Administration Making Sure Gay Families Can Suck Up Tax Dollars Too! Huzzah....

[Fandango 1,439]

It's hardly worth the trouble to try but you do know that measures designed to ameliorate family situations ALWAYS IMPACT WOMEN MORE THAN THEY DO MEN, RIGHT? Oh, and I am not a rampant feminist and have never burned a bra or 'roared' at anyone but again, thanks for the colourful language, pet.

You're straying from the argument you chose to start. tut tut!

[Niels Bohr 72]

Another post topic that is unrealistic. Pointless to debate with a brick wall who deny that fact there are gay people.

[Peikko 1,575]

You ignore the point.

Why should person A who have to pick up the slack for person B who chose to have a child???

You fail to see that allowing for differences in personal circumstances does not demand that person A picks up any slack from person B, how utterly backward you folks are. Making provision to allow people to take time off, or whatever is required to ensure family stability is not a perk or some kind of preferential treatment in any way, shape or form and in most instances, because most people eventually do have children, any rescheduling requirements that are demanded when children are young are balanced out by that same person giving the same courtesy to another employee at another point in time and children do grow up or have you forgotten that part?

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

sexual orientation and family arrangement should not matter. spouse benefits should be available to spouses...a gender neutral term. Child benefots should be available to children.

My step-children (I hate that term and never use it except for illustration here) are covered by my medical plan. Do you think they should not be? They are only "mine" due to marriage...does marriage mean nothing to you?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You fail to see that allowing for differences in personal circumstances does not demand that person A picks up any slack from person B, how utterly backward you folks are. Making provision to allow people to take time off, or whatever is required to ensure family stability is not a perk or some kind of preferential treatment in any way, shape or form and in most instances, because most people eventually do have children, any rescheduling requirements that are demanded when children are young are balanced out by that same person giving the same courtesy to another employee at another point in time and children do grow up or have you forgotten that part?

You make the assumption everyone has kids. Just because you think 'most' have kids, that's not the case for everyone.

If person B is allowed to take A time off for whatever reason, then person A should be allowed to take the same amount of time off for whatever reason. Regardless of what that reason may be.

sexual orientation and family arrangement should not matter. spouse benefits should be available to spouses...a gender neutral term. Child benefots should be available to children.

My step-children (I hate that term and never use it except for illustration here) are covered by my medical plan. Do you think they should not be? They are only "mine" due to marriage...does marriage mean nothing to you?

As part of a public-sector benefit, no they should not be covered.

[Fandango 1,439]

You fail to see that allowing for differences in personal circumstances does not demand that person A picks up any slack from person B, how utterly backward you folks are. Making provision to allow people to take time off, or whatever is required to ensure family stability is not a perk or some kind of preferential treatment in any way, shape or form and in most instances, because most people eventually do have children, any rescheduling requirements that are demanded when children are young are balanced out by that same person giving the same courtesy to another employee at another point in time and children do grow up or have you forgotten that part?

Of course it does, don't be daft.

I worked way more weekends and days before holidays than anyone else in my company. For years. Because I was childless.

If you can't do the same job, then you should not have the same job. With the same pay. We are not yet in a socialist era where I need to pick up mommy and daddy's slack as my duty to 'promote their choices'

[Peikko 1,575]

You make the assumption everyone has kids. Just because you think 'most' have kids, that's not the case for everyone.

If person B is allowed to take A time off for whatever reason, then person A should be allowed to take the same amount of time off for whatever reason. Regardless of what that reason may be.

Some companies allow for this - perhaps all should? I don't know, what I do know is that the impact of removing any possibility for people with family responsibilities to take their personal responsibilities seriously because a company will not provide time of for substantive reasons, not on some 'whim' would be disastrous and unworkable.

[Peikko 1,575]

Of course it does, don't be daft.

I worked way more weekends and days before holidays than anyone else in my company. For years. Because I was childless.

If you can't do the same job, then you should not have the same job. With the same pay. We are not yet in a socialist era where I need to pick up mommy and daddy's slack as my duty to 'promote their choices'

So what? Working holidays and weekends had less impact on someone who does not have a family, that's all there is to it. Presumably you had the same amount of days off, right? Quit bitching. I worked weekends for 15 years and I don't begrudge it at all.

[Fandango 1,439]

So what? Working holidays and weekends had less impact on someone who does not have a family, that's all there is to it. Presumably you had the same amount of days off, right? Quit bitching. I worked weekends for 15 years and I don't begrudge it at all.

I had a family too, why did that not matter as much?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So what? Working holidays and weekends had less impact on someone who does not have a family, that's all there is to it. Presumably you had the same amount of days off, right? Quit bitching. I worked weekends for 15 years and I don't begrudge it at all.

That's your opinion. Plain and simple.

[Peikko 1,575]

I had a family too, why did that not matter as much?

I think you can answer your own question. Whether or not the company you worked for treated you fairly or not I have no idea, but if it did not, that has nothing whatsoever to do with mandated provisions for parents of young children regarding the ability to take time off to take care of family responsibilities as and when that proves to be necessary. Such time off is not a 'perk' or preferential treatment and society at large recognizes the importance of such measures, even if you and Paul do not.

[Fandango 1,439]

I think you can answer your own question. Whether or not the company you worked for treated you fairly or not I have no idea, but if it did not, that has nothing whatsoever to do with mandated provisions for parents of young children regarding the ability to take time off to take care of family responsibilities as and when that proves to be necessary. Such time off is not a 'perk' or preferential treatment and society at large recognizes the importance of such measures, even if you and Paul do not.

Don't confuse my argument for Paul's, first of all...

Secondly, you're the one who had to put her big fat toe into this pond, so since you seem to be saying that 'family' is most important in deciding who is covering the needed shifts...why assume I didn't have one, or that mine didn't matter? I'm asking you, since you brought it up. What's your big theory on that one?

[trillium13 84]

I had a family too, why did that not matter as much?

As another person without children, I have oft wondered this myself.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's not really suprising that societies that remove the positive value ascribed to family relationships result in a general degradation of that society. Families are the bedrock of social structure and social structures drive how we all treat each other not simply members of our own families. We should be providing structures to encourage family cohesion, providing for people who have to take responsibility for elderly family members as well as children, not trying to remove all the glue that knits our society together in the name of fairness toward the childless.

[Peikko 1,575]

Don't confuse my argument for Paul's, first of all...

Secondly, you're the one who had to put her big fat toe into this pond, so since you seem to be saying that 'family' is most important in deciding who is covering the needed shifts...why assume I didn't have one, or that mine didn't matter? I'm asking you, since you brought it up. What's your big theory on that one?

I make no assumptions as to whether or not your family is or isn't important. You said you were 'childless' and that was why you were assigned more work at weekends and holidays. I don't know if that's the reason, I can't possibly know, but what I do know is that particular eventuality is not addressed by this bill in any shape or form. If therefore you are simply casting this out as an example of how life simply isn't fair for the childless, well, you will get no sympathy from me. It's a case of swings and roundabouts for the most part - working weekends usually brings benefits as well as costs, more business is done at weekends than weekdays and if your pay was customer driven (as it was) you benefited at least as much as you lost out so boo hoo.