Slashdot Mirror
Google To Add Pay To Cover a Tax For Gays
GrApHiX42 writes "Starting on Thursday, Google is going to increase the salaries of gay and lesbian employees whose partners receive domestic partner health benefits, largely to compensate them for an extra tax they must pay that heterosexual married couples do not. Google is not the first company to make up for the extra tax. At least a few large employers already do. But benefits experts say Google's move could inspire its Silicon Valley competitors to follow suit, because they compete for the same talent."
Why is it okay to discriminate against people in such an expensive way? That's like taxing tampons or pads because they know that 50% of people need them. It conflicts with the Christian moral agenda in the first place in so many ways...
Disagree != mod troll.
... a tax for gays? w...why?
Got a friend? Want more money?
If need be, you can use half the money to rent a friend.
Unmarried hetro couples are now discriminated against. They should get the same as the Gay/Lesbian couples, some people may not believe in marrage or may not want to get married for one reason or another. Why should they be forced to marry just to avoid a tax?
Boy, do I see a lawsuit brewing here. How can they legally justify paying straight people less than gays, if all other factors are equal? I don't care about any tax issues. Does Google pay an apartment dweller more just because they don't get a mortgage write-off? Do they pay a single person more because he can't claim to be a head-of-household under IRS rules like a married person does? Do they pay a blind person less because they get two personal exemptions rather than one on their ISR 1040? If their pay policy doesn't address these and a lot more tax inequities, then I hope that they get sued big time for a pay policy that actually favors gays over straight people. In short, it's not for Google to start correcting the unfairness of the tax system, and to do so in a discriminatory manner that favors gays over straights just isn't right or smart.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Why do gay couples pay more tax?
"Do you know your Sons might be Lesbians?"
It's just another way to hilight what Google feels is a better place to work. Sweeten the pot and hire workers before your competition. Nothing new in that regard - just publicity.
At someone's expense, of course, but hey, you can't owe your soul to the company store if it's not open..
are you some kind of moran... =p
From the article:
Working for a company as rich as Google comes with an incredible number of fringe benefits: the free food, the free laundry, the doctor on duty at company headquarters and the impressive five months of maternity leave with full pay and benefits, to mention a few.
Five months is impressive? 26 weeks (almost 6 months) is a legal right over here. In some countries it's much, much more!
You clearly know nothing about "periods" (menstruation) and birth control. Menstruation should happen every 28 days in theory but this is not the case in practice and many women have an irregular cycle that is not normal. Birth control pills regulate the cycle and most of other birth control methods have no influence (eg.: condoms).
Discriminating against a small minority isn't really any better than discriminating against 50% of people
Women live longer than men, and therefore on average receive more social security benefits than men (because it starts at the same age for both). Therefore, should it not be OK to pay men more to compensate them for the missed benefits? (The benefits received is not based on amounts paid in after a very low threshold is met.)
Sorry,two wrongs don't make a right. Plus, spare me the BS please. He's not proposing to deny you gay marriage or anything, he's just just saying basically that compensating that tax for one particular slice is still leaving out a whole other lot of slices which, for all practical purposes, are just as married.
It seems strange to me to see reactions basically boiling down to "booyah, now it's your turn to suck it up." Unless he is one of those that actually did anything against you in the first place, two wrongs just don't make a right.
And basically you're trying to prove what? That gays can be just as much self-centered pricks as the fundies on the other side? We already knew that. After all the most vehement anti-gay preachers turned out to _be_ gay.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
It's much better. If you discriminate against 50% of people, they might vote you out at the next election. If you discriminate against a small minority, everyone else says 'well, I'm not one of those (Jews, Communists, Gays, Gypsies, whatever), so I don't care' and lets you stay in power.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I am not familiar with US taxation and benefit systems but I wonder is there a way to fiddle this by pretending to be gay just to get a pay rise?
People who say it is wrong for the Google to do this because it is discriminatory against heterosexuals and others who don't get other types of tax write offs miss the point. A family created between people by whatever means people choose should be recognized by the government. Anything otherwise is discriminatory. It isn't necessarily discriminatory to give write offs to family though over individuals. We live in a welfare state and certain benefits are provided to you. Schooling, tax write-offs to your parents, etc. You received these once too even if it was indirectly. If I create a family with another man (I'm a guy) and raise a child with him than why shouldn't I also be entitled to the same tax write-offs and health benefits that any other hetrosexual family is entitled to? And the same thing basically applies to other write-offs for many other things like disabilities, etc. There may be things that the government allows you to write off that you shouldn't be able to write off or is discriminatory against the poor/rich classes. For instance if they allowed only high ticket items to be deductible for tax purposes and only taxed the lower part of your income. In effect making the poor pay the taxes and the rich pay nothing. Or possibly the exact opposite. In any case this issue is clear cut. Gays shouldn't pay more than anybody else. That's just wrong. If you want to tax the childless population- because they have a larger disposable income-maybe we can figure something out- but don't do it based on the Gay population- there is an identical family structure here that is utterly discriminatory.
Next, it is not natural for a woman to have a monthly period. That's a side effect of birth control. Go all natural, and you probably get a couple periods every couple years.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that this lack of basic knowledge of the human female reproductive system is strongly correlated with the fact that you have a 5-digit user ID.
Unless you think the vast majority of women on the planet are being surreptitiously fed contraceptive pills by some clandestine government agency, the statistics point to an average 1-month menstrual cycle. Bear in mind that records began before we knew about such things as the corpus luteum, oocytes, and probably back when we all blamed Eve for original sin and the bleeding from her hoo-hoo was the punishment.
Abnormal levels of oestrogen is linked to an increased risk of breast cancer, though.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Legalize it... Fixes the whole problem (and makes us look a little less like rednecks to the civilized world.)
Oops. Posting to undo fat-finger mod.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
I think the point was that if you "go all natural", you'll get pregnant way more often, and thus "get a couple periods every couple years."
But, what do I know? I'll return to my basement now.
No law can be defect-free, but consider the fact that every member of a Gay/Lesbian couple was once a child.
Some mostly-correct assumptions are implicit in the law. Kids are known to do better in intact families. (even kids that grow up to be gay) Kids do better with a stay-at-home parent, traditionally the mom. Hetero couples generally produce kids. Legal issues related to kids (inheritance, etc.) are easier with a married couple.
Even totally single people benefit from marriage-related tax breaks. Oh sure, having benefited as a child it would be mighty nice (totally selfish) to throw away the tax advantages for the generation that follows. Your childhood is comfy, and screw the next generation, hmmm?
It's kind of like social security, moving wealth across generations. The kids are at least a good investment; they cost less and aren't just waiting around to die. Better food or additional at-home parental time would do some good.
Think of the children, Gay ones included.
They are from United States of America.
It is not nice to make fun of disadvantaged people like that.
Either legalize same-sex marriage, or just do away with any kind of legal marriage at all. The latter is what I would do if I had my way. Why does the state meddle in what should be a commitment between two people?
And Google isn't helping same-sex couples much. Sure, they are making up for some tax exemptions those couples don't have, but in a wider view they are helping maintain the status quo of marriage laws that are flawed in the first place, in addition to discriminating against heterosexual unmarried couples.
Just sayin, Cmdr Taco!
People who say it is wrong for the Google to do this because it is discriminatory against heterosexuals and others who don't get other types of tax write offs miss the point. A family created between people by whatever means people choose should be recognized by the government.
Um, no.
I'm with Google on doing what we can to alleviate the discriminatory burden, but it's really you who is missing the point. The only "government recognition" of a "family" that should occur is establishing who is legally responsible for any minor children (and then only if there is a practical issue that needs to be resolved). Past that, the government needs to stay the hell out of "recognizing" *anything*.
There is no way for the government to "recognize" families in a non-discriminatory way, because there's always going to be a situation that doesn't conform to the government's view on what constitutes a "family", no matter how broad that view tries to be. The correct solution is to eliminate the recognition entirely.
You're missing the point. Everything you say about how it "should" be may be correct. But it isn't that way, and it's not for Google to discriminate one way to counteract the way it is vs. the way it should be. Why should *I* personally pay for the sins of *our* government?
The morons are those who are looking for morons. A pregnant woman won't, so once or twice a year is correct if this woman is anything like the women on the weather channel.
So what would you use that "human female reproductive system" for?
Parent's point being, there's no period when you're pregnant.
If you are pregnant you don't have periods. Now read his post again.
Damn lazy immigrants! Or who are we talking about?
A woman gets one or two periods, and then she's pregnant.
Roughly 9 months go by with nothing.
A baby is delivered. I suppose you could call that a period, maybe.
Breastfeeding suppresses the menstrual cycle. The woman can almost certainly go 6 months without a period, and stands a decent chance of going 18 months or more.
So there you go. Regular periods are NOT natural. They are a side effect of birth control.
Each kid born, and each kid nursed, reduces the risk of breast cancer. It's a 5% drop and a 7% drop, or the other way around. Assuming every kid is nursed, that should be about 12% to 13% risk reduction per kid. A woman naturally has about a dozen kids. Breast cancer is quite rare in countries where women birth early and often.
BTW, another side effect specific to the pill: reduced sex drive.
Next, it is not natural for a woman to have a monthly period. That's a side effect of birth control. Go all natural, and you probably get a couple periods every couple years.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that this lack of basic knowledge of the human female reproductive system is strongly correlated with the fact that you have a 5-digit user ID.
Hello? Slashdot? There are loud whooshing noises in my thread.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
The employee would have to declare that they need domestic partner health benefits. Google isn't "snooping", it's information the employee is providing.
If they qualify for domestic partner health benefits, I should think so.
European companies are really hesitant to hire people because it's so damn hard to get rid of people.
Places that think they can get away with it will particularly avoid those who seem likely to take advantage of the benefits.
WTF is with people thinking they should get paid for nothing and/or have a right to get back a job they abandoned for half a year? Everybody else at that company gets hurt, especially the substitute worker who'd really like to keep the job.
Well, this is all in the eye of the beholder:
- Gay couples pay extra tax
vs.
- Non-gay couples get tax benefit
Or
- Non-Gay employees are negatively discriminated
vs.
- Gay employees are compensated
I'm with Google on doing what we can to alleviate the discriminatory burden, but it's really you who is missing the point. The only "government recognition" of a "family" that should occur is establishing who is legally responsible for any minor children (and then only if there is a practical issue that needs to be resolved). Past that, the government needs to stay the hell out of "recognizing" *anything*.
Well, being married does set some legal defaults that can be convenient. E.g. your spouse gets your stuff if you die and you don't have a will. Your spouse gets to make decisions for you if they have to be made and you are incapacitated in some way, e.g. if you are in a coma. But yeah, those things could be kept without impacting your deeper point that the state shouldn't give tax breaks and such to married couples. Then setting or changing these legal defaults could be no more of a chore than getting your driver's license renewed is now.
...why are google covering a "tax for gays"? Why are gay people being taxed more in the first place?
FTA: "Google is going to begin covering a cost that gay and lesbian employees must pay when their partners receive domestic partner health benefits, largely to compensate them for an extra tax that heterosexual married couples do not pay."
To me this sounds like gay people are charged money when their (civil?) partners receive some form of benefit, but when heterosexual couples do the same thing they're not charged money? Can someone put this in terms a commnie socialist brit can understand?
Moderation Total: -1 Troll, +3 Goat
http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/
The term "marriage" is used to conflate two different meanings, "civil marriage" and "religious marriage".
Civil marriage refers to laws and practices of state institutions.
Religious marriage refers to laws and practices of religious institutions.
One way to make the distinction clear, would be to change "marriage" to "civil union" everywhere in government laws, and leave "marriage" entirely to religious institutions.
That's basically it.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Is it just me or does anyone else find the need to disclose your sexual preference to your employer a little bit uncomfortable? I'm all for Google covering a ridiculous tax but it requires their employees to disclose the information before hand which opens them up to even more discrimination.
A catch 22 in an extremely retarded situation.
A definition of perversion, or pervert, is the act of misusing something; to interpret incorrectly; misconstrue or distort.
If we see someone using a screw driver to pry with; applying a lot of force while the face is hanging over the work to be performed, we all cringe.
We are awaiting the inevitable outcome of the screw driver slipping off of the focus of the work, and jabbing the person in the eye.
There is a proper tool for this work, that would take all the risk away -- using a screw driver for this job is perverting the use of that tool.
In this article, the tax difference appears to be something like about $1000 dollars?
Given the qualifications of the Google employees, this would seem to be a drop in the bucket.
So, what is it that employees are really asking for? Is it more money, because they are having a hard time making ends meet with this "extra burden"?
Or, is that that they are wanting to make a statement, and have more "proof" that this behavior is not *really* perversion?
The interesting thing, is that there is no current law stating that a person may not, under any circumstance, use a screw driver as a pry bar.
But that's not really what the worker is asking for -- it seems to me that the worker wants us all to go a step further.
They would like us to do the following:
-- Don't tell me that using a screw driver to pry with is wrong, or even a bad idea; keep my "opinion" to myself -- OK, done.
-- Remove all warnings from package, stating that using this tool as a pry bar is incorrect, and may result in serious injury -- OK, getting there.
-- Prepare statements, advertisements, bill board ads, leaflets to hand out, press conferences, teach it to small children, change books in the library, change laws, etc, etc; all to say that using this tool as a pry bar is not only totally correct, but that it causes no problems whatsoever, and is actually the healthy and correct way to use this tool -- Hmm... Apparently getting there as well.
I am confused... Aside from any moral argument on the subject, why is this necessary?
Again, nobody is currently telling you how you *must* use this tool, yet your perception is telling you that you have to force everyone around you pat you on the back and give you a thumbs up on your project.
The way I see it, if you don't want the knee jerk reaction when people first see you about to stick a screw driver in your eye, stop doing that.
Or, get used to the reaction and quit trying to force everyone else to join you in your alternate reality.
Actually, and I hate to say this, he is right. He just seriously lacks in communication skills, even given slashdot's very low standards.
This was actually a story on /. a year or two back.
What he MEANT to say is that prior to the modern industrial world and prior to family planning (not just birth control pills, but all forms of family planning) women spent the majority of their reproductive years either pregnant or nursing, which suppressed the menstrual cycle.
When someone in acadamia had an "ah hah! No shit sherlock" moment awhile back, he (and I am guessing it was a he, only a guy could be that stupid...) crunched the numbers and realized that all this talk about women "abusing" birth control pills to suppress their menstral cycle being potentially "dangerous" was actually bullshit, since such behavior more closely approximated what had been "natural" for thousands of years.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
G to A to C a T for Y.
Meaning presumably,
$NOUN1 to $VERB1 to $VERB2 a $NOUN2 for $NOUN3.
Can anyone suggest how punctuation or outright surgery can make this headline better, because it just melted into a puddle of of words the first few times I read it. By the way, it's not just Slashdot that's prone to constructing these liquidized headlines. You even see this sort of confusing thing in the BBC News headlines.
May the Maths Be with you!
They say no. Because hetero couples can get married to avoid the tax that this is meant to compensatecfor,
My question though is why is there this extra tax on supplying health insurance for domestic partners?
I want to shoot the messenger!
This is BS. I'm not married and not gay so I am being discriminated against by this new "benefit."
They all get more money than me simply because they exist. If that's not Discrimination I don't know what is.
If you're really clever you can play the minorities off against each other - even if they theoretically add up to a majority.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
for all the crap about google being evil, they sure seem to take care of their employees better then other companies.
While I am not gay, transgendered, or a sexual minority (whatever that means), I have no problem with people being who they are, as long as it's not causing damage/hurting others. I wish more people would be like that, seeing as we are all human and stuck living on this planet.
I do hope though, google pulls out of china, since they are the ones who are trying to change things for the better.
Is profit more important then humanity and human rights?
Be seeing you...
There isn't an extra tax. Domestic partners health premiums cannot be paid pretax like a spouse or child's can. The part of the premium for the partner is considered income (imputed income).
This is a blatant violation of the privacy of non-heterosexual Google employees. What right does Google even have under the law to ask them something like that? Seriously.
... But I guess Google isn't really that concerned with privacy of its users, much less its employees.
"Ubuntu" - an African word meaning "Slackware is too hard for me."
So when is Google going to 'gross up' the pay of hetero employees that have to pay a higher tax rate due to the 'marriage penalty'?
From wiki: "In the U.S., income averaging (i.e., the "married filing jointly" status) was advantageous to a married couple with disparate incomes. To compensate for this somewhat, the U.S. provided a higher tax bracket for the averaged income of a married couple. While income averaging might still benefit a married couple with a stay-at-home spouse, such averaging would cause a married couple with roughly equal personal incomes to pay more total tax than they would as two single persons."
So because my wife and I have comparable incomes, we have to pay MORE than would two gays living together. Is the oh-so-enlightened management at Google also going to mount a social crusade to fix my tax woes?
-Styopa
I get the impression that there's a Civil Union and then a Church union in the UK.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
If there were gays at Google, they would have a lot more beautiful site design.
I haven't scanned this site in over a week so the first story is some Pollyanna homo story. followed of coarse by the obligatory fags are people too and copious amounts of christian bashing. Its nice to know that you are sticking to your new naval gazing faggots that think they are geeks format so i have one less tech site i have to monitor...
Google is in California, so instead of stoning gays, they get stoned and have their first gay experience.
Ain't it funny, South Africa, a nation beseth with difficulties and racial tensions has a more civilized attitude towards gays then the US of A.
And you forget the best about a girl of 13, if you turn her over, she looks just like a boy of 13. Bonus!
Ooh I am going to get it for that one. Petrus is going to spank my ass, the big hunk.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I like google.. but I hope someone sue's over this.
Do what every civilized country has done, legalize gay marriage.
Problem solved.
And yes, every single civilized country has done this, countries that haven't ain't civilized.
Amazing that so many people who worry the government is putting fluride in their water find it perfectly okay that the same government regulates who you can marry.
Good for you Google (and the other companies that do this), fuck the hillbillies and welcome to the modern world in which all people are equal. Not just the bits the nazi child-rapist pope approves of.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
What about those Heterosexuals that are not married and have partner benefits? I am one of them, on my girlfriend's insurance, she pays this tax also...
Doesn't really matter which way round it is taken, it still costs more for domestic partners than married partners. You can call that extra tax.
Anyway, that's beside the point. Fact is it costs more, and that is discriminating against both homosexuals and people who just don't believe in marriage.
whoosh
Sodom and Gomorrah in making? or it's were already there.
At the Chicago Pride, Google had a float in the parade, everyone was wearing shirts with two Androids holding hands, one holding a rainbow flag. It looked pretty cool, I want one.
I am all for gay marriage. I fit into the non-married heterosexual single category, but if two people of the same sex can fall in love, they're doing a much better job than I am. At least someone is in love, right? Being gay doesn't make you any less of a human being, I don't understand why we treat the GLBTQ community like they are less of a human being.
PS I've "read Leviticus in its entirety" several times.
Unless you read it in its original writing, I'm still not convinced.. how's your Greek + Latin + Aramaic + Hebrew?
That makes a lot more sense now. Doctors do recommend that women using cycle-suppressive hormone pills to come off them for a couple of months a year, presumably for the reasoning in your last paragraph.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
What about me ? I'm married to my Real Doll, why can't I have a salary raise too ? DISCRIMINATION !!!!
So I have to get married because its an economic decision?
Bullshit.
I got married because I love my wife, not because I get a tax break.
1331461 is only semiprime *sigh* Alas - I am just short of 1337.
Normal ('straight') employees are now penalized for not acting unnaturally. (For the obtuse: for doing the same work & hours & etc, the normal employee will get less income).
I haven't done the exact math, but it seems like the intent here is to make up for the extra tax that unmarried couples have to pay, so in the end, heterosexual and homosexual employees should be taking home the same amount of money. Why do you believe the straight employee will get less income?
For what matter, what do you mean by "unnatural"? Is that in the same sense that your polyester clothing or the computer you're sitting at are unnatural, or in the sense of the genetically modified corn that's used as a binding agent in practically everything you can buy at the supermarket...?
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
Indeed - I think it would be much better to offer the extra benefit to any unmarried partners. It solves several problems:
* It's not then unfair to people who are unmarried with opposite sex partners.
* It avoids the sticky question of whether this might be illegal discrimination. It's an interesting problem - whilst it's trying to address the original discrimination that exists, which I think is good for them to do, it's now reasonable for someone to argue that how they pay their employees is discrimination (I don't know if sexuality is a protected class for employment discrimination in the US?) Whilst technically they would still be discriminating against people who are married, this is far less repugnant (since marriage is a choice), and has far less risk of being illegal.
* Gay people don't have to out themselves - they simply say they've got an unmarried partner.
TFA says:
The extra compensation to cover the domestic partner tax will apply only to same-sex domestic partners, Mr. Bock said, because heterosexual couples can avoid the added tax by marrying.
That may be true, but there are plenty of reasons why opposite sex couples may not wish to get married (e.g., they don't want to enter in a contract for life, with all the implications and connotations that brings). An equal system must treat people the same, not create a separate class system for gay people (another example is here in the UK where we have civil partnerships for gay people - I believe that gay people should be able to get married, but it's also a problem that straight people can't have civil partnerships - not because I'm thinking "oh no, think of the poor straight people", but it's emphasising that gay people should be treated differently).
Of course, it would be a lot simpler if gay people could get married, so I hope any straight people thinking this is unfair is in favour of gay marriage.
I got married because I love my wife, not because I get a tax break.
Same here... because we actually don't get a tax break. We're both employed and have our own insurance, and since a married couple is essentially treated as a single entity, we took a significant tax hit. Instead of paying as two separate people making $50K each with one deduction, we now pay as one person with two deductions making $100K. The tax paid on post-tax benefits would be chickenfeed in comparison.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
The dogma affected will never reason effective.
Bigotry decisions indicate a dogma affect.
Bigotry is the effect of applied dogma logic.
Bigotry evolves from a fallacious premise that supports straw-man arguments for flawed evil people.
[Hitler, Farwell, all bible/koran thumpers and other pick-pocket clergy bullshit artist]
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
GW Bush: if you feed a terrorist or help a terrorist, you're a terrorist.
Plus: that SCANDALOUS King and I "Getting to *know* you" song. Or Abba: "Knowing me, knowing you".
So get the tax break repealed. After all, it's possibly just making people marry for monetary purposes and it wasn't why YOU got married, so why is it there?
So get rid of it.
Are they going to compensate married people for the marriage tax? And yes, it does exist, just do the tax return for married vs head of household+single and you'll see that HoH+Single does better.
you know, some of us actually believe the point of life is not to labor as a wage slave. that if society were set up in such a way to maximize individual happiness instead of profit, corporations would take a dent, but capitalism would go right on ticking, and we would be happier people with richer lives. exactly what is wrong with that goal?
meanwhile, you seem wedded to the ravenous idea that toiling for the corporation should be the end-all consume-all point of life
"Everybody else at that company gets hurt, especially the substitute worker who'd really like to keep the job."
well yeah, if the point is to run at maximum capacity possible, all the time, like we are at war with something. there is no slack to pick up if there is no tension in the rope. relax the goddamn rope, you don't have to run full bore all the fucking time. go about your company's business leisurely, let things go a little slower, and calm the fuck down
if all your competitors labor under the same respect the individual's happiness rules, there's no competitive disadvantage
or, move to china, where the wage slaves are committing suicide in mass numbers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn#Employee_suicides_and_deaths
and forming unions (in a communist country, irony)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/21/world/asia/21chinalabor.html
to agitate for the respect from the government and companies that i am agitating towards you: the individual's happiness is the paramount concern, not the fucking company
really, asshole
fuck you fucking corporatists,
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Of course, you don't get married to get a tax break.
You have kids to get a tax break.
You are welcome on my lawn.
discriminating against both homosexuals and people who just don't believe in marriage.
Who cares if you don't "believe" in it. If someone told me there was some form I could fill in to get more money by proclaiming that I am a loyal subject of the FSM, I'd do it.
which is totally what she said
But then it's unfair to those of us who can't find partners!
which is totally what she said
So Google piling on another layer of discrimination, this time against the non-gays, is supposed to 'fix' the problem?
How are they discriminated against? If two gays are living together and one gets the head of household deduction $8,350 (if they don't claim a domestic partnership and have kids) or $5,700 if not and the other will get the $5,700, while married couples get $11,400 filing jointly or $5,700 filing separately, so gay couples get the same deduction or higher based on circumstances then married couples . Now for the tax schedule two gays making $100,000 each in taxable income pay $21,709 or $43,418 together while a married couple filing separately pay $22,122 each or $44,244 together or if they file jointly they pay $44,244. The only way married couples might come out ahead in the tax game is when one spouse makes significantly more then the other and files jointly. So a married couple where one stays home and has 100k in taxable income will only pay $17,363 while the gay couple pays $21,709 but the non working gay could fie a return and get money back so even this discrepancy in taxes paid probably is not there. Looks like Google needs to give married couples a raise for the horrible tax discrimination they receive.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
I wish. I joked with my wife about the tax benefits of our two kids. Being a math geek, she started to do the math taking into account the new birthdays, additional holiday gifts..on and on. Let's just say it didn't end up much of a benefit in the fiscal sense.
"Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
I think that a gay couple with a similar financial situation would be better off than a me and my wife. For starters, they wouldn't be subject to the marriage penalty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty) but in many cases would still be able to get employer health benefits for their Same Sex Domestic Partner (one of us works for a very well-known US software company that is the subject of frequent Slashdot rants which will cover SSDPs but not opposite sex partners unless legally married).
Last year, my wife and I (we're a heterosexual couple with two salaries) had a church ceremony etc., but did *not* obtain a marriage license beforehand so that our marriage would be considered invalid in the eyes of our home state and therefore in the eyes of the IRS, thereby allowing us to file as single for one more year (marital status on 12/31 is all that matters). After the new year we had a simple civil ceremony (in Las Vegas, of course). The difference in taxes paid for the trip plus a lot more...
It's the phaseouts (deductions for certain investments like rental properties which I could take as a single person but our combined income would make me ineligible for) and limits (capital losses for stocks $3k for a single or $3k for a married couple) that can make a big difference but are often overlooked. The marginal rates also make a difference since one spouse's income will get pushed into a higher bracket. Not everyone's tax situation is the simple case, a politicians love to "support" marriage and will drag out a well-chosen example to show how tax policy benefits married couples.
The marriage penalty still exists and in many cases there's a financial disincentive for marriage.
No of couse it doesn't fix the problem. Its just a response to problem to try and reduce its affect. Everybody ends up getting the same amount of money, surely that is better?
I'm not arguing it either way, just answering the question: "My question though is why is there this extra tax on supplying health insurance for domestic partners?"
Is to either cancel the instant action, or:
To give the same benefits to everyone, straight couples AND SINGLES. What I mean by this is to have the legal staff at Google prepare and file a trust and estate, and optional powers of attorney, etc.
These legal documents usually cost about $2-5k total, depending on how complex they are. Google should be doing the same for all their employees. It could be part of the employee packet you get when you start work there, with some additional obligation for the legal staff to offer classes and additional help.
These instruments can benefit straight couples and singles just as much as GLBs.
Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
So I have to get married because its an economic decision?
Historically, that's all it was, anyway: a way to ensure inheritance, which is a kind of economic decision (estate planning and all that). So really, what's the big deal?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
My brother worked at a hospital and everyday he saw an old lady take to cover off her meal and shout "Hebrews 13:8!!!" and slam down the cover.
He looked it up one day and it said "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever ."
...and get a raise.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
I wish. I joked with my wife about the tax benefits of our two kids. Being a math geek, she started to do the math taking into account the new birthdays, additional holiday gifts..on and on. Let's just say it didn't end up much of a benefit in the fiscal sense.
That's because she forgot to count the Long Term Care costs (http://www.longtermcare.gov/LTC/Main_Site/Paying_LTC/Costs_Of_Care/Costs_Of_Care.aspx) you won't have to pay because your kids (or their spouses if you only have sons) will provide you with the LTC for free. You'd have to spend like a Kennedy on birthday and holiday presents to outweigh saving $200 per-day during the last couple years of both of your lives.
You wife might be a math geek, but she is not an accounting geek.
Well, your salary should be decided on your work, not on what you do at home. What you're saying is the same argument used by people to pay men more than women ("they're more likely to be the sole bread winners" etc).
I was going to say the same thing, wondering where this married person tax break is that everyone speaks of. Before we got married, everyone said we'd get economic benefits. So far, the only way I see that actually being the case is if one partner stays home or makes minimal income. If you're married and both professionals making roughly the same decent income, the government bends you over and makes you collectively their bitch.
Yes, this is the origin of the saying "God Hates Figs" The Westboro Baptist Church just got things messed up in their minds.
Can't wait a year to start filing joint tax returns? Go ahead and get married. Gay, straight, somewhere in between, it doesn't matter; it's legal! (Just one spouse per person, however. They're still picky about that.)
Of course, your health insurance is going to be a lot less expensive anyway -- visits to your doctor are covered by the government.
~Idarubicin
Funny, but on a more serious note, during the time of the Bible, people had no way to access the oceans depths needed to reach lobster, shrimp and crab (ok, there are some land crabs). So anything they could access in the upper parts of the water with a net, that didn't have scales & fins were unsafe to eat (ex: jellyfish).
Some companies charge extra for smokers to get health coverage or give a "discount" to non-smokers, whatever. Shouldn't we charge gays extra for coverage too? Of men infected with STDs in 2007, ~69.9% were gay or Bi (of those, 10% were ALSO needle-users, so perhaps a better estimate is roughly 2/3). Studies show that about 10% of people are homosexual/Bi. So, statistically you are roughly 18 times more likely to have an STD by being gay or Bi. I honestly don't mind if they provide tax benefits for gays - makes sense to me. However, they should discriminate fairly and charge them more for healthcare (or give heterosexuals a "discount").
And how does a person go about proving that they are gay in order to receive this salary increase? Some people might say they are just for the money.
talent for what exactly?
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
T-Mobile has done this for years. Not sure why this is such big news.
Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
Corbettw deserves insightful mods.
Marrying for love is a relatively recent development in history. Marriage has always been about creating business and political alliances, right after the requirement to ensure that your offspring get your toys.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Are you absolutely sure that it was Paul who wrote Corinthians and Romans? Biblical scholars are pretty sure that Paul only wrote 8 of the numerous tracts ascribed to him. Also, they're pretty sure that Timothy didn't write Timothy. Much of the New Testament was ghost-written - meaning literate scribes wrote under the pseudonyms of their favored apostles to promote their own view, and since literacy was rare, most illiterate believers tended to treat such letters as real.
That undermines your argument. I will concede that it is well known that Paul was virulently anti-gay, but I suspect it was in the manner of a closeted gay man who got off on self-anguish and torment
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
"and people who just don't believe in marriage"
And this is related to the discussion how? How about people who just don't believe in health insurance? Shall we give them a break on hospital charges 'cause they are disadvantaged by paying full price for a hospital visit? People who don't believe in auto insurance should not have to pay for damages if they cause an accident? People who don't believe in passwords should just be given their money back when their bank account is cleaned out?
Well, I'm being a little extreme, but the argument continues to be illogical. If you don't believe in marriage, why do you expect the benefits of marriage? Does it matter how those benefits are acquired?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Is google going to even out the pay when Obamacare goes into affect and your medical benefits cease to be tax free (for everyone, homo, hetero, or other)? Quoting Reuters, in 2011: "Employers are required to disclose the value of health benefits on employees' W-2 tax forms."
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
So, the government can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (prevent a same-sex couple from attaining the same marriage a differing-sex couple is entitled to)
That's absolutely correct. The government can indeed do just exactly that under current law.
Whether or not you feel that's "right" or not is an entirely a different issue. If you don't like the current laws, then you are free to begin the arduous journey to try to have the law changed. However, today in 2010 the overwhelming vast majority of *all* voting Americans, nationwide, still prefer the law to say that marriage is between one man and one woman, so you will have an uphill battle despite how strongly that certain pockets of concentrated population centers in big cities feel that "traditional" marriage laws shouldn't apply to them anymore.
What you're saying is the same argument used by people to pay men more than women ("they're more likely to be the sole bread winners" etc).
What? That's not the same at all. This isn't some philosphical argument about who deserves to be paid more. The fact is that married heterosexual couples get a tax credit that homosexual domestic partners do not because the state has decided not to recognize homosexual marriages. Google is attempting to ensure that the actual amount of money homosexual employees take home is equal to what heterosexuals take home by compensating for the government's discrimination.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
2. necessitating additional salary to offset the additional tax ...
3. necessitating additional salary to offset the additional tax
4. necessitating additional salary to offset the additional tax
n^x. Profit?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
Right or wrong, not a single one of us (non-gays) can admit that too dudes banging each other in the ass isn't sick!
Not trolling, just sayin' what everyone's thinking. Is it my business? Absolutely not? Is it grosser than gross? Absolutely.
Sooner or later we're going to find out it's not genetic, but instead a matter of brain chemistry and it will be correctable and then the REAL battle begins about whether or not it's ethical to correct it if people are happy with their lives.
So you wouldn't have bought them gifts if you hadn't had a tax break??? Because that's the only way your tax break could be a neutral financial proposition: if that cost were one you would not have to make if you were not the parent of the children.
More for person xx always means less for some other person yy. Nobody ever 'gets the same amount of money' in any commercial organization. Nobody ever should.
Nope, that isn't required. All that's required is that homosexuality be seen in natural creatures and that shared parenting of children by the nonbreeders of a group is advantageous.
BOTH have been seen in almost every single pack-oriented life.
You haven't see their women yet! Of course, you're a slashdotter so you might not care what they look like as long as all the parts work.
Why don't they pay extra to people who shack up with their girlfriends? Why do the gays get special treatment?
If they qualify for domestic partner health benefits, I should think so.
You would think so, but TFA says otherwise. Their argument is, straight domestic partners have the option to marry for tax benefits, so they don't get this new thing. Only gay couples. Kind of unfair actually.
For what matter, what do you mean by "unnatural"?
The GP means it's unnatural as in homosexuality does not occur in nature. Oh, wait ... it does.
"go about your company business leisurely"? ookaay. lets say i have a dry cleaning business and i go about it "leisurely." I tell customers that i'll have their things back to them in 2 days. Meanwhile the dry cleaner across the street hauls ass because he is not an idiot and realized that capitalism (how our economy works, as well as any other successful economy in history) is based on competition. Turns out is turn around time is 1 day. Also turns out he just put you out of business because you went about it leisurely. What now? I bet your solution is to have the government step in and make rules about how much and how fast people can work.
less and less
Because our government, over and over, harps that marriage is a religious institution, and not everyone is comfortable faking it in order to get a tax break. There used to be systems in place to get marriage benefits without marriage but those have been slowly removed over the years as states worry about 'the gays' sneeky getting benefits through them. So marriage benifits have become even more linked to religious institutions over the last 30 years...
Of course, you don't get married to get a tax break.
You have kids to get a tax break.
Meh. Buying a house is an even better deal (unless you have a few kids).
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
the government should step in and put the brakes on the excesses of capitalism, absolutely
remember children toiling in factories? remember pinkertons goons kneecapping union organizers? remember mandatory 60 hour workweeks? all for pennies?
never hear do the gilded age, huh? out of your ignorance of economic history you want repeat our past mistakes?
if the government does not step in and put limitations on what a company can demand from an employee, and demand rules of fair compensation, then the company will gladly work employees to death as slaves and pay them nickles, in the name of competition, just as you say. this is historical fact
so thanks for being an asshole who hasn't learned from history
start here, you corporatist asshole:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_and_employment_law
it's all about hard fought for protections of THE INDIVIDUAL'S LIBERTY from outright abuse by powerful, unregulated corporations
LEARN YOUR HISTORICAL FACT SO YOU DO NOT REPEAT PAST MISTAKES YOU FOOL
we NEED government regulations to SAVE us from the excesses of corporations, which are a FAR greater threat to your liberties and freedoms than any government ever could be. read your history, you uneducated goon
and this is where you call me a fascist or a communist, when i'm just talking about regulationg C-O-R-P-O-R-A-T-I-O-N-S, not individuals, you propagandized ignorant asshole
corporation != individual
corporate threat to individual > government threat to individual
LEARN YOUR FUCKING CONCEPTS, UNLEARN YOUR PROPAGANDIZED ASSOCIATIONS, THEN SPEAK
corporations, NOT governments, will happily destroy your freedoms. your democratically elected government is your only tool to protect yourself from them. THESE ARE FACTS OF LIFE. enough with the free market fundamentalist social darwinist libertarian fantasy fiction!
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"those have been slowly removed over the years as states worry about 'the gays' sneeky getting benefits through them"
I'm pretty certain that recent efforts in some states have been to make benefits MORE available. Redefining marriage is not being used to minimize benefits, but to prevent expanding the definition of marriage itself. Now, we see some backlash as benefits are turning out to be expensive, and some states/communities are rethinking the whole partners benefits thing. But that's economic, not merely moral. I have never worked for an employer that even offered the benefit.
But my question stands. If you don't believe in marriage, why are you looking for the benefits of it? Is that fair? Logical? Sounds like having your cake and eating it too.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
i believe in the common good
socialism is a concept that has a positive meaning in most of the advanced industrialized nations
but for some reason, a certain group of mindless conservatives in the usa think the word "socialist" serves as some sort of epithet
you're propaganda image, for example, shows 3 people, two of whom are communists, one of whom is a fascist
if i took a picture of gw bush, osama bin laden, and hello kitty, and wrote in all caps "AMISH", that picture would have the same level of intelligence
do you know what socialism is? no, i mean the actual intellectual concept, not as defined by your tired empty propaganda. try thinking about what socialism really means. use your brain, open your mind, detach from your simplistic braindead associations
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=ezekiel+23:20
Ezekiel 23:20 (New International Version)
There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
what life was like for workers in the gilded age, before things like a 40 hour work week law, right?
there's no validity at all in your mind to the government putting the brakes on corporations devouring your entire life?
you think perhaps the idea of "balance" comes into play somewhere? or can you only think of my words in terms of the most far out preposterous communist idiocies?
you wouldn't like another week of vacation? really? you wouldn't like to stop worrying about healthcare and education costs? really?
i prefer the world to be centered on the happiness of the individual, not the bottom line of the ledger sheet. sorry if this offends you, because i'm not happy being just a cog in a machine
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"The employee would have to declare that they need domestic partner health benefits. Google isn't "snooping", it's information the employee is providing."
And what is the procedure to verify they need domestic partner health benefits? Do they "test" for gayness? Here's a statement some employers make employees sign:
"--Have lived together at least six months.
--Are both age 18 or older.
--Share a close personal relationship and are responsible for each other’s common welfare.
--Are exclusive.
--Are not married to anyone else.
--Are not related by blood closer than would bar marriage in the state.
--Share the same regular and permanent residence, with the current intent to continue doing so indefinitely.
--Are jointly financially responsible for "basic living expenses," defined as the cost of basic food, shelter and any other expenses of a domestic partner because of the domestic partnership. (Domestic partners need not contribute equally or jointly to the cost of these expenses as long as they agree that both are responsible for the cost.)
--Were mentally competent to consent to the contract when the domestic partnership began."
I'm not gay but I've had male roommates and if I can get a few more dollars per hour (average $1,069 a year according to the article) by signing by all means I'm going to do that. Can someone be denied domestic partner health benefits? If a co-worker believes someone is scamming the system, are Google managers prepared to call employees into their office and tell them they're not gay?
I can't see this ending well
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
It is not natural for a woman to have a monthly period? Are you serious? The side effect of many birth control pills is to PREVENT the monthly period and shorten it to only once every few months. Naturally women have a monthly period. Just ask any teenage girl going through puberty, or any woman who is not taking birth control.
Fucking troll.
Pro-homosexual marriage ad-hominem against scripture quoters. Anti-homosexual marriage tirade against pro-homosexual marriage supporters regarding tax laws. Occasional vituperative call-to-action for a ban of all marriages. (Repeat as-needed)
Here's the deal - there's nothing inherently wrong with polygamy.
Polygamy benefits low-quality women and high-quality men. The high-quality women and low-quality men suffer.
Every society with polygamy has an excess of frustrated men. (the less desirable ones) This causes huge problems.
The fact is that married heterosexual couples get a tax credit that homosexual domestic partners do not because the state has decided not to recognize homosexual marriages.
Yes, and it's just as much a fact that men are more likely to be the sole bread winners than women. And that as heads of households, they have more expenses than single people and dual income people.
Externalities at home, whether family or government related, should not affect your salary at work. For Google to attempt to correct imbalances imposed by those external forces is discriminatory, because it's down to their biased judgment what gets corrected and what doesn't.
It's an interesting problem - whilst it's trying to address the original discrimination that exists, which I think is good for them to do, it's now reasonable for someone to argue that how they pay their employees is discrimination (I don't know if sexuality is a protected class for employment discrimination in the US?)
Not yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Non-Discrimination_Act
Erm, yeah. We currently have the largest human population ever in history, so I'm pretty sure we don't need to worry about fertility just yet — or for hundreds of years.
Keep flying that paranoid flag high, psycho.
I wish. I joked with my wife about the tax benefits of our two kids. Being a math geek, she started to do the math taking into account the new birthdays, additional holiday gifts..on and on. Let's just say it didn't end up much of a benefit in the fiscal sense.
Not to mention that people failed to tell me I'd need to feed them too! Man, what a money pit that has turned out to be.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
An equal system must treat people the same, not create a separate class system for gay people...
This is the most retarded meme that has ever been accepted as "fact". There is *no* "separate class system for gay people" because "gay people" (which I'm defining as "those who are sexually attracted to their own sex") are not discriminated against. The argument isn't about straight people vs. gay people, it's about what the definition of "marriage" is. Please remove your head from Marx's butt and stop thinking in class terms.
If you don't believe me, ask yourself this: Marriage laws currently (and at common law) define a marriage as something between two persons of opposite sex. Is the prohibition against "marriage" between two persons of the same sex an instance of sex discrimination or is it an instance of sexual orientation discrimination. Think carefully.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
>
If they qualify for domestic partner health benefits, I should think so.
Straight people who are unmarried do not get the benefit because they have the option of getting a federal tax break by simply getting married. Gays are not allowed the option to get married in most states (including California now). Even if gays get married (in one of the few states that support gay marriage), their marriage is not recognized by the federal gov't and they do not qualify for the tax breaks.
The better question to ask is "if the Federal gov't recognizes gay marriage and grants gays equal rights including these tax breaks, then will google stop providing this benefit to unmarried gay couples" and I think the answer would be yes.
How do you get around ch. 20 v. 13?
Or are are you just saying that the entire old law is done away with?
Or are you talking about "gay" in the other senses? Happy, liberal, talkative, ostentatious, wearing pink shirts, generally able to share (specifically, non-sexual) affection with people regardless of gender?
Just asking.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
I agree that single people shouldn't be discriminated either, though it's not clear to me how the law works for them in the US? I mean, it talks of an additional tax that unmarried partners have to pay, which doesn't seem relevant?
Although yes, all these kind of complex issues do make me think it best if marriage didn't have tax benefits at all.
The argument isn't about straight people vs. gay people, it's about what the definition of "marriage" is.
It's about the benefits that the Government gives. If it does so in a discriminatory fashion, then it's discrimination. I don't care what your definitions are.
Not sure what Marx has to do with this. In general, I note you are unable to argue your case without resorting to insults.
Marriage laws currently (and at common law) define a marriage as something between two persons of opposite sex.
Yes we know what the law is in many countries/states, that's what people are arguing against.
Is the prohibition against "marriage" between two persons of the same sex an instance of sex discrimination or is it an instance of sexual orientation discrimination.
I'm not sure why it matters? What is your point?
More for person xx always means less for some other person yy. Nobody ever 'gets the same amount of money' in any commercial organization. Nobody ever should.
If person xx was getting screwed over by some ridiculous law, then giving them more seems justified. Doesn't mean they'll be getting the same as person yy. If person yy is more valuable to the company, they should still be making more.
Heterosexual unmarried couples in CA can't register as domestic partners (except for couples over the age of 62). That's why Google's new policy applies only to same-sex couples who are registered.
The registry itself is an attempt, by the state, to extend many of the rights and benefits available to married heterosexual couples to same-sex couples whose marriages are not recognized by the state. But there are numerous rights and benefits it does not (and can not, because of federal law) extend. A heterosexual married Googler can opt to extend Google's employee health insurance benefit to that Googler's spouse, and a homosexual domestically partnered Googler can opt to extend Google's employee health insurance benefit to that Googler's domestic partner. However, the cost of doing so for the gay Googler will be significantly higher, because the benefit the gay Googler gets (for the domestic partner) is considered taxable income. The benefit the heterosexual married Googler gets (for the spouse) is not taxable income.
All Google is doing is making up the cost differential. It isn't discriminating against anybody. You could certainly make the argument that the state is discriminating in at least two ways: 1) not recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples; 2) not allowing unmarried heterosexual couples under the age of 62 to register as domestic partners in lieu of getting married. But I doubt the state would even bother with a domestic partnership registry if the marriages of same-sex couples were on the same footing with the marriages of opposite-sex couples. Really, what would be the point?
Gay people have already outed themselves by registering their domestic partnership. Further, they out themselves by paying for the health insurance benefit for their domestic partner. Google's new policy isn't requiring any additional "outing."
I agree that it would be much simpler if the state would simply recognize same-sex marriages, rather than create a whole parallel system for dealing with same-sex couples. (Note: Gay people can, and do, get married all the time, in both religious and civil ceremonies, and have been doing so in this country for 40-50 years or more. The state can not and never has prevented gays from marrying; it does, however, refuse to accord those marriages the same status it accords opposite-sex marriages.) Another option would be to ignore the term "marriage" altogether and simply treat anyone who wants to register their relationship with the state as domestic partners or civil partners. But these things are out of Google's control, and I think Google is doing the right thing here in redressing one imbalance that is within its power to redress.
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
If it does so in a discriminatory fashion, then it's discrimination.
Is the prohibition against "marriage" between two persons of the same sex an instance of sex discrimination or is it an instance of sexual orientation discrimination.
I'm not sure why it matters? What is your point?
My point is that you don't get to simply declare that something "is discrimination" (much less equate it to racism) if you can't define what type of discrimination you're talking about -- namely, what you're discriminating against.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
I see nothing that indicates these benefits apply solely to same-sex domestic partnerships. Heterosexuals in a domestic partnership appear to be covered as well. If not, I think there's a large number of heterosexuals in domestic partnerships that would cry "foul", and with good cause--equality isn't a synonym for preferential treatment.
This is good for an entirely different reason, though. If this trend continues, the financial incentives for state-sanctioned marriage are reduced, which makes people less likely to be concerned with obtaining that marriage certificate. Maybe, given time, the idea that the state has any business being involved in such an intensely personal issue will fade away, and a person's marital status won't affect their tax status at all.
This has the nifty side-effect of making the gay marriage question absolutely irrelevant, which would be a huge relief. I see that issue being used quite indiscriminately as a political lever by both sides, and frankly it disgusts me.
Well, it depends how you define "natural".
A healthy woman who is not on birth control and is abstinent will have a monthly period, that's true.
But in nature, most individuals are not abstinent. Throughout history, most women had far fewer periods, because they were having sex without contraception, which meant they spent a lot of time pregnant. That's what the GP meant by "you also get adorable little babies".
Of course his bit about "enormous reduction in breast cancer risk" is misleading, because he's ignoring the fact that pregnancy and childbirth are actually quite hazardous. Women had much shorter life expectancies when they were having all that unprotected sex, especially before modern medical hygiene practices (like washing your hands before delivering a baby).
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.