Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 170
  1.    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post


    And again, if an insurance company wishes to extend benefits to a same-sex couple who has legal documentation of their commitment, that is up to them. However; if they so choose to only offer benefits to heterosexual couples, that again is their business.

    Since there probably aren't enough "married" gay couples to gauge whether they represent a riskier group than straight married couples, I don't agree with your premise. Right now such a practice would be an act of discrimination IMO since you seem to be assuming a lot based on studies that are largely based on gay sex amongst singles. I also fail to see why my suggestion to simply ask whether someone engages in unsafe sex wouldn't be a more fair litmus test for insurers? In any event, this discussion is futile since I think we're dealing with an industry that makes it's living on being discriminatory.

    I'll reiterate the main point I made in my initial post - that gay/lesbians will continue to lose these "gay marriage" votes so long as they continue to insist on calling it "marriage". They ought to seek out legal recognition as a civil union that assures them equal treatment with the same rights as heterosexual couples before they wade into the thorny, emotional, traditions-based issue of "marriage".
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny
    Since there probably aren't enough "married" gay couples to gauge whether they represent a riskier group than straight married couples, I don't agree with your premise.


    My premise isnít that one group per se is riskier than another so much as it is that one sex is riskier than another. Put them together and you have a high-risk couple, period.

    Right now such a practice would be an act of discrimination IMO since you seem to be assuming a lot based on studies that are largely based on gay sex amongst singles.


    And heterosexual singles, you forgot to mention that and itís important. Comparitively speaking, unmarried heterosexuals are at less risk than their unmarried homosexual counter-parts. Unless you can prove a larger drop of risk based on mere marriage with same-sex couples than with married heterosexual couples, then assuming a relatively equal drop on both groups, same-sex couples still are at higher risk. However, to put this even into more perspective, this primarily applies to homosexual males and not so much females. This is why much of this argument has little to do with orientation as much as it does other factors (being male) because it is applicable to primarily one segment of the gay community as opposed to all of it.

    I also fail to see why my suggestion to simply ask whether someone engages in unsafe sex wouldn't be a more fair litmus test for insurers?


    I donít recall saying it wasnít. I do recall stating that I have no problem letting insurance companies make such a determinationóand as such, they may use such a test if they so choose.
    No problem should ever be solved twice.

    Verizon Treo650 W/Custom ROM
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by DL.Cummings View Post

    My premise isnít that one group per se is riskier than another so much as it is that one sex is riskier than another. Put them together and you have a high-risk couple, period.



    And heterosexual singles, you forgot to mention that and itís important. Comparitively speaking, unmarried heterosexuals are at less risk than their unmarried homosexual counter-parts. Unless you can prove a larger drop of risk based on mere marriage with same-sex couples than with married heterosexual couples, then assuming a relatively equal drop on both groups, same-sex couples still are at higher risk. However, to put this even into more perspective, this primarily applies to homosexual males and not so much females. This is why much of this argument has little to do with orientation as much as it does other factors (being male) because it is applicable to primarily one segment of the gay community as opposed to all of it. so choose.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]
    Thats an interesting point, and I think there is not enough data on that.
    But logically a monogamous relationship would have a 0 risk regardless of the gender of the partners...
    So unless gay married men are more likely to cheat than straigh married men, than I wouldnt be surprized if that drop is a lot bigger indeed..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  4. #24  
    p.s. its great to have a political thread that doesnt involve mudslinging and personal attack, but a nice decent adult discussion
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  5. #25  
    As is typical, I have a different framing for this whole thing. Marriage is ultimately not a construct of love. It is a construct of property rights, inheritance, and in some cases, diplomacy. As such, I think the civil court system should treat it as any such contract. If someone wants to draw up a domestic partnership (or even corporation) agreement, the court should treat it just like a similar business contract. However, I also think that this should bear no standing on how private businesses conduct recognition of these contracts.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6.    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    As is typical, I have a different framing for this whole thing. Marriage is ultimately not a construct of love. It is a construct of property rights, inheritance, and in some cases, diplomacy.
    And? What about religion? Don't most religions view marriage as an institution of god? You know, the whole "you are now joined in holy matrimony?"

    As such, I think the civil court system should treat it as any such contract. If someone wants to draw up a domestic partnership (or even corporation) agreement, the court should treat it just like a similar business contract.
    Well that is fine as far as a contract between the two parties goes. You've basically described a pre-nup.

    However, I also think that this should bear no standing on how private businesses conduct recognition of these contracts.
    So if Bobby and Joey are partners and enter in a civil union - a contract as you call it - are you saying that a hospital does not need to recognize them as a couple because they don't have to recognize their civil union as being the same as a civil union between, say John and Mary?
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    And?
    There is no 'and'. From government's perspective, that is basically all that marriage deals with.
    What about religion? Don't most religions view marriage as an institution of god?
    I couldn't care less where the government is concerned. Most religions view many things as an institution of god. Most of them are emotional and self-serving.
    You know, the whole "you are now joined in holy matrimony?"
    That's part of a ceremony. It has nothing to do with government's part in the contract.
    Well that is fine as far as a contract between the two parties goes. You've basically described a pre-nup.
    No, a pre-nup handles disposition of the assets of the parties in the case of dissolution. What I'm describing would be more along the lines of an expanded 'marriage license'.
    So if Bobby and Joey are partners and enter in a civil union - a contract as you call it - are you saying that a hospital does not need to recognize them as a couple because they don't have to recognize their civil union as being the same as a civil union between, say John and Mary?
    It would really depend on the terms of their contract. If Bobby and Joey have some sort of reciprocal power of attorney agreement built into their contract, there's no reason that shouldn't be recognized by a hospital. Don't forget, even in our current legal system, spouses don't automatically get final say. Ask Michael Schiavo.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    And Hamilton has been proven correct quite a few times.
    And incorrect as or more often.

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I think you give them a little too much credit. The first ten were placed there since they were used to having a similar declarations, and they didn't want the new government interfering in other matters.
    OK I don't think I give too much credit at all. I would say they are the core of our freedoms. Also I don't recall reading the justification you cited as the standard reason for their adoption

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    No. The reason for the Bill of Rights was that they _didn't_ want the federal government to be able to dictate what states and citizens could and couldn't do other than the limited scope they defined. Why else would the 9th have been included?
    The opposite is true. And demonstrably so. Again, this is not the standard reason for the adoption of the bill of rights. And certainly not their citation in 220 years of interpretation by the judiciary where the Bill of rights has been used and cited in greatest number in the stricking down of state and local statutes or acts or sections of state constitutions (as we are discussing).

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Seems to me that despite whether you or I agree with it, that in this case, there is a due process.
    I was citing the "Equal protection" which again, goes to the core of the subject of the thread and the core of the challenge. I am citing exactly what the opponents will center their case on.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I couldn't care less where the government is concerned. Most religions view many things as an institution of god. Most of them are emotional and self-serving.
    Your view on the religion and how in should marriage law doesnt go to the core problem, which is that in the US, religon currently informs marriage law. It inform it informs the public debate, and the political debate and the legal briefs.

    If you want an argument against homosexual marriage that has not based in dominant US religion, go ahead, it is a logical minefield, but the reason the laws are there is due to religions commandments of the majority religions.
  10.    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    There is no 'and'. From government's perspective, that is basically all that marriage deals with.
    I've been married for so long I admit I don't know how things are done today. But I could have sworn that our priest signed our marriage license when our ceremony was completed, indicating that we in fact had been married.

    I couldn't care less where the government is concerned. Most religions view many things as an institution of god. Most of them are emotional and self-serving.
    We have no dispute here my friend.

    That's part of a ceremony. It has nothing to do with government's part in the contract.
    You're right - the literal expression "joined in holy matrimony" is ceremonial. I was referring more to the fact that the religious-based ceremony is in fact part of the legal process. You get married by a Justice of the Peace or by a member of the Clergy, correct? Again...it's been a very long time for me so I don't really know anymore.

    No, a pre-nup handles disposition of the assets of the parties in the case of dissolution. What I'm describing would be more along the lines of an expanded 'marriage license'.
    I like that - an expanded marriage license. Is this any different than a civil union?

    It would really depend on the terms of their contract. If Bobby and Joey have some sort of reciprocal power of attorney agreement built into their contract, there's no reason that shouldn't be recognized by a hospital. Don't forget, even in our current legal system, spouses don't automatically get final say. Ask Michael Schiavo.
    Good point. However, I think you know that I used a hospital as an example since it is a common one used when describing the inequalities between gay couples and straight-married couples.
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    And incorrect as or more often.
    I'm not sure how you could cite an example where this was the case.
    OK I don't think I give too much credit at all. I would say they are the core of our freedoms. Also I don't recall reading the justification you cited as the standard reason for their adoption
    Well, I'm not sure what you read, so I can't speak to your recall. However, the debate pro and con for the Bill of Rights centered around a few things, mainly the Magna Charta, state constitutions' bills of rights, and limiting the power of the federal government in respect to the states.
    The opposite is true. And demonstrably so.
    OK, you need to definitely start citing something to make this case. Please demonstrate.
    Again, this is not the standard reason for the adoption of the bill of rights.
    Then what is? Please cite the debate.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    I'm not sure how you could cite an example where this was the case.
    A couple hundred years of his views not being validated in court cases/

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Well, I'm not sure what you read, so I can't speak to your recall. However, the debate pro and con for the Bill of Rights centered around a few things, mainly the Magna Charta, state constitutions' bills of rights, and limiting the power of the federal government in respect to the states.
    I have a feeling you havent consulted findlaw, Nexis or a basic college text on the various cases citing the bill of rights, almost all center around state and local laws being upheld or struck down! You have it backwards.

    Again you are centering on the founders. Much much more debate ha gone on

    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    OK, you need to definitely start citing something to make this case. Please demonstrate.
    I think you do. And please stick to decisions over the past 100 years.

    My first one, NYT v sullivan.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    I've been married for so long I admit I don't know how things are done today. But I could have sworn that our priest signed our marriage license when our ceremony was completed, indicating that we in fact had been married.
    The governments in most states do not require that the officiant be a priest (or any religious figure necessarily).
    You get married by a Justice of the Peace or by a member of the Clergy, correct?
    A JP is not a religious figure (nor is the captain of a ship).
    I like that - an expanded marriage license. Is this any different than a civil union?
    None other than semantic, AFAIC.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    I have a feeling you havent consulted findlaw, Nexis or a basic college text on the various cases citing the bill of rights, almost all center around state and local laws being upheld or struck down! You have it backwards.
    No, you are just apparently reading more into what I said than was there.
    Again you are centering on the founders. Much much more debate ha gone on
    Of course I'm centering on the founders. I'm talking about the purpose of the US Constitution. They're the ones who adopted it, so I'm taking them at their words.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    If you want an argument against homosexual marriage that has not based in dominant US religion, go ahead, it is a logical minefield, but the reason the laws are there is due to religions commandments of the majority religions.
    Notwithstanding the fact that I really can't understand what you're trying to say here... I'm not desirous of an argument against homosexual marriage.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  16.    #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    The governments in most states do not require that the officiant be a priest (or any religious figure necessarily).
    Not the point. They do officiate, don't they?

    A JP is not a religious figure (nor is the captain of a ship).
    I know that - I mentioned them as one of a couple of officials capable of marrying people.

    None other than semantic, AFAIC.
    So you support civil unions. I'm not sure what we're debating then.

    Back on point - at least my point - I think that gay/lesbians couples need to pursue equality via civil unions instead of "marriage" if they are to be successful.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    So you support civil unions. I'm not sure what we're debating then.
    I was wondering when either of you would notice.

    Back on point - at least my point - I think that gay/lesbians couples need to pursue equality via civil unions instead of "marriage" if they are to be successful.
    i said that as well, many years ago. I've since come to feel that it's not entirely a matter of semantics, if the law says that one group has "civil unions" while another has a "marriage". I tend to equate it, rightly or not, with the old "separate but equal" argument for school segregation: if it's separate and distinct, by difinition it's not equal.

    Again, this is only my opinion, feel free to disagree - but if you feel the need to debate the issue, don't be offended if I don't respond.
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
  18.    #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I was wondering when either of you would notice.



    i said that as well, many years ago. I've since come to feel that it's not entirely a matter of semantics, if the law says that one group has "civil unions" while another has a "marriage". I tend to equate it, rightly or not, with the old "separate but equal" argument for school segregation: if it's separate and distinct, by definition it's not equal.

    Again, this is only my opinion, feel free to disagree - but if you feel the need to debate the issue, don't be offended if I don't respond.
    How is a civil union different than a marriage? Perhaps there are differences I am unaware of.
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Not the point. They do officiate, don't they?
    Sure, they can.
    I know that - I mentioned them as one of a couple of officials capable of marrying people.
    My point was simply that if a non-religious person can 'marry' someone in the eyes of the law, then obviously the law does not consider marriage a religious undertaking (at least certainly not exclusively).
    So you support civil unions.
    I'm a live and let live sort, so in effect, yes.
    I'm not sure what we're debating then.
    I didn't think we were exactly debating. Seemed more like a conversation to me.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    How is a civil union different than a marriage? Perhaps there are differences I am unaware of.
    Think of it this way: what if someone proposed a law that says that "black people can't be married, but can only have civil unions, because marriage is only between white people. Civil unions are just as good, anyway." Would that be acceptable?
    Everything's Amazing and Nobody's Happy

    Treo600 --> Treo650-->PPC6700-->Treo700P-->Treo755P-->Treo800W --> Touch Pro-->Palm Pre --> EVO 4G
Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions