regardless of sex and gender, but that isn't really what we're talking about.

[Al B. Sure!]

The most efficient solution is no partnership benefits whatsoever.

What I love is this.

You have employees A B C D

Employee A has a partnership with BCD

Employee B has a partnership with ACD

Employee C has a partnership with ABD

Employee D has a partnership with ABC

So for 4 employees you are paying out 12 employee benefits.

B=(N-1!)*2

Que? You lost me there, Ben.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you allow multiple partner benefits, employees can make benefit rings with as few as two.

Say you have 6 employees with a permitted two partnerships per person.

(A) = BC
(B) = DE
(C) = FA
(D) = EF
(E) = AB
(F) = CD

Now everyone gets the maximum two beneficiaries, no one is out benefits, and the employer is paying double benefits to everyone.

Or you could get something like this:

(A) = BC
(B) = AC
(C) = AB
(D) = EC
(E) = FC
(F) = DC

Everyone is a beneficiary of at least one other person, and C gets 5x benefits.

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course, the federal government should be non-discriminatory, and grant the same benefits to everyone regardless of sex and gender, but that isn't really what we're talking about.

I don't see why private workers should be paying for benefits they themselves do not get.

[Asher]

WTF are you talking about multiple partner benefits you ****ing idiot?

[Hauldren Collider]

no one suggested polygamy in this thread or anywhere. I think ben is so used to his slippery slope argument that he whips it out even when it isn't relevant.

[Ben Kenobi]

The article says nothing about it being restricted to one partner.

[Hauldren Collider]

But it says nothing about it being open to more than one. Are you going to then assume that it covers polygamy?

Christ, you're just trying to find problems with it where they don't exist.

However I'd like to take a moment to point out that arguments for polygamy being morally reprehensible don't seem any more consistent than arguments for homosexuality being morally reprehensible. It is useful to keep in mind however that most of the time polygamists are scam artists.