Results so far:
| No | 38% | 81 votes | Total: 211 votes | |
| Yes | 62% | 130 votes |
to pay the insurance costs of two people or less for them. That is much less expensive than ensuring the spouse and family of a man or woman who is married and has three children. Or even a single parent with two or three children.
It seems to me that insuring traditional marriage partners of employees and not insuring or extending benefits to employees who choose same sex partners is outright discrimination and should not be borne. If the employee and the work that they do are valued by an employer they certainly do not pay someone of comparable skill and job discription different scales of pay based upon their sexual orientation or their relationship status. If the employee is in a recognizable and long term relationship comparable with a marriage or is in a traditional marriage should have no bearing upon their work, nor the way that the employer should treat them or their families. It would seem that companies who do not extend the same rights and benefits to all of their employees are making a negative moral judgment upon their employees in regard to the lifestyle that they lead outside of their workplace. Regardless of the moral values or ideals of the employer, homosexual employees have the right to be with whomever they choose to be with that is their private life and their private choice. The addition of their spouse to their employee benefits entitlement should be extended without question as it is for a wife or a husband of a heterosexual employee. After all the purpose of extending employee benefits to their immediate family is employee retention and happiness in their job right? That is important regardless of whom the employee goes home to after they get off of work.
Learn more about this author, Shayd of thedesert.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Below are the top articles rated and ranked by Helium members on:
by R.A. Scott
One would have guessed that given the new century and with people of color making all the advances that they have since
Like so many debates on Helium, it is hard to have a clear cut answer as to why you chose the side you did. In this case,
When the topic of providing health insurance benefits to gay or lesbian partners has been cussed and discussed, the discussions
by Dale Hatton
Assuming that the business is located in a state where the same sex union is not recognized, the question now becomes a
Add your voice
Know something about Should employers provide employee benefits for same-sex partners of employees??
We want to hear your view.
Write now!
Featured Partner
International Human Rights Group
IHRG Mission Statement: Standing for Religious Liberties for All We believe that religious liberties are the fo...more
hide