PDA

View Full Version : The whole gay marriage thing...



The Fake Don Dokken
2/5/2004, 10:35 AM
Now, listen carefully, I'm only going to say it once:

(1) The states north and east of New York are unnecessary. Nothing they do contributes positively to the United States - economically, socially, etc. I say we sell them all to Canada where their views are already acceptable.

Give the Canadians a low, low interest rate and like 100 to 150 years to pay off the note. Goodbye and good riddance to the yankee queer-mongers and tax-raisers.

(2) Why Hawaii? It became a state in 1959. We needed it as a military buffer in the days before intercontinental ballistic missles. But, that was years ago and now Hawaii is nothing but a useless drain on the country. They give absolutely nothing to the United States in the way of economy either.

We should overthrow Castro and let the pro-democracy exiles in Miami go back home. Then, we can revoke Hawaii's statehood and let it be the Guam or the Virgin Islands that it is in reality, and gives it's statehood to the new Cuba, which has economically viable resources such as gas and oil.

(3) Oh, yeah...and lower my taxes again, please, government parasites!

Eddie Money
2/5/2004, 10:36 AM
Sounds good to me - lets sell California to Mexico while we're at it!

C&CDean
2/5/2004, 10:37 AM
Who'll give us $50 for Texas?

The Fake Don Dokken
2/5/2004, 10:37 AM
No way, Dean, Texas has oil...plus, we need their prep footballers.

C&CDean
2/5/2004, 10:41 AM
FDD,

So true.

Did you hear about the gay couple (females) in Washington state on this morning's news? Basically, Washington does not recognize same-sex marriage. However, since these two gals have been living together for 10 years, sharing finances, etc., they have ruled that they can go through divorce proceedings.

One of them is a doctor, the other a nurse. Guess who's gonna get the $$$ bone up her butt?

KC//CRIMSON
2/5/2004, 11:01 AM
"(1) The states north and east of New York are unnecessary. Nothing they do contributes positively to the United States - economically, socially, etc. I say we sell them all to Canada where their views are already acceptable."

well hey at least the elderly in those states will be able to afford prescription drugs once their canadians :D

Big Red Ron
2/5/2004, 11:03 AM
Anyone heard the term "butt-dart champion?"

Czar Soonerov
2/5/2004, 11:26 AM
Where is dbhuge when you need him...:rolleyes:

KC//CRIMSON
2/5/2004, 11:28 AM
Where is dbhuge when you need him...:rolleyes:

Sutherland ate him or morphed him or....oh you get it :D

Stoop Dawg
2/5/2004, 11:43 AM
Have I been brainwashed? I'm having trouble caring whether two gay people get "married" or not. I mean, you're not going to stop them from being gay by not allowing them to "get married".

Now allowing them to adopt and raise children is a different story.

GottaHavePride
2/5/2004, 11:48 AM
Good on yer, Stoop Dawg. Clarity of thought.

While we're talking about selling off states, though, can we just make the Puerto Ricans pay taxes like everyone else? Enough of the "protectorate" stuff.

Soonrboy
2/5/2004, 12:48 PM
Now, listen carefully, I'm only going to say it once:

(1) The states north and east of New York are unnecessary. Nothing they do contributes positively to the United States - economically, socially, etc. I say we sell them all to Canada where their views are already acceptable.

Give the Canadians a low, low interest rate and like 100 to 150 years to pay off the note. Goodbye and good riddance to the yankee queer-mongers and tax-raisers.

(2) Why Hawaii? It became a state in 1959. We needed it as a military buffer in the days before intercontinental ballistic missles. But, that was years ago and now Hawaii is nothing but a useless drain on the country. They give absolutely nothing to the United States in the way of economy either.

We should overthrow Castro and let the pro-democracy exiles in Miami go back home. Then, we can revoke Hawaii's statehood and let it be the Guam or the Virgin Islands that it is in reality, and gives it's statehood to the new Cuba, which has economically viable resources such as gas and oil.

(3) Oh, yeah...and lower my taxes again, please, government parasites!


The Native American community, including the Hawaiians and Alaska Natives, would invite most of you to return to the land or your origin.

I forgot the smilie...

SweetheartSooner
2/5/2004, 01:04 PM
Considering that I am a native american (Chickasaw if you must know), I am glad that I am an american. Because some dudes stole my ancestor's land, I now get to live in one of the most prosperous countries in the world. I have more creature comforts than most other nations have.

Even though what happened to my ancestors was terrible, it all ended up ok. For me at least.

The Fake Don Dokken
2/5/2004, 01:55 PM
The Native Americans are welcome to have the land back when they develop their own intercontinental ballistic missles and such. Besides, Native Americans aren't the ones rallying for gay marriage, it's yankees.

Gay marriage, as with any other lifestyle that is harmful to heath, does nothing but help drive up an already expensive health insurance system.

TUSooner
2/5/2004, 02:03 PM
Astounding.

KC//CRIMSON
2/5/2004, 02:08 PM
Astounding.

yeah. poor heath :D

SOONtobe#1
2/5/2004, 02:15 PM
Damn Pillow Biters!!!!!

KC//CRIMSON
2/5/2004, 02:19 PM
So what I'm understanding here, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you're not givin' me a same sex marriage license, so now I'm left basically with nothing, I'm left with zero, in which, what can I DO with zero, you know, what can I--I can't do anything with it!..this is my life here we're talkin' about, we're not just talkin' about, you know, something else, we're talkin' about my life, you know, and it's forcing me to do something I don't wanna do: to leave. To go out and just leave and go home and make a clean cut here and say no way Corky, you're not putting up with these people and I'll tell you why I can't put up with you people, because you're bastard people, that's what you are, you're just bastard people and I'm goin home and I'm gonna bite my pillow, that's what i'm gonna do!

Stoop Dawg
2/5/2004, 02:20 PM
Gay marriage, as with any other lifestyle that is harmful to heath, does nothing but help drive up an already expensive health insurance system.

So, we should outlaw obesity, playing sports, driving cars, smoking, and unprotected sex. Gotcha. :rolleyes:

The Fake Don Dokken
2/5/2004, 03:03 PM
No, you don't have me. Think harder.

Who's said anything about outlawing? What gays want is to create a law that recognizes their relationships as marriages. They want this mainly for insurance health benefits. You can be gay all you want. But, the States have the right to not recognize your relationship on the same level as a heterosexual marriage.

Also, the things you mention are all curbed by society in one way of another.

*Obese people are excluded from or pay higher rates of insurance than people who are not obese. Also, recently, some industries, namely the airline industry, have begun campaigns to charge obese people more for their patronage.

*Each sport has it's own rules to keep the game orderly. For instance, unless you are the goalie, you can't touch a soccer ball in play. In pro football, you must have two feet in bounds to have a successful recpetion of a pass. In baseball, if you hit a ball outside the foul lines, you can't take a base. Etc., etc., etc.

Also, there is an insurance cost involved with any sport. Ask anyone you has ever set up an official tournament, been a school administrator, etc. Municipalities, cities, states, and the federal government all require insurance or bonds to be in place for sporting events, facilities, players, etc.

*Every state has laws that automobile drivers must obey. These range from driving within a certain speed limit, observing and obeying signs, being licensed to drive, carrying current insurance with certain statutory limits of liability, etc.

Drivers with poor driving records, surprise, are either excluded from or pay higher insurance rates.

*Every state has a law requiring that the purchaser of cigarettes/tobacco be a certain age. You are also no longer free to smoke anywhere you like. Municipalities, cities, and states have banned smoking in buildings, areas, etc. Also, regarding health insurance, those who smoke are often uninsurable or pay higher rates .

*You can have all the unprotected sex you want...in private, with someone you haven't paid, and with someone who has reached the age of majority. The are laws against unprotected, or any other kind of, sex in public places, with prostitutes, with minors, etc.

Again, you drive your own insurance rate up and burden the system if you contract a disease as a result of your unprotected sex. And, again, those with STDs are either excluded from or pay higher rates of insurance than those who are responsible enough not to contract an STD.

49r
2/5/2004, 03:23 PM
Gay marriage, as with any other lifestyle that is harmful to heath....
I'm not sure you want to go down this road...

Soonrboy
2/5/2004, 03:30 PM
Considering that I am a native american (Chickasaw if you must know), I am glad that I am an american. Because some dudes stole my ancestor's land, I now get to live in one of the most prosperous countries in the world. I have more creature comforts than most other nations have.

Even though what happened to my ancestors was terrible, it all ended up ok. For me at least.


I too am very proud to be American, please don't get me wrong. The things that happened to the ancestors isn't that long ago. In fact, my mother was a student at the government boarding schools, which took Indian children away from their families to "socialize" them, then kept them away from their family so they will not pick up bad habits. What happened there, we wouldn't allow it to happen to prisoners. This
Fake Don mentioned getting rid of some states, including Hawaii. I don't think its funny. Sorry.

The Fake Don Dokken
2/5/2004, 03:39 PM
Who said anything about "socializing" anybody? Selling the northerneastern states does nothing to "socialize" them. It allows them to be a part of a country where their political views are the mainstream.

Trading Hawaii for a free Cuba doesn't "socialize" Hawaiian. It simply lets them live as their own country. Gaining a free Cuba would give us a state with something to contribute to the economy of the nation.

Sorry if you confuse getting rid of dead weight with "socialization."

Frozen Sooner
2/5/2004, 03:42 PM
Getting rid of Alaska would probably be a real bad idea, since we have more oil than the rest of the country combined.

I would venture a wager that the Massachussets economy is at least double the size of the Oklahoma economy. Do you propose that the US kick Oklahoma out?

As for gay marriage:

1. There's more to the issue than insurance benefits. Ever try to probate the estate of someone who dies intestate when you're not their spouse? Ever try to get a doctor to release information about the victim of an accident when you're not "officially" part of their family?

2. Even if there wasn't any more to the issue than insurance benefits, I don't have any problem with insurance carriers covering gay spouses. Sorry, man, but I'm already subsidising the spouses of the straight couples around here. I don't really imagine that the gay couples are going to put THAT much of a strain on my premiums-especially since the Religious Right tries to claim that gays are an insignificantly small portion of the population.

3. The claim has been made that homosexuality is somehow an "unhealthy" behavior. Much of what makes it so is the fact that homosexuals tend more towards promiscuity. I would argue that marriage would tend to decrease that.

4. Let 'em adopt. I'd rather have a loving gay couple have a kid than make that kid grow up in an orphanage. No matter how unhealthy you think having gay parents would be, it's got to be better for the kid then growing up without ANY parents-and it's not like we have a shortage of kids to adopt out there.

Eddie Money
2/5/2004, 03:46 PM
So what I'm understanding here, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you're not givin' me a same sex marriage license, so now I'm left basically with nothing, I'm left with zero, in which, what can I DO with zero, you know, what can I--I can't do anything with it!..this is my life here we're talkin' about, we're not just talkin' about, you know, something else, we're talkin' about my life, you know, and it's forcing me to do something I don't wanna do: to leave. To go out and just leave and go home and make a clean cut here and say no way Corky, you're not putting up with these people and I'll tell you why I can't put up with you people, because you're bastard people, that's what you are, you're just bastard people and I'm goin home and I'm gonna bite my pillow, that's what i'm gonna do!

I hate you and I hate your *** face!

The Fake Don Dokken
2/5/2004, 04:18 PM
Frozen:

The economic comparison wasn't for Oklahoma and Massachusettes, it was for the islands of Hawaii and Cuba. Although, Oklahoma, due to oil and gas, has more to give the American economy than Hawaii as well. In the other argument, Oklahoma's Supreme Court isn't foisting an unhealthy lifestyle on its people.

#1 is taken care of with a little responsible pre-planning...a will and power of attorney take care of both. But, like I said responsibility. Not a hallmark of the homosexual community.

Of course you wouldn't mind paying for other folks' health insurance rates. You live in the state ranked #48 in population, so your pool is not as affected as other states who have more people to pay for.

That homosexuality is unhealthy is not a claim, it's a medical fact. The unhealthiness encompasses both physical and mental.

Finally, for years psychological studies have shown that the children of homosexuals are more prone to abuse and be abused, act out, use illicit drugs, abuse alcohol, etc. than children from heterosexual marriages. Also, who said anything about orphanages?

Stoop Dawg
2/5/2004, 04:21 PM
*You can have all the unprotected sex you want...in private, with someone you haven't paid, and with someone who has reached the age of majority. The are laws against unprotected, or any other kind of, sex in public places, with prostitutes, with minors, etc.

Again, you drive your own insurance rate up and burden the system if you contract a disease as a result of your unprotected sex. And, again, those with STDs are either excluded from or pay higher rates of insurance than those who are responsible enough not to contract an STD.

How is this different for homosexuals verses heterosexuals? You said "as with any other lifestyle that is harmful to heath (sic)" implying that this was a reason not to allow them to marry. It seems this is already taken care of by "you drive your own insurance rate up and burden the system if you contract a disease as a result of your unprotected sex" and "those with STDs are either excluded from or pay higher rates of insurance than those who are responsible enough not to contract an STD". Surely you're not saying that gays are more likely to break a leg or something.

Now, if you simply don't want the burden of more "spouses" on insurance plans, how do you justify singling out homosexuals? Why not blacks, or midgets, or Christians? If Christians weren't allowed to marry think how much lower your health insurance costs would be!!!

The Fake Don Dokken
2/5/2004, 04:24 PM
Dawg,
It is no different. But, that is no excuse to flood an already overburdened health care system.

Anyway, let's not dance around the subject. We're not talking about broken legs. What gays want is for health carriers to pay for their AIDS drugs - a very expensive endeavor. State and insurers do not have to take on those costs if they chose not to legalize gay marriages.

The lifestyle of the vast majority of married, heterosexual couples is healthier. Study after study - medical, psychiatric, insurance, etc. - have shown this to be true for years.

Private insurance companies can legally single out whomever they chose due to costs. That's why you are asked a battery of health-related questions when you apply for a life of health policy.

Stoop Dawg
2/5/2004, 04:29 PM
That homosexuality is unhealthy is not a claim, it's a medical fact. The unhealthiness encompasses both physical and mental.

As you so astutely pointed out, health insurance companies already compensate for higher risk groups. This point is null and void by your own admission.


Finally, for years psychological studies have shown that the children of homosexuals are more prone to abuse and be abused, act out, use illicit drugs, abuse alcohol, etc. than children from heterosexual marriages.

FYI, gay couples cannot "have" children. They must adopt or use artificial insemination (if female). I could be wrong, but I don't think that allowing marriage automatically allows adoption.

Stoop Dawg
2/5/2004, 04:31 PM
Anyway, let's not dance around the subject. We're not talking about broken legs. What gays want is for health carriers to pay for their AIDS drugs - a very expensive endeavor. State and insurers do not have to take on those costs if they chose not to legalize gay marriages.

They wouldn't have to pay for anyones health care if they outlawed all marriages. What is the criteria for selection of who can marry and who can't?

Frozen Sooner
2/5/2004, 04:41 PM
Frozen:

The economic comparison wasn't for Oklahoma and Massachusettes, it was for the islands of Hawaii and Cuba. Although, Oklahoma, due to oil and gas, has more to give the American economy than Hawaii as well. In the other argument, Oklahoma's Supreme Court isn't foisting an unhealthy lifestyle on its people.

#1 is taken care of with a little responsible pre-planning...a will and power of attorney take care of both. But, like I said responsibility. Not a hallmark of the homosexual community.

Of course you wouldn't mind paying for other folks' health insurance rates. You live in the state ranked #48 in population, so your pool is not as affected as other states who have more people to pay for.

That homosexuality is unhealthy is not a claim, it's a medical fact. The unhealthiness encompasses both physical and mental.

Finally, for years psychological studies have shown that the children of homosexuals are more prone to abuse and be abused, act out, use illicit drugs, abuse alcohol, etc. than children from heterosexual marriages. Also, who said anything about orphanages?

Last I checked, Massachusetts was to the northeast of New York. Part of your proposal was to send them to Canada.

Nobody's foisting an "unhealthy" lifestyle on anyone. No amount of legislation is going to make you have sex with another man.

Responsibility isn't really a hallmark of the straight population, either. Or haven't you noticed.

Finally, I'd like to see a link to these psychological studies. Since homosexual adoption is a rather new phenomenon, I'm curious about how they got an adequate sample size to make such sweeping generalizations-or are those generalizations about children of homosexuals who were in unhappy heterosexual marriages?

The Fake Don Dokken
2/5/2004, 04:42 PM
(1) Yes, they compensate by charging those of us with healthy lifestyles more premium. They, as well as states, then, have the right to prevent further rate increases that will occur by bringing a known unhealthy and costly group into the rate pool.

(2) Many studies involving children of gays includes children of former heterosexual couples forced to endure the homosexual lifestyle atmosphere when mom or dad decided they were gay and split from the family.

(3) Study after study has demostrated that people in heterosexual marriages have lower health risks (heart, high blodd pressure, etc.), so they are not a strain on the health insurance industry. The homosexual lifestyle does lead to expensive diseases. Insurers and states are within their right to keep costs down by not legalizing homosexual marriage.

The Fake Don Dokken
2/5/2004, 05:00 PM
Frozen,
Part one of my initial argument dealt with Massachusettes and other northern states to Cananda for political ideaolgy purposes, not economic. The economic part was second and dealt with Hawaii. That you confuse the two, then add Oklahoma, neither anorthern state nor one without resources to contribute to the economy, is not my problem.

Yes, if a state legalizes homosexual marriage, it is foisting an unhealthy lifestyle on others in the way of higher health costs.

The focus of the discussion has never been making anybody have sex with anyone. Nor has it been to stop anyone from having sex with anyone else. It merely points out the economic truth that the homosexual lifestyle is unhealthy and will burden an already maxed out health system. Homosexuals are free to be homosexual, but the state and insurers are within their right to not extend marriage its benefits to them.

Study after study shows the health benefit of a straight lifestyle in all ways - heterosexual marriage, abstinence from alcohol, illicit drug-use, alcohol abuse, etc.

Links:
http://www.narth.com/docs/studyconfirms.html
http://www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com/psychiatry.htm - this one has several studies included in it. Read up.

Stoop Dawg
2/5/2004, 05:07 PM
The homosexual lifestyle does lead to expensive diseases. Insurers and states are within their right to keep costs down by not legalizing homosexual marriage.

But you said:

"Obese people are excluded from or pay higher rates of insurance than people who are not obese."

and

"Drivers with poor driving records, surprise, are either excluded from or pay higher insurance rates."

and

"Also, regarding health insurance, those who smoke are often uninsurable or pay higher rates ."

and

"those with STDs are either excluded from or pay higher rates of insurance than those who are responsible enough not to contract an STD."

Why do you choose to exclude "unhealthy" homosexual marriages but not marriages between smokers, poor drivers, and obese people?

Let's cut to the chase. You oppose this on a moral basis. That's fine, but don't pretend that there is some economic catastrophe waiting to happen here.

The Fake Don Dokken
2/5/2004, 05:20 PM
As I stated before, homosexuals are free to be homosexual. But, insurers and states are within their right to oppose the legalization of homosexual marriage in order to keep health costs down.

You, apparently, are of the opinion that it's okay to just throw one more known costly behavior into the overburdened health care system. I say no. My opinion is that it does no good to continue to force insurers and states to subsidize unhealthy behavior.

Now, in a perfect world, insurers would absolutely be able to exclude the obese, those who choose to smoke, drive recklessly, and engage in risky sexual behavior. I have no problem with those people paying higher rates of insurance, but I'd rather they be excluded altogether.

Legally, though, either insurers or states, sometimes both, are forces to subsidize these behaviors in a high risk pool - underwritten by increased premiums for everyone.

There is a reason USAA is the lowest cost insurer. From its inception, it has served the insurance needs of military officers and their families. Because their lifestyles are much more risk averse, their rates for any insurance purchased through USAA was lower.

That's just the way it is. USAA can limit their own risk pool. Even now that they allowed enlisted folk to apply for their insurance, their rates are still the lowest because the lifestyle of the majority of military people is healthy. States may do the same risk management by not legalizing gay marriages.

I'm not for throwing more and more people who engage in risky behavior into the mix. Homosexuals fit that mold. For the same reasons, I oppose legalization of illicit drugs. The health costs on state and insurance companies would be too high there as well.

Engage in any type of risky behavior you want - homosexuality, alcohol absue, illicit drug use, drive 100 miles per hour in the rain - it doesn't matter to me until you ask me to pay for it.

Stoop Dawg
2/5/2004, 05:58 PM
You, apparently, are of the opinion that it's okay to just throw one more known costly behavior into the overburdened health care system. I say no. My opinion is that it does no good to continue to force insurers and states to subsidize unhealthy behavior.

I assume that you have health insurance. Why? Let me see if I can guess. You want insurance just in case you contract some disease or have some accident and the medical bills are too much for you to pay. Well, who picks up the tab if that happens? The rest of us. The only way insurance works is if people pay more in premiums than the insurance carrier pays out in benefits. That means somebody is paying for somebody elses health care costs. Of course you already know this. What you are trying to do is determine, based on your beliefs, who can and cannot get coverage. You don't want to pay for treatment for homosexuals. I don't want to pay for treatment for people who sky dive. Homosexuals want coverage. So do people who sky dive. How in the hell can you make everyone happy? You can't.

Stoop Dawg
2/5/2004, 06:02 PM
Engage in any type of risky behavior you want - homosexuality, alcohol absue, illicit drug use, drive 100 miles per hour in the rain - it doesn't matter to me until you ask me to pay for it.

I'm not asking you to pay for it, I'm asking the health insurance company to pay for it. There is no law (that I'm aware of) that requires you to buy health insurance. Why not forgo insurance? Then you pay for only your own costs. Oh, that's right, you want me to pick up the tab if you wreck your car. I forgot.

Czar Soonerov
2/5/2004, 06:04 PM
The subject of gay marriage has been covered intensively by the world press over the past decade. Advancments in gay marriage can be linked to many areas. While it has been acknowledged that it has an important part to play in the development of man, several of todays most brilliant minds seem incapable of recognising its increasing relevance to understanding future generations. Inevitably feelings run deep amongst the easily lead, who form the last great hope for our civilzation. Hold onto your hats as we begin a journey into gay marriage.

Social Factors

Society is our own everyday reality. When Sir Bernard Chivilary said 'hounds will feast on society' [1] he globalised an issue which had remained buried in the hearts of our ancestors for centuries. A child’s approach to gay marriage is quite good.

When one is faced with people of today a central theme emerges - gay marriage is either adored or despised, it leaves no one undecided. Clearly it promotes higher individualism and obeyence of instinct. As soon as a child meets gay marriage they are changed.

Economic Factors There has been a great deal of discussion in the world of economics, centred on the value of gay marriage. Of course, gay marriage fits perfectly into the Custard-Not-Mustard model. Taking special care to highlight the role of gay marriage within the vast framework which this provides.
Transport
Costs
http://radioworldwide.gospelcom.net/essaygenerator/images/graph_up_2.gifgay marriage




It is apparent from the graph that the influence of gay marriage is strong. What is the secret to its strength? Recent studies indicate that transport costs looms over gay marriage this cannot be a coincidence. Assumptions made by traders have caused uncertainty amongst the private sector.

Political Factors

Modern politics owes much to the animal kingdom. Comparing the general view of politics held by the poor of the west with those of the east can be like comparing the two, equally popular approaches to gay marriage. If the reader is unaware of these, they need only to turn on the television, or pick up a newspaper or popular magazine. We cannot talk of gay marriage and politics without remembering the words of that most brilliant mind Demetrius Skank 'political change changes politics, but where does it go?' [2] I couldn't have put it better my self. When it comes to gay marriage this is clearly true. I feel strongly that if politicians spent less time thinking about gay marriage and put more effort into their family life, that we would have a very different country.

I hope, for our sake that gay marriage will endure.



Conclusion

What can we conclude? Well, gay marriage may not be the best thing since sliced bread, but it's still important. It collaborates successfully, it stimulates and figures show it's a winning formular. I'll leave you with this quote from Courteney Clooney: 'I would say without a shadow of a doubt: gay marriage ROCKS!!! [3]

OklahomaTrombone
2/5/2004, 06:11 PM
db?

Sooner_Bob
2/5/2004, 06:18 PM
I've been a loyal USAA member for almost 9 years now. :p

FaninAma
2/5/2004, 06:47 PM
The subject of gay marriage has been covered intensively by the world press over the past decade. Advancments in gay marriage can be linked to many areas. While it has been acknowledged that it has an important part to play in the development of man, several of todays most brilliant minds seem incapable of recognising its increasing relevance to understanding future generations. Inevitably feelings run deep amongst the easily lead, who form the last great hope for our civilzation. Hold onto your hats as we begin a journey into gay marriage.

Social Factors

Society is our own everyday reality. When Sir Bernard Chivilary said 'hounds will feast on society' [1] he globalised an issue which had remained buried in the hearts of our ancestors for centuries. A child’s approach to gay marriage is quite good.

When one is faced with people of today a central theme emerges - gay marriage is either adored or despised, it leaves no one undecided. Clearly it promotes higher individualism and obeyence of instinct. As soon as a child meets gay marriage they are changed.

Economic Factors There has been a great deal of discussion in the world of economics, centred on the value of gay marriage. Of course, gay marriage fits perfectly into the Custard-Not-Mustard model. Taking special care to highlight the role of gay marriage within the vast framework which this provides.
Transport
Costs
http://radioworldwide.gospelcom.net/essaygenerator/images/graph_up_2.gifgay marriage




It is apparent from the graph that the influence of gay marriage is strong. What is the secret to its strength? Recent studies indicate that transport costs looms over gay marriage this cannot be a coincidence. Assumptions made by traders have caused uncertainty amongst the private sector.

Political Factors

Modern politics owes much to the animal kingdom. Comparing the general view of politics held by the poor of the west with those of the east can be like comparing the two, equally popular approaches to gay marriage. If the reader is unaware of these, they need only to turn on the television, or pick up a newspaper or popular magazine. We cannot talk of gay marriage and politics without remembering the words of that most brilliant mind Demetrius Skank 'political change changes politics, but where does it go?' [2] I couldn't have put it better my self. When it comes to gay marriage this is clearly true. I feel strongly that if politicians spent less time thinking about gay marriage and put more effort into their family life, that we would have a very different country.

I hope, for our sake that gay marriage will endure.



Conclusion

What can we conclude? Well, gay marriage may not be the best thing since sliced bread, but it's still important. It collaborates successfully, it stimulates and figures show it's a winning formular. I'll leave you with this quote from Courteney Clooney: 'I would say without a shadow of a doubt: gay marriage ROCKS!!! [3]

So am I the only one wondering wtf this post is supposed to mean?

So, society should set no norms for behavior?All relationships between consenting adults are as valid and valuable to society as the tradtional man-woman unions? No form of human relationship can possibly have a negative effect on society?

I would appreciate it very much if the enlightened few on this board would explain to this ignorant redneck what core values and principles we should try to uphold in order to perserve some semblence of a society that promotes the general welfare of the largest part of the population.

All choices are not equally beneficial to society and do not warrant equal protection of that society's laws.

Any law that would cheapen the traditional family, which has been proven to be the most successful type of social organization for nurturing and raising children, is harmful to society and should not be allowed.

I wish some of you who consider yourselves to be so open minded, live-and-let-live type people could see the misery and heartache that unstable and broken families wreak on children. You would quickly understand the consequences to a society that does not recognize the value a stable family holds for the children in our society.

So how does this apply to gay marriages? Gay marriages are very unstable. Which I could give a **** about if children weren't involved. But they will be.

I don't want to live in a society with no clearly delineated values or principles. I don't want my children to have to grow up in a society that has no firm beliefs in what is and is not acceptable behavior. It's a recipe for anarchy and continued deterioration of our society. I trust my kids to be able to recognize right from wrong, I just don't want them persecuted by the "enlightened" elitits for doing so.

Big Red Ron
2/5/2004, 07:03 PM
www.gayOKC.com

Scroll half way down and see whom they are supporting in the very next major election in Oklahoma, by having a fundraiser for him.

Stoop Dawg
2/5/2004, 07:10 PM
So, society should set no norms for behavior?All relationships between consenting adults are as valid and valuable to society as the tradtional man-woman unions? No form of human relationship can possibly have a negative effect on society?

I would appreciate it very much if the enlightened few on this board would explain to this ignorant redneck what core values and principles we should try to uphold in order to perserve some sembalance of a society that promotes the general welfare of the largest part of the population.

All choices are not equally beneficial to society and do not warrant equal protection of that society's laws.

Any law that would cheapen the traditional family, which has been proven to be the most successful type of social organization for nurturing and raising children, is harmful to society and should not be allowed.

I wish some of you who consider yourselves to be so open minded, live-and-let-live type people could see the misery and heartache that unstable and broken families wreak on children. You would quickly understand the consequences to a society that does not recognize the value a stable family holds for the children in our society.

So how does this apply to gay marriages? Gay marriages are very unstable. Which I could give a **** about if children weren't involved. But they will be.

I don't want to live in a society with no clearly delineated values or principles. I don't want my children to have to grow up in a society that has no firm beliefs in what is and is not acceptable behavior. It's a recipe for anarchy and continued deterioration of our society. I trust my kids to be able to recognize right from wrong, I just don't want them persecuted by the "enlightened" elitits for doing so.

Not sure if this is directed to me, I certainly don't consider myself one the "enlightened few", but I feel compelled to respond anyway.

My whole beef with this thread is against the bogus economic arguement against gay marriage. I have no problem with the moral arguement (I actually share it) or the children arguement (I share it also, see my first post). Marriage doesn't necessarily imply adoption rights, but it does open the door.

FaninAma
2/5/2004, 07:14 PM
Stoop Dawg, do you contend that unstable families don't have an economic impact on our society?

Stoop Dawg
2/5/2004, 07:22 PM
I contend that homosexual marriages have no greater impact on health insurance costs than many other already legal activities.

I also contend that economic impact should have a minimal role in making laws to legislate morality. If you want to argue morality, don't bring me an economic debate. Let's debate the real issue here.

Stoop Dawg
2/5/2004, 07:23 PM
Also, if you want to legislate "unstable families", let's go ahead and get all of the "unstable families".

Soonrboy
2/5/2004, 09:08 PM
Combined my wife and I have taught 20 plus years. Between the two of us, we have had 4 gay couples raising children. These children were well mannered, clean, and worked hard. However, we have had to call DHS on more than 18 "traditional" families. Children being left alone all night...children coming to school filthy...children being molested by someone in these "stable" homes.

Frozen Sooner
2/5/2004, 09:30 PM
Oh, boy, where do I start?


(1) The states north and east of New York are unnecessary. Nothing they do contributes positively to the United States - economically, socially, etc. I say we sell them all to Canada where their views are already acceptable.


Part one of my initial argument dealt with Massachusettes and other northern states to Cananda for political ideaolgy purposes, not economic. The economic part was second and dealt with Hawaii. That you confuse the two, then add Oklahoma, neither anorthern state nor one without resources to contribute to the economy, is not my problem.

That you type something that's ignorant, then claim that you didn't, is not my problem. I'm pretty sure that you'd be able to find people who don't think that Oklahoma adds as much to the nation economically or socially (not that I necessarily agree with this statement) as Massachusetts.

For the record, you specifically mentioned economics as a reason to get rid of the states to the NE of New York. Massachusetts definitely qualifies-and it's definitely the most liberal of the states that qualify. Yet somehow it makes a major social AND economic contribution to the nation. I assume you've never heard of Harvard, MIT, Boston College, Holy Cross, or any of the other major research institutions in Massachusetts.


Study after study shows the health benefit of a straight lifestyle in all ways - heterosexual marriage, abstinence from alcohol, illicit drug-use, alcohol abuse, etc.

Gotcha. So people who drink alcohol shouldn't be able to get insurance, either. Or people who aren't married. Guess that 90% of the people on this board are disqualified in your perfect little world.


(2) Many studies involving children of gays includes children of former heterosexual couples forced to endure the homosexual lifestyle atmosphere when mom or dad decided they were gay and split from the family.

Since you haven't provided me with a link to a peer-reviewed study that says this yet, do these studies note that children of straight parents who divorce and remain straight have a higher incidence of drug use, suicide, depression, etc, etc?

How about kids that are adopted to heterosexual couples? Ever looked up on the drug use, depression, suicide figures on those kids? Bet you dollars to donuts that they're higher than for the general population.

FaninAma
2/5/2004, 11:04 PM
Stoop Dawg,

Unstable families result in higher drop out rates, higher incidences of sexual experimentation and teenage pregnancy, higher rates of drug and alcohol use among teenagers and more children ending up on welfare. These economic costs don't even take into account the emotional toll family breakups wreak on children.

Our society, through continued social programs designed to take the place of two parent families by relieving the parents(usually the father) of personal responnsibility, have encouraged the creation of a large number of single parent families. But does that mean we should continue to go down this damaging road by legalizing other forms of marriage that are known to be highly unstable( this information is available from countries who already allow gay marriages.)

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you essentially saying that there are lots and lots of unstable families already so what's the harm in making it easier for even more unstable families to become a reality? And while we're at it let's do a little more damage to the staus of traditonal marriages by taking away the few remaining priviliges reserved for traditional marriages by the legal system.

Like I said, I wish you could see what happens to the kids in a family that breaks up. And I agree with you if your contention is that it's already too easy for adults to beg out of their responsibilities and commitments..... but whose fault is that?

We sure wouldn't want anyone to be deprived of finding the happiness that is being denied them because of their responsibilities to their children and families. Responsibility to one's children and family should always take a backseat to personal satisfaction and pleasure, right?

Laws are supposed to encourage behavior that is beneficial for society. Even the USSR rescinded it's policy of easy divorce after thay discovered the devestating effects it had on their society.

Any law or ruling that destabilizes the special status of traditional families and marriage does not have a beneficial effect for society. Our country has already trudged too far down this thorny path and we are paying the price now both economically and socially.

You and others can argue all you want, but the true story lies in the number of illigitimate children and single mother homes that seem to increase significantly the more the number of traditional families decrease.

Coincidence? I'll let others decide for themselves.

Gay marriages should not be allowed because to do so would:
1.Weaken the role traditional marriages play in our society.
2.Increase the number of unstable families in our society with all the inherant detrimental fallout that this brings to our society.

Main Entry: 1so·ci·e·ty
Pronunciation: s&-'sI-&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Etymology: Middle French societé, from Latin societat-, societas, from socius companion -- more at SOCIAL
1 : companionship or association with one's fellows : friendly or intimate intercourse : COMPANY
2 : a voluntary association of individuals for common ends; especially : an organized group working together or periodically meeting because of common interests, beliefs, or profession
3 a : an enduring and cooperating social group whose members have developed organized patterns of relationships through interaction with one another b : a community, nation, or broad grouping of people having common traditions, institutions, and collective activities and interests
4 a : a part of a community that is a unit distinguishable by particular aims or standards of living or conduct : a social circle or a group of social circles having a clearly marked identity <move in polite society> <literary society> b : a part of the community that sets itself apart as a leisure class and that regards itself as the arbiter of fashion and manners

In our society, what traditions and instituions should we try to preserve and encourage? Apparently none according to some of you.

Stoop Dawg
2/5/2004, 11:29 PM
Stoop Dawg,

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you essentially saying that there are lots and lots of unstable families already so what's the harm in making it easier for even more unstable families to become a reality? And while we're at it let's do a little more damage to the staus of traditonal marriages by taking away the few remaining priviliges reserved for traditional marriages by the legal system.

You and others can argue all you want, but the true story lies in the number of illigitimate children and single mother homes that seem to increase significantly the more the number of traditional families decrease.


Did you even read my post? Obviously not.

I said:

1. Don't bring an economic debate to a moral issue.

2. If you want to outlaw "unstable families" then outlaw "unstable families", not gay marriages. Of course, you are completely unable to define "unstable family" so you latch on to something convenient, like "gay marriage". You're taking the easy way out and slighting a bunch of people in the process.

Suppose legally married homosexuals could not raise children, would you still oppose gay marriage? If so, why?

Would you support a law that forbade known alcoholics from marrying?

Stoop Dawg
2/5/2004, 11:33 PM
In our society, what traditions and instituions should we try to preserve and encourage? Apparently none according to some of you.

How about the tradition of passing laws based on rational thought and consideration for others rights instead of our own personal agenda, religious upbringing, and bigoted views?

FaninAma
2/5/2004, 11:59 PM
Stoop Dawg,

Why does the left, when they disagree with a traditional value held by our society always call it a bigoted view? You lose a lot of credibilty and my attention span when you start throwing out terms like that.

Perhaps past generations who passed down a lot of these tradions recognized that they helped ensure that a society functioned the way it was supposed to. It wasn't as if these traditions were just dreamt up one day. They were developed over countless generations of trial and error and understanding the consequences of certain detrimental behavior.

So I think it is very arrogant for you and those on the left to discount them out of hand because you think you are more intelligent than all of those past generations who passed on their wisdom to later generations. In a certain way you all come across as the cocky 17 year old who thinks you already know everything there is to know about life.

I think the ones who are bigoted and narrow minded are those who want to disregard traditons of our society because they don't mesh with their philosophy that all values are relative.

And once again, you cannot separate the moral consequences from the economic consequences of behavior. They are too closely entertwined.

Czar Soonerov
2/6/2004, 12:05 AM
So am I the only one wondering wtf this post is supposed to mean?

So, society should set no norms for behavior?All relationships between consenting adults are as valid and valuable to society as the tradtional man-woman unions? No form of human relationship can possibly have a negative effect on society?

I would appreciate it very much if the enlightened few on this board would explain to this ignorant redneck what core values and principles we should try to uphold in order to perserve some semblence of a society that promotes the general welfare of the largest part of the population.

All choices are not equally beneficial to society and do not warrant equal protection of that society's laws.

Any law that would cheapen the traditional family, which has been proven to be the most successful type of social organization for nurturing and raising children, is harmful to society and should not be allowed.

I wish some of you who consider yourselves to be so open minded, live-and-let-live type people could see the misery and heartache that unstable and broken families wreak on children. You would quickly understand the consequences to a society that does not recognize the value a stable family holds for the children in our society.

So how does this apply to gay marriages? Gay marriages are very unstable. Which I could give a **** about if children weren't involved. But they will be.

I don't want to live in a society with no clearly delineated values or principles. I don't want my children to have to grow up in a society that has no firm beliefs in what is and is not acceptable behavior. It's a recipe for anarchy and continued deterioration of our society. I trust my kids to be able to recognize right from wrong, I just don't want them persecuted by the "enlightened" elitits for doing so.
http://radioworldwide.gospelcom.net/essaygenerator/

Sorry dude I didn't think anyone would take it seriously.

afs
2/6/2004, 12:07 AM
hook, line and sinker.

Blue
2/6/2004, 12:08 AM
I loved your post Czar. You're still diagnosed with IDS right?

FaninAma
2/6/2004, 12:08 AM
Unstable marriage.....a marriage that does not provide the appropriate level of nuturing or support to the members of that family that would help make each member of the family happy, more productive members of society. This lack of appropriate support is usually due to the failure to uphold parenteral responsibilty to the spouse and the children either emotionally or financially.

Things that encourage unstable families:
Government policies that take away financial incentive to stay married.
Refusing to make parents live up to financial responsibilities to children.
Moral views that hold marriage in light regard, ie. no consequences for bailing out at the least sign of difficulty.

BTW, I am not the one using a bait and switch tactic in this discussion. We are talking specifically about the impact of gay marriages. If you want to talk about the impact and causess of other types of unstable families, we can start another thread.

Stoop Dawg
2/6/2004, 12:12 AM
Thanks for the broad, sweeping generalizations. :rolleyes:

FYI, I am opposed to gay marriage from a moral and child raising standpoint. I stated this earlier, but you simply refuse to read my posts. Instead, you rant on about your point of view without listening to anyone else. I think I'm through here.

FaninAma
2/6/2004, 12:20 AM
Rant? Whatever. I guess I'll rant and you can continue to spew whatever the crap it is that you keep posting.

Funny how throwing out a few pejoratives can help a conversation along.

afs, sorry I missed that obvious attempt at humor.

It really is pointless to discuss anything on this board. Thanks for reminding me.

Frozen Sooner
2/6/2004, 12:24 AM
By the way, did you honest-to-God think that posting a link to NARTH-an organization that is dedicated to "healing" homosexuals of their orientation-was really going to convince me?

Why not just link me to stormfront or something?

FaninAma
2/6/2004, 12:27 AM
Thanks for the broad, sweeping generalizations. :rolleyes:

FYI, I am opposed to gay marriage from a moral and child raising standpoint. I stated this earlier, but you simply refuse to read my posts. Instead, you rant on about your point of view without listening to anyone else. I think I'm through here.

Then what the hell are you arguing about, the fact that I also think their is an detrimental economic impact from allowing gay marriages and you don't? I guess I did miss the substance of your posts because I still don't know where you stand on the issue. Do you or do you not support the legalization of gay marriages.

Stoop Dawg
2/6/2004, 12:27 AM
you can continue to spew whatever the crap it is that you keep posting.

Funny how throwing out a few pejoratives can help a conversation along.

Indeed, pot, indeed.

GeneralCartmanLee
2/6/2004, 12:59 AM
humpers!!

.....I miss DB

FaninAma
2/6/2004, 05:59 AM
Stoop Dawg,
Review the course of our conversation and tell me who used terms like "bigoted", "rant", etc before the conversation deteriorated. BTW, you still didn't answer my question: do you support legalizing gay marriages? Yes or no? It appears you want to straddle the fence on this issue.

The Fake Don Dokken
2/6/2004, 10:11 AM
Wow, this thing went on all night.

First, as to the jumping out of an airplane deal - life and health insurers do ask that very question in their applications. They don't want to extend coverages, nor should they, to people who want to jump out of planes.

As to me carrying health insurance, of course I do. And, companies gladly extend the benefits to me because I don't smoke, don't jump out of airplanes, don't have pre-existing medical conditions - either natural (i.e., cancer) or self-induced (i.e., STDs, AIDS, etc.), etc.

I get a check-up once a year. My reason for wanting health coverage is simply for check-ups and emergencies. The gays want it to subsidize the diseases they know full well they will contract.

The difference between me and a gay regarding insurance coverage comes down to two words - if versus when. I'll want the health coverage if the need ever arises due to an accident. The gays wants it for when they will inevitably contract a disease. There's huge difference.

That difference is played out in insurance policies of all sorts. It's the reason losses caused by intentional acts are excluded from coverage in homeowners, auto, business, etc. policies.

That is, if you are involved in doing something you know will cause a loss, the insurance company will not pay for it. That's not the intended purpose of insurance.

Gays know they will someday contract a disease, AIDS or otherwise. The nexus between homosexuality and serious sexual transmitted disease is not a matter of opnion, it is medical fact.

So, just as health insurers do not wish, and are not required, to cover those willing jumping out of airplanes, they are well within their right to withhold coverage to gay couples. States are correct to fight the gay marriage of these legitimate economic grounds.

So, yes, I can oppose gay marriage, legalizing drugs, or anything else on economic grounds. And, that is why states can and do oppose it. The homosexual lifestyle comes with heavy health costs. It is not like insuring any other family.

As to NARTH, it has over 700 member and it's growing. They psychiatrists and psychologist who join simply want to put healing people above politics. There is nothing wrong with that. Honesty over politics is always the best answer.

KC//CRIMSON
2/6/2004, 10:38 AM
"The gays want it to subsidize the diseases they know full well they will contract."

The gays wants it for when they will inevitably contract a disease.

man, you have a lot to learn.....

The Fake Don Dokken
2/6/2004, 10:42 AM
No, those who deny medical fact have alot to learn.

TopDawg
2/6/2004, 10:59 AM
If we're going to start legalizing whether two men or two women can be married, who's going to define "man" and "woman"? Where do transexuals, transgenders and hermaphrodites fall?

If someone is born a man but goes through changes to "become" a woman, should that person's marriage to a man be recognized?

What if a man and woman get married and then one of them changes sex? If we decide that we will not recognize it after the sex change, then what if a man and woman get married and one of them dies during the sex-change operation. How do we decide when you actually switch from man to woman (or vice-versa)?

The Fake Don Dokken
2/6/2004, 11:24 AM
Come on, TopDawg, these are softballs you're throwing me today:

If a man decides to become a woman, he is a Longhorn...whether single or married.

Besides that well-known truth, the health insurance industry is way ahead of you again. In every application, you will find questions regarding sex transformation surgery/medical/drug treatment.

Surprise, surprise, insurers don't want to deal with these either.

roostercogburn
2/6/2004, 11:39 AM
I know this may cause a storm but here goes. In my opinion homosexuality is just plain WRONG! It is not normal or moral. In fact I think it is an abomination. Why should homosexuals be given any rights whatsoever? I don't think they should. It is not about equality it is about advantages.

Stoop Dawg
2/6/2004, 11:39 AM
Also, if you want to legislate "unstable families", let's go ahead and get all of the "unstable families".

Fan, I am actually agreeing with you, just in a round-about way.

I say we legislate responsibility, not freedoms.

An analogy.

I don't have set hours at work. This is one of the best things about my job. I get here sometime between 8am and 9:30am. I leave sometime between 6pm and 8pm. Sometimes I take no lunch, sometimes I take a two hour lunch. I call this "freedom".

I don't have set hours at work. This is one of the worst things about my job. If there is a problem, I'm expected to handle it, it doesn't matter what time it is. I got a call just last night around 8:30 while I was having dinner with my parents. It wasn't a huge deal, but it interrupted my family time. I handled it. I call this "responsibility".

Now look at someone elses job, maybe an hourly tech who works 8-5 M-F. They clock in and clock out. They have no "freedom". You can't call them at home at 8:30 with a problem because they also have no "responsibility".

You can't take away freedoms and still expect people to act responsibly. Well, I guess you can expect it, but you likely won't get it.

What's all this mean? Well, it means that I would rather our government legislate "responsibility" rather than "freedom". Let the gays get married, that's a "freedom". There is nothing inherently wrong with it. What's wrong, and I think you agree, is the lack of responsibility taken by all married couples (especially those with children). So why not legislate the real problem, the lack of responsibility of married couples, rather than the freedom to get married in the first place?

I guess I'm asking you what your real opposition is to this issue. Is it really "unstable families"? If so, are you also fighting to keep other people who are likely to form unstable familes from getting married?

To solve a problem, first you have to identify it. If I've read your posts correctly, you've identified the problem as "unstable families". If that's the case, let's go after unstable families, not gay families.

Stoop Dawg
2/6/2004, 11:41 AM
I know this may cause a storm but here goes. In my opinion homosexuality is just plain WRONG! It is not normal or moral. In fact I think it is an abomination. Why should homosexuals be given any rights whatsoever? I don't think they should. It is not about equality it is about advantages.

You know what, I've got NO problem with your comment whatsoever. I respect the fact that you "vote" with your morals. I don't agree with you, but at least you didn't pull out some lame-*** "our medical insurance is going to skyrocket" arguement.

Stoop Dawg
2/6/2004, 11:45 AM
Gays know they will someday contract a disease, AIDS or otherwise. The nexus between homosexuality and serious sexual transmitted disease is not a matter of opnion, it is medical fact.

People over 65 will have serious medical problems in the next 10 - 20 years. That's a medical fact. Can people over 65 get married?

TopDawg
2/6/2004, 11:46 AM
Come on, TopDawg, these are softballs you're throwing me today:

If a man decides to become a woman, he is a Longhorn...whether single or married.

Besides that well-known truth, the health insurance industry is way ahead of you again. In every application, you will find questions regarding sex transformation surgery/medical/drug treatment.

Surprise, surprise, insurers don't want to deal with these either.

So we'll let the health insurance companies decide what our laws will say? You have a convenient habit of confusing issues to your benefit.

roostercogburn
2/6/2004, 11:53 AM
You know what, I've got NO problem with your comment whatsoever. I respect the fact that you "vote" with your morals. I don't agree with you, but at least you didn't pull out some lame-*** "our medical insurance is going to skyrocket" arguement.

There is nothing at all wrong about disagreeing. Nothing wrong at all, humper. ;)

roostercogburn
2/6/2004, 11:54 AM
you do know I'm joking about the humper thing right?

The Fake Don Dokken
2/6/2004, 11:54 AM
Yes. But, due to their age, they pay higher health insurance rates regardless of marital status.

The Fake Don Dokken
2/6/2004, 12:01 PM
Dawg, I have no issue with turning anything to my benefit. I oppose gay marriage because I understand what the gay's real agenda is and understand how costly it will be.

States are right to fight and oppose it on economic grounds. You may not like that, but it's just the truth.

Health care costs are high enough without throwing a group in there whose lifestyles are already proven to be medically risky and costly.

Health insurers, as a matter of good business and in the interest of keeping premiums as affordable as possible, routinely weed out those people who engage in risky behavior.

I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that gays engage is behaviors known to be medically risky. That's just life. Disagreeing with it doesn't change the fact of it.

Stoop Dawg
2/6/2004, 12:18 PM
Yes. But, due to their age, they pay higher health insurance rates regardless of marital status.

So why wouldn't gays simply pay a higher rate due to their sexuality? What's marriage got to do with it?

Stoop Dawg
2/6/2004, 12:20 PM
Health care costs are high enough without throwing a group in there whose lifestyles are already proven to be medically risky and costly.

But they let old people have health insurance, and they're by far the most expensive.

You contradict yourself with almost every post. It's actually quite comical.

The Fake Don Dokken
2/6/2004, 12:20 PM
For TopDawg
So that you may see that insurers don't want to cover risky behavior, consider the following examples of application questions:

MEDICAL HISTORY
Complete details for all "yes" answers must be provided in the space provided below.

A. Is any family member (applicant, spouse, children or step-children, mother of children if application is only for children), whether or not applying for coverage, currently pregnant or an expectant parent? If yes, coverage cannot be issued.

B. Does any applicant fly or plan to fly as a pilot, do any land/water racing, hang gliding, or rodeo activities?

C. Has any applicant ever had a sex transformation or commenced medical/drug treatment for a sex transformation?

D. Has any applicant ever had breast implants, even if breast implants have since been removed?

E. Has any applicant ever been arrested for, or had his/her driver's license suspended or revoked for, driving under the influence of alcohol and/or illegal drugs?

F. Has any applicant, in the past 10 years, been diagnosed with or been treated for alcoholism?

G. Has any applicant, in the past 10 years, been diagnosed with or been treated for drug (either legal or illegal) misuse, abuse or addiction or with chemical substance use or addiction?

H. Has any applicant, in the last 10 years, used any illegal drugs?

I. Has any applicant, inthe past 5 years, had an abnormal test result?

J. Has any applicant ever been diagnosed with or medically treated for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or AIDS related complex (ARC) or tested positive for HIV or HTLV III?

K. Has any appliancant, in the past 5 years, been advised to have any test, examination or surgery that has not yet been completed?

L. Has any applicant, in the last 12 months, had a weight loss of more than 15 pounds? If yes, what was prior weight?

M. Has any applicant, in the past 12 months, taken or been prescribed and prescription drug for any illness or condition?

N. Has any applicant, in the past 7 years, had any symptons, testing, treatment, diagnosis, consultation, counseling or been prescribed medication for any of the following physical systems, structures or organs, illnesses, innjuries, diseases or disorders, whether physical or psychological(Where multiple conditions are listed under one number, circle all that apply): It then goes on to list 70 possible choices

O. Has any applicant in the last 5 years had a physical examination or been diagnosed or treated for any condition not listed above?

The Fake Don Dokken
2/6/2004, 12:24 PM
I haven't contradicted myself in any post. My reason for opposing gay marriage has remained the same, economic.

Further, elderly costs are not more than those treated with AIDS-related drugs. The difference, which you have already chosen to ignore, is that the elderly costs are a natural course of life. People don't chose to age, they just do. Gay people chose to engage in risky behavior, and are rightly denied access to the same health benefits extended to married couples and the elderly for doing so.

What you believe is contradiction is simply refusal to believe that gay marriage cannot be compared equally to heterosexual marriage. It's more risky and will be more costly than heterosexual marrieds, no matter what the age.

You are free to believe that homosexual activity isn't risky or costly to society. The truth is the opposite. State and their health insurers know this, and so they oppose gay marriage. And, they are right to do so.

49r
2/6/2004, 12:35 PM
No, those who deny medical fact have alot to learn.
And just exactly WHERE did you go to medical school again?

49r
2/6/2004, 12:41 PM
I think we should deny junkies the right to get married...

Let's include porn stars in that group, too.

Those people are making my health insurance costs skyrocket because of their risky behavior.

Frozen Sooner
2/6/2004, 12:42 PM
I know this may cause a storm but here goes. In my opinion homosexuality is just plain WRONG! It is not normal or moral. In fact I think it is an abomination.

You're cool right up 'til here. I find homosexuality fairly distasteful as well. I wouldn't go so far as to call it an abomination, but there's lots of things that people call abominations that I don't agree with but can manage to live with. Things like eating cheeseburgers and such. Diversity of opinion is what makes this blue-green marble spin.



Why should homosexuals be given any rights whatsoever? I don't think they should. It is not about equality it is about advantages.


Rights aren't given by a government. They might be recognized by such, but for something to be a right it can't be given. Privileges are given. Depending on what you believe, rights are given by the Creator, or exist out of logical necessity of man's nature, or whatever.

What is the "advantage" a gay man gets over a straight man by being allowed to marry the person they choose?

Do straight people get insurance benefits for their spouse? Check.
Do straight people get to inherit as next of kin from their spouse? Check.
Do straight people get to make medical decisions about their spouse when the spouse is incapacitated? Check.
Do straight people have the right to adopt? Check.

Frankly, I haven't seen many gays ask for rights that straight people don't have. To me, that's not about advantages, that's about equality.

Boarder
2/6/2004, 12:51 PM
I have a problem with the word "marriage". If they want to have a "civil union" or something, so thier life partner can visit them in the hospital where only family is allowed, fine with me. Just don't call it a marriage.

I think it's an abomination and morally wrong, too. But, if you don't, you have that right to an opinion.

Stoop Dawg
2/6/2004, 01:01 PM
I haven't contradicted myself in any post.

You can continue to think that, but it doesn't make it true. You continue to tell TopDawg that the insurance companies already handle high risk groups adequately, then you tell me that we need to protect the insurance companies from a particular high risk group (gays) by not allowing them to get married.

The fact is, many many people who engage in risky behavior are covered by medical insurance. As you pointed out, they pay a higher premium, but they are not denied coverage.

You have a moral objection to homosexual marriage, but you choose to hide behind some faulty economic hogwash arguement instead of admitting it. And that is the truth.

Frozen Sooner
2/6/2004, 01:02 PM
I have a problem with the word "marriage". If they want to have a "civil union" or something, so thier life partner can visit them in the hospital where only family is allowed, fine with me. Just don't call it a marriage.

I think it's an abomination and morally wrong, too. But, if you don't, you have that right to an opinion.

Yeah, personally, I agree with what you just said in that first paragraph. However, "marriage" is a hot-button word, and nobody's willing to back down on that one word. I think that the judge in question may be taking the "Separate but equal is inherently unequal" doctrine a little far. Frankly, who CARES what it's called? Gay rights activists, IMO, damage their cause by not accepting an equivalent arrangement by a different name.

Frozen Sooner
2/6/2004, 01:03 PM
You can continue to think that, but it doesn't make it true. You continue to tell TopDawg that the insurance companies already handle high risk groups adequately, then you tell me that we need to protect the insurance companies from a particular high risk group (gays) by not allowing them to get married.

The fact is, many many people who engage in risky behavior are covered by medical insurance. As you pointed out, they pay a higher premium, but they are not denied coverage.

You have a moral objection to homosexual marriage, but you choose to hide behind some faulty economic hogwash arguement instead of admitting it. And that is the truth.

I pointed out above where TFDD directly contradicted himself. Forget about it, man. Guy's trolling.

Stoop Dawg
2/6/2004, 01:09 PM
I think we should deny junkies the right to get married...

Exactly, if we're going to deny people the right to get married based on perceived economic and/or social problems that it will cause, let's not limit our crusade to gays. Let's go after junkies, alcoholics, mentally retarded, convicted fellons, and Dems/Reps (whichever group you don't belong to) too. All of these groups are known to me to be poor parents, so it's my responsibility to keep them from getting married.

Or, instead of dancing around some "marriage" issue, we could actually concentrate our efforts on the real problems. Higher insurance premiums for high risk groups (we already have this) and better adoption laws (I don't know the adoption laws, but evidently they're giving kids out to gay couples on the corner now) come to mind.

The Fake Don Dokken
2/6/2004, 01:22 PM
Again and again and again...because heterosexual marrieds are low risk.

49r, check the health insurance application. Junkies and porn stars would not likely be able to receive coverage regardless of their marital status.

Also, being a doctor is not necessary to gather and understand the facts. Ignoring the facts or wnating them to be different will never change them.

But, for your medicial edification, links
http://www.mfc.org/Links%20on%20Webpage/Medical%20Risks.doc.

http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/9_Sept/900fist3.htm

http://www.homosexuellt.com/infosida/show_article.asp?Idnr=207

http://www.psych-net.org/Articles/depression-art.html

http://www.gaynet.com.au/news/archive/story-232.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11115206&dopt=Abstract

Stoop Dawg
2/6/2004, 01:26 PM
49r, check the health insurance application. Junkies and porn stars would not likely be able to receive coverage regardless of their marital status.

SO WHY IS MARITAL STATUS RELEVANT FOR GAYS?????


My God, you may be the most obstinate person I've ever had the displeasure of chatting with.

The Fake Don Dokken
2/6/2004, 01:34 PM
I have no problem with people practicing their homosexuality, but not when they try to force it into law. And, especially when doing so will further drive up the cost of health insurance.

Yes, health insurers do already charge higher rate or exclude certain risk groups. Your idea is that "we'll just throw another one in there, what's the difference." My idea is, no way, no how.

You continue to throw other groups in with homosexuals who are already not suitable for health insurance coverage - junkies, alcoholics, etc. Married or not, benefits are not extended to them.

For the same reason, high risk behavior, coverage for homosexuals is resisted by States and their insurers. They will rightly continue to do so, married or not. Under the shield of marriage, though, gays would be given more legal leverage for coverage.

Thankfully and rightfully, States will continue to resist the push.

And, Dawg/Frozen, I know you truly wish this to me a moral position for me, but it's not. Sorry. I oppose many things on economic grounds. Homosexual marriage and legalization of illicit drugs just happen to be two of them.

Stoop Dawg
2/6/2004, 01:39 PM
You continue to throw other groups in with homosexuals who are already not suitable for health insurance coverage - junkies, alcoholics, etc. Married or not, benefits are not extended to them.

Good, I'm glad we finally agree on this. Marriage for gays is not an issue w.r.t. health insurance. Whew! That was exhausting!

The Fake Don Dokken
2/6/2004, 01:45 PM
No, it is their issue, it is their main issue for wanting gay marriage. Gays want to be have their relationships legally recognized the same as heterosexuals so that they can sue for equal status from States and their helath carriers.

As repeated over and over again, State and their health insurers wisely oppose them on economic grounds. Count me in that group that opposes them on economic grounds.

roostercogburn
2/6/2004, 01:54 PM
You're cool right up 'til here. I find homosexuality fairly distasteful as well. I wouldn't go so far as to call it an abomination, but there's lots of things that people call abominations that I don't agree with but can manage to live with. Things like eating cheeseburgers and such. Diversity of opinion is what makes this blue-green marble spin.





Rights aren't given by a government. They might be recognized by such, but for something to be a right it can't be given. Privileges are given. Depending on what you believe, rights are given by the Creator, or exist out of logical necessity of man's nature, or whatever.

What is the "advantage" a gay man gets over a straight man by being allowed to marry the person they choose?

Do straight people get insurance benefits for their spouse? Check.
Do straight people get to inherit as next of kin from their spouse? Check.
Do straight people get to make medical decisions about their spouse when the spouse is incapacitated? Check.
Do straight people have the right to adopt? Check.

Frankly, I haven't seen many gays ask for rights that straight people don't have. To me, that's not about advantages, that's about equality.

Point taken. But I will not back down on my opinion that homosexuality is an abomination. It is wrong in my opinion and I will stand up for that until the day I die. I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to marry and be given the same privileges as heterosexual couples. It has nothing to do with insurance or anything other than I believe it is just plain wrong. I do respect your opinion, I just do not agree with it. :cool:

49r
2/6/2004, 02:49 PM
Gays want to be have their relationships legally recognized the same as heterosexuals so that they can sue for equal status from States and their helath carriers.
Sounds reasonable to me, actually....

Funny how junkies, porn stars and the like don't have to sue for equal status...personally, I find this type of behavior much more morally reprehensible than homosexuality and it doesn't bother me that they are able to marry.

The Fake Don Dokken
2/6/2004, 02:52 PM
I can't really figured out why you keep bringing up junkies as they would be uninsurable in almost every circumstance whether they are married or not, as pointed out to you several times now.

C&CDean
2/6/2004, 03:11 PM
This thread is hopelessly gay.

God will never recognize homosexual marriages. That's good enough for me.

The Fake Don Dokken
2/6/2004, 03:29 PM
Dean,
Do you mean that on economic or moral grounds? :D

Pricetag
2/6/2004, 04:49 PM
This thread is hopelessly gay.

God will never recognize homosexual marriages. That's good enough for me.

Interesting point here. We need to separate the legal and spiritual sides of marriage for this debate.

When religion is concerned, a marriage is a promise before God.

To the government, what is a marriage? It is a legal contract between two people, nothing else. Religious ideals should be null and void here.

C&CDean
2/6/2004, 05:03 PM
Pricetag,

When God is concerned, a marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN is a promise before God. Nothing else matters to me.

I don't give a rat's *** about "legally." We can "legally" kill babies. We can "legally" kill ourselves in some states. Neither are righteous before God.

FaninAma
2/6/2004, 05:07 PM
As a person whose parents divorced while I was in grade school, I understand that some families cannot be salvaged. However, I also think it is wrong for society to promote family unions that historically are known to have a high rate of failure. We should be encouraging unions with the highest rate of succes, not giving people more options for failure.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

I am not opposed to placing a minimum age on getting married or to have children. Hell, if it's OK to tell 18 year olds they're too young to drink or gamble why is it not ok to assume most 18 year olds don't have the skills to raise children and support a family? I have never understood why the concept of having children is viewed as a right rather than a privilige to be earned. Society seems OK with regulating all forms of irresponsible behavior except irresponsible sexual behavior.

We all make mistakes. The important thing is that we learn from our mistakes and try to make better decisions in the future. I think ignoring lessons learned by previous cultures and civilizations violates that tenet. Instead of relaxing these traditons and tenets we should be taking action to strengthen them.

One of the biggest mistakes I've seen parents make is not teaching their children that all values aren't relative. There are right and wrong choices and your choices have consequences.

Allowing gay marriages will have consequences and ,imo, these consequences will not be good for our society.

The Fake Don Dokken
2/6/2004, 05:44 PM
I concur fully...on economic grounds ;)

OUthunder
2/6/2004, 05:47 PM
As a person whose parents divorced while I was in grade school, I understand that some families cannot be salvaged. However, I also think it is wrong for society to promote family unions that historically are known to have a high rate of failure. We should be encouraging unions with the highest rate of succes, not giving people more options for failure.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

I am not opposed to placing a minimum age on getting married or to have children. Hell, if it's OK to tell 18 year olds they're too young to drink or gamble why is it not ok to assume most 18 year olds don't have the skills to raise children and support a family? I have never understood why the concept of having children is viewed as a right rather than a privilige to be earned. Society seems OK with regulating all forms of irresponsible behavior except irresponsible sexual behavior.

We all make mistakes. The important thing is that we learn from our mistakes and try to make better decisions in the future. I think ignoring lessons learned by previous cultures and civilizations violates that tenet. Instead of relaxing these traditons and tenets we should be taking action to strengthen them.

One of the biggest mistakes I've seen parents make is not teaching their children that all values aren't relative. There are right and wrong choices and your choices have consequences.

Allowing gay marriages will have consequences and ,imo, these consequences will not be good for our society.

Best post on this thread, IMO.

Stoop Dawg
2/6/2004, 07:05 PM
We should be encouraging unions with the highest rate of succes, not giving people more options for failure.

For the sake of arguement, let's say that we should use marriage laws to control divorce rates. In that case, I can make a pretty strong arguement that Mississippi should outlaw white marriages.


Divorce in Mississippi -- includes stats on number of children involved

The divorce rate for Blacks is much lower than for Whites. White divorce has increased nearly 2_ times faster than divorce among Blacks. While Blacks make up 31% of the adult population, they are involved in only 22% of divorces. Whites give up earlier, too: 44% of White divorces occur in the first five years of marriage; for Blacks only 30% of those who divorce quit that early.

http://www.divorcereform.org/chilrate.html

Now, I'm sure you're ready to break out the great big :rolleyes: right about now, but really, what is the difference? You've identified a group of people who statistically don't stay together very long (I assume you have stats to back this up) and said "Let's not let them get married". Here I've provided stats that say whites don't stay together very long, so let's not let them get married either.

We could also use statistics to say that people in certain states shouldn't be allowed to marry because the likelyhood that it will work out is lower than the other states.

We could probably find statistics to back up a stance to deny marriage to religious groups too.

I'm curious, and have yet to find an answer, why you choose gays and not these other groups? Or, perhaps you choose gays and these other groups and I just don't know about the other groups. Is that it?

49r
2/6/2004, 07:44 PM
I'm curious, and have yet to find an answer, why you choose gays and not these other groups?
I agree with this wholeheartedly.

As far as I can tell in this thread...nobody is trying to argue that marriage between homosexuals should be allowed by law...

The problem most people have is the assumption that the only reason it should NOT be allowed is due to the theory that it would raise health insurance rates however insignificant the increase may be.

AIDS treatment, not only for gays, but for all HIV+ people in the US, if paid for completely by the federal government, would amount to merely a fraction of the amount of money Haliburton gets in its contract to rebuild Iraq. As a portion of the total amount of money spent annually by the Insurance industry, it would still be terribly insignificant, not enough to raise your rates enough so that you'd notice.

Now, if you were to say to me that the reason you are against legalizing gay marriages is because you hate gays and hope they all die and burn in Hell for all eternity, I would say "God bless you" and move on. But to come in here and try to convince me that the reason health insurance costs too much is because of crap like this, I will have to call shenanigans...

Shenanigans I say!!!!

Pricetag
2/6/2004, 07:53 PM
Pricetag,

When God is concerned, a marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN is a promise before God. Nothing else matters to me.

I don't give a rat's *** about "legally." We can "legally" kill babies. We can "legally" kill ourselves in some states. Neither are righteous before God.

My point is that I think a lot of people can't let go of their religious beliefs (which have no bearing on government) long enough to understand that homosexuals are not seeking the acceptance of God. They'll never get it from the government. They aren't seeking the acceptance of you, or me, or anyone else for that matter. They'll never get that from the government, either. All they want is a legal recognition of their union.

sotexsooner
2/6/2004, 08:41 PM
My point is that I think a lot of people can't let go of their religious beliefs (which have no bearing on government) long enough to understand that homosexuals are not seeking the acceptance of God. They'll never get it from the government. They aren't seeking the acceptance of you, or me, or anyone else for that matter. They'll never get that from the government, either. All they want is a legal recognition of their union.


I disagree,,,,,, they are seeking acceptance from you and I, they want to legitimize their lifestyle so that they can enjoy all the benefits of a God ordained union between a man and a women. I completely agree with C&CDEAN where he said just because something was legal it didn't make it right before God. So far as religous beliefs having no bearing on govt., I have to point out that that was the basis for this country at it's founding. Why else would we have "In God We Trust" on our money, the Ten Commandments posted in the federal supreme court building, numerous references to God in the founding documents and the Ten Commandments being one of the foundations our jurus prudence was based on. I realize that in todays culture, this isn't popular, but the truth is still the truth. Heteros rule the world ;)

FaninAma
2/6/2004, 09:57 PM
So Stoop, do you support the legalization of gay marriages? I still don't know where you stand on this issue. I know you are arguing with those who don't support legalization but I haven't seen you come out and state your position clearly.

I would be interested in the source you reference to find out how many families in each group begin without a married couple. I would assume that in groups that start out with a high number of single parent households or non-married couples the divorce rate would naturally be lower.

And again you try to muddy the waters of this discussion by trying to compare gay marriages to other trends that are negatively impacting marriage and our society.

Just because there are other problems with the institution of marriage in this country doesn't mean we should give it another shot to the midsection by allowing gay marriages.

It's kind of like saying it was OK for Switzer to recruit other problem players to his program since he already had a couple on the team. I'm sure the new problem players would help the situation ever so much.

FaninAma
2/6/2004, 09:58 PM
SO WHY IS MARITAL STATUS RELEVANT FOR GAYS?????


My God, you may be the most obstinate person I've ever had the displeasure of chatting with.

I thought I had that honor.

OklahomaTuba
2/6/2004, 10:14 PM
i don't think its the governments job to promote the homosexual lifestyle, IMO. And if two men and two women can marry, whats next? An aggie and a sheep?

These people aren't special, they don't need any special rights.

Frozen Sooner
2/7/2004, 01:08 AM
Ama, I wouldn't necessarily call you obstinate. You can be persuaded to see things another way, and I geniuinely think that you try to see the other side of an issue.

Tuba-again, for what special right that a heterosexual married couple doesn't have are gays asking?

RedstickSooner
2/7/2004, 03:11 AM
As I stated before, homosexuals are free to be homosexual. But, insurers and states are within their right to oppose the legalization of homosexual marriage in order to keep health costs down.



If it's costs you're concerned with, you should be in *support* of gay marriage, not in opposition to it.

Married gays are like any other married subset -- less likely to be promiscuous. At least, that's the idea behind marriage. You're supposed to be faithful. Sadly, I've seen figures that say the majority of folks cheat, just as the majority of marriages end in divorce.

Seems to me marriage has far too many other things to worry about for us to be getting in a tizzy over homosexuals.

Here's just a few things that we as a nation could do if we were *really* concerned about marriage:

1) Adultery laws should be re-introduced where they've been abandoned, and should be strictly enforced where they remain in place. It should be illegal for a married person to sleep around, and it should also be illegal for a single person to knowingly sleep with a married person.

(Side note -- if you wish to be in an "open relationship", that's fine -- just don't get married. Marriage means monogomy. Period.)

2) Divorce should include a financial penalty -- a sin tax, just as cigarettes, booze, and the like do. 10% of the married couple's assets would be a good start.

3) Public education, from middle school through high school, should include a thorough grounding on relationships as well as household finance. There's no reason we couldn't fight two of the biggest enemies to marriage -- the inability to understand what a true relationship requires, and bad financial behavior. Putting yourself ahead of your spouse kills a marriage. So does running up 10k in 24% credit-card debt. The closest most kids get to learning about relationships in high school is plumbing (sex ed). Kids should, basically, have to take home ec, both males & females, and a home ec class that teaches more than how to change a diaper, or how to bake a cake.

4) American employers should be pressured by the government to increase vacation benefits to bring us closer to the Europeans. Steps should also be put into place that would force employees to use those vacation days, rather than just accrue them until they've got literally years worth to take as early retirement. Yes, it's great that our Protestant work ethic allows us to work the entire year through without taking any break other than for various Federal holidays. It's also hard as hell on our kids and spouses.

5) All financial penalties for marriage should be removed, at least as far as tax deductions go.

6) Couples should be encouraged to be engaged for at least 6 months prior to marriage -- perhaps with a carrot in the form of an extra tax deduction. Or, better yet, allow a certain portion of wedding ceremony expenses to be deducted if those involved are engaged for six months prior to the ceremony.

Anyhow, I'm sure there's plenty more we could do. After all, we aren't doing anything at all to help improve things at the moment. Ranting about gays is all well-and-good, but I just don't see how knowing that Bob and Jim down the street from me finally tied the knot and got it on a certificate is going to do anything to hurt my marriage with my wife, or my relationship with my kids.

Frankly, I'm too busy with my family to care what someone else's might be.

Blue
2/7/2004, 03:17 AM
GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG. THAT IS THE POINT!

NITRAM
2/7/2004, 03:38 AM
Being a FAG is wrong period.....end of THREAD>>>>>

RedstickSooner
2/7/2004, 03:59 AM
GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG. THAT IS THE POINT!

You're *much* louder than the rest of us.

Clearly, you must be right.

Soonrboy
2/7/2004, 08:48 AM
If it's costs you're concerned with, you should be in *support* of gay marriage, not in opposition to it.


Seems to me marriage has far too many other things to worry about for us to be getting in a tizzy over homosexuals.

Here's just a few things that we as a nation could do if we were *really* concerned about marriage:

1) Adultery laws should be re-introduced where they've been abandoned, and should be strictly enforced where they remain in place. It should be illegal for a married person to sleep around, and it should also be illegal for a single person to knowingly sleep with a married person.

(Side note -- if you wish to be in an "open relationship", that's fine -- just don't get married. Marriage means monogomy. Period.)


Anyhow, I'm sure there's plenty more we could do. After all, we aren't doing anything at all to help improve things at the moment. Ranting about gays is all well-and-good, but I just don't see how knowing that Bob and Jim down the street from me finally tied the knot and got it on a certificate is going to do anything to hurt my marriage with my wife, or my relationship with my kids.

Frankly, I'm too busy with my family to care what someone else's might be.

Sing on , brother Redstick, Sing on!!

The marriage to my wife has three components: me, her and our God. If two other people decide to get married, it's between them and their God. I am not putting my beliefs on anyone else, just as I do not expect anyone else to put their beliefs onto me and the decisions I make for my family.

I need to see legitimate reports that say that gays are driving up my health insurance. I'm sure it has nothing to do with doctors need to have malpractice insurance to guard themselves against frivalous lawsuits.

I'm sure my auto insurance is high to help cover all the teenagers who may have a wreck. Hey, maybe its gay teenagers. Wouldn't that be something.

FaninAma
2/7/2004, 09:59 AM
Soonrboy, then let's just toss out all rules that regulate human behavior in this society.

No rules to regulate gambling.
No rules to regualte anything about marriage between consenting adults including incest & polygamy.
No rules to reduce drug use(after all, that's between the drug user and his God)
No rules to provide health care or an education for your children(after all how you raise your children is between you and your God)
No rules against prostitution.
Let's get rid of all rules in which the purpose of the rule is designed to influence personal behavior of consenting adults..

You may not see the connection but to me these rules are in place to insure society functions in a harmonius and effecient manner.

Allowing gay marriages is detrimental to this goal.

Again, those of you who want to toss out time-tested traditions of our society are like petulant teenagers who think they know everything there is to know about life by the age of 17.

roostercogburn
2/7/2004, 10:28 AM
GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG. THAT IS THE POINT!

Exactly!

Blue
2/7/2004, 01:48 PM
[/COLOR]

You're *much* louder than the rest of us.

Clearly, you must be right.

Sorry. I was a tad buzzed when I got home last night. Carry on.

Frozen Sooner
2/7/2004, 01:51 PM
GAY MARRIAGE IS WRONG. THAT IS THE POINT!

Well, you've certainly convinced me.

Stoop Dawg
2/7/2004, 02:35 PM
So Stoop, do you support the legalization of gay marriages? I still don't know where you stand on this issue. I know you are arguing with those who don't support legalization but I haven't seen you come out and state your position clearly.

I really don't see why my position matters. I'm just trying to get you to think about what the real problem is that you are trying to solve. Is it really gay marriages, or is it bad marriages? If it's the latter, then I don't see what sexual preference has to do with it. Unless, of course, you contend that all gay marriages are "bad" marriages. Maybe that's the point I'm missing?

I don't support it. I'm not going to write to my senator or walk any picket lines or attend any rallies for it. I won't donate a single dime to the cause. But I'm not going to fight those who are trying to get it done either. I hope this clears it up for you.

Stoop Dawg
2/7/2004, 03:25 PM
And again you try to muddy the waters of this discussion by trying to compare gay marriages to other trends that are negatively impacting marriage and our society.

Fan: Group A should be denied marriage because of reason X

SD: Group B also exhibits reason X and they can get married

Fan: DON'T MUDDY THE WATERS!!!!


You're stuck in a logic box, dude. You have to go all the way forward (deny marriage to all groups who exhibit reason X) or all the way back (allow marriage regardless of reason X).

Stoop Dawg
2/7/2004, 03:30 PM
Here's just a few things that we as a nation could do if we were *really* concerned about marriage:

<snip a bunch of stuff that would probably really help but has nothing to do with homosexual marriage>




Nice. I completely agree.

Frozen Sooner
2/7/2004, 03:35 PM
Stoop Dawg:

You've kind of got a slippery slope going there.

Redstick:

That would seem to be a constitutional issue. Freedom of association and whatnot.

Soonrboy
2/7/2004, 03:36 PM
I don't support it. I'm not going to write to my senator or walk any picket lines or attend any rallies for it. I won't donate a single dime to the cause. But I'm not going to fight those who are trying to get it done either. I hope this clears it up for you.


I agree. There are FAR more pressing issues.

Sooner_Bob
2/7/2004, 03:42 PM
I don't support it. I'm not going to write to my senator or walk any picket lines or attend any rallies for it. I won't donate a single dime to the cause. But I'm not going to fight those who are trying to get it done either. I hope this clears it up for you.


So basically you don't support it from the comfort of your home? :p

Stoop Dawg
2/7/2004, 03:51 PM
Stoop Dawg:

You've kind of got a slippery slope going there.


I'm not saying there is no reason to deny gay marriage. I'm saying that the reason Fan has provided (and the Dokken guy) are not good reasons.

The escape hatch to the logic box would be to prove that all gay marriages exhibit reason X while only some "Group B" marriages exhibit reason X. Even so, it makes more sense to legislate "reason X" rather than marriage of various groups.

Sooner_Bob
2/7/2004, 04:07 PM
I'm not saying there is no reason to deny gay marriage. I'm saying that the reason Fan has provided (and the Dokken guy) are not good reasons.

The escape hatch to the logic box would be to prove that all gay marriages exhibit reason X while only some "Group B" marriages exhibit reason X. Even so, it makes more sense to legislate "reason X" rather than marriage of various groups.


So being of the opinion that same-sex marriages are morally wrong isn't good enough?


I guess then I've got to ask.


What is the whole point of "marriage" anyway?


I'm of the opinion that a marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman that is blessed by man and God. A man and a woman vow to become one until "death do us part". Now does that happen with each marriage? Nope.

Does that mean that hetero-marriages are more or less stronger than a perceived homo-marriage? Nope.

The strength of a marriage shouldn't even be an issue here.

While the relationship between two men and/or two women may be every bit as "special" I'm offended when same-sex marriages are said to be equivalent to "traditional" marriages.

It worries me when the world continually goes against what we as Christians believe to be the teachings of God . . . on many issues.

The Fake Don Dokken
2/7/2004, 04:11 PM
My reasons for opposing gay marriage are legitimate because, from the tone of your ridiculous questions, I'm the only poster who has read the type of legislation pushed by gays. It's costly and aimed at forcing States and private insurers into covering the cost of their inevitable diseases. Marriage would be a major legal weapon for them.

Dawg/Frozen, it's hardly worth answering your posts. I've answered them all with fact. You've tried bogus comparisons between other groups and activities, but they are not even close. Junkies, sky divers, etc, aren't trying to push legislation to force States and private insurers into covering their high risk lifestyles.

That's it. Period. You may wish it were different, but when you read their legislative porposals, that's what it all comes down to.

Some oppose it because of their religious beliefs. It doesn't matter to me. God will sort all of that out in the end, marriage or not. No one but God controls what God will do.

On the other hand, the State can control how their economies and those who participate in it (insurers) are effected. By opposing gay marriage, they effectively control it.

State after state is passing legislation to prohibit gay marriage, and that's greatness. They are to be applauded for keeping the economic interests in sight and not being sucked into inane controversies of "rights" for every last group who claims to be a different.

If junkies want to kill themselves with needles, fine, go ahead. If sky divers want to risk death by jumping out of an airplane, great, have at it. If queers want to give themselves an uncurable disease by putting their penises into the area of the body meant to discard waste, hooray, go right ahead. But, when they want a law to gain the benefits of people who lead healthy lifestyles, forget it.

Boarder
2/7/2004, 04:36 PM
:) George Lynch's sidekick:

You seem to be talking about 2 different issues.

1. Allowing gays to have insurance coverage
2. Allowing gays to become legally married.

Just because they marry doesn't mean they'd get insurance.

Or is that written into some sort of legislation and that's the whole point you're trying to make?

49r
2/7/2004, 09:05 PM
Okay, we're talking about healthcare costs, here folks.

Here's the reason why I don't think that legalizing homosexual marriages will have a drastic effect on the cost of health insurance.

Now, I believe, the arguement goes something like this.

Gays have AIDS
Gays want to get married so they can get health insurance (as if they couldn't already get health insurance)
Because the insurance industry will be flooded with these diseased gay people, my (or The Fake Don Dokken's) premiums will increase.

Currently in the US today, there are about 1 million people who have HIV/AIDS.

I don't have exact figures on the cost of HIV treatment, but lets assume that the prescription costs are $1000 per month. (Could be higher, I am not exactly sure on that)

What this means is that *if* every person in America who was HIV+ was getting insurance-covered treatments, the total cost to the insurance industry would be in the neighborhood of $12 billion.

Americans spend approximately $1.3 TRILLION annually on healthcare....yeah, I said TRILLION...that is ONE THOUSAND BILLION.


Now, lets assume that of the total amount of money spent on healthcare annually, about half is paid by the insurance companies...(I can assure it is much, much higher than that, but for argument's sake, let's keep these numbers conservative)

So, half of that 1.3 Trillion dollars is $650 Billion.

$650 Billion.

Let's say we heap the whopping 12 Billion on top of that to account for the cost of healthcare for those with AIDS...because, for some reason, once Gays are allowed to marry, they will all get health insurance regardless of their current medical status. And even though only about half of all people in the US who have HIV/AIDS are gay, we will chalk the whole enchilada up to them anyway.

That means that pre-Homosexual marriage insurance spending on healthcare is somewhere in the neighborhood of $650 Billion. Once gays are allowed to marry, that's going to bump that number up to a staggering $662 Billion.

This means that the insurance industry will be asked to cover an additional 1.8% of the country's health care costs.

But, in reality, the number will be 0% because whether or not gays were allowed to get married, an insurance company will not pay for AIDS treatment.

As you can see, this argument is WEAK.

And, as Stoop Dawg has pointed out, the logic is flawed anyway...

Frozen Sooner
2/7/2004, 09:17 PM
To be fair, I don't think DD is trying to argue that gays are going to try to get insurance when they already have AIDS.

This whole insurance line of reasoning is completely absurd, though. Gay men get their health insurance the way that 99.9% of the people in this country that have insurance get it-through their employer. There's not this teeming underclass of gay men who are going to rush out and get married just because it will give them insurance benefits.

In fact, note this:


Gay men were more likely than either women or heterosexual men to have private health insurance.

http://www.aegis.com/news/sfe/1997/SE970907.html

Considering that this is an article talking about the lack of health insurance by HIV patients, it's hardly prone to being slanted towards saying gay men having insurance. However, that's exactly what they found.

No, there's also not going to be this huge rush of people with AIDS getting married and getting coverage. Why? Because insurance companies don't pay for pre-existing conditions-especially when the pre-existing condition was known to prevail at the time of writing.

So, there's the facts. Gay men already have insurance. Allowing gay men to marry isn't going to impact insurance premiums one bit. The arguments DD is making would be relevant to a discussion on whether insurers should be allowed to charge higher premiums to homosexuals, but they're not relevant to a discussion of gay marriage.

Stoop Dawg
2/7/2004, 09:30 PM
So being of the opinion that same-sex marriages are morally wrong isn't good enough?

I think that's about the only reason that is good enough. I can't debate your morals.

PDXsooner
2/7/2004, 11:36 PM
If queers want to give themselves an uncurable disease by putting their penises into the area of the body meant to discard waste, hooray, go right ahead.

yes, because no red-blooded hetero couple would ever do this... :rolleyes:

Sooner_Bob
2/7/2004, 11:54 PM
I think that's about the only reason that is good enough. I can't debate your morals.



Heh, you said debate. :D

49r
2/8/2004, 12:18 AM
Frozen,

This is the exact quote I'm referring to...



The Native Americans are welcome to have the land back when they develop their own intercontinental ballistic missles and such. Besides, Native Americans aren't the ones rallying for gay marriage, it's yankees.

Gay marriage, as with any other lifestyle that is harmful to heath, does nothing but help drive up an already expensive health insurance system.

Frozen Sooner
2/8/2004, 03:48 AM
49er-that's cool. I don't think that he's arguing that homosexuals are trying to get coverage when they already have AIDS. I think he thinks that insuring gays will drive up our insurance premiums because they lead "unhealthy" lifestyles. As I've already demonstrated, they won't.

The Fake Don Dokken
2/9/2004, 10:10 AM
Cutting through the drivel to answer the only legitimate question/comment raised over the weekend:

Or is that written into some sort of legislation and that's the whole point you're trying to make?

Boarder,
Yes. When you read the proposals to gay legalize marriage, the main point or one of the main points is always to force State and their private insurers to give gays equal status for coverage despite their high risk lifestyle.

Unfortunately for people who like nice, easy, "you're just a bigot" arguments, health insurance access equal to hetersexual marrieds is the argument.

No problem, that's just the many people are. It's easier for them throw out words like "bigot" instead of facing the economic reality of the situation.

Ike
2/9/2004, 11:32 AM
Id just like to add to this debate:
I officially dont give a rats *** one way or the other on this issue.
If homos wanna get married, fine by me! especially if that'll at least keep em quiet for a while.

If someone else doesnt like that homos wanna get married, thats fine by me too.
Ive got better things to worry about, like my own marriage, and my own family and my own rights and liberties that I just dont feel like telling someone else what their rights and liberties should be.

FaninAma
2/9/2004, 02:24 PM
Are we sure we want to use Europe as the example we model our society after?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/27/world/main546441.shtml

Sort of looks like a dying culture if you ask me. Talk about a disaster in the making. Who will fund all of the social programs they have?

And I'm sure that the weakening of the institution of traditonal marriage had nothing to do with this development.

Frozen Sooner
2/9/2004, 02:35 PM
http://www.divorcereform.org/gul.html

Interesting. This link shows that exactly one European country (Sweden) has a higher divorce rate than the United States. Marriages in Sweden are 1/10 of a percent liklier to end in divorce than in the U.S.

Ike
2/9/2004, 03:00 PM
Its that sweedish bikini team I tell ya. bunch of whores

Stoop Dawg
2/9/2004, 03:10 PM
Are we sure we want to use Europe as the example we model our society after?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/27/world/main546441.shtml

Sort of looks like a dying culture if you ask me. Talk about a disaster in the making. Who will fund all of the social programs they have?

And I'm sure that the weakening of the institution of traditonal marriage had nothing to do with this development.

Heh. Don't dislocate your arm with that reach!

The Fake Don Dokken
2/9/2004, 03:16 PM
FanInAma,
No we don't want to use Europe as an example of anything. In fact, after reading the original article you posted, I feel that the idea of selling everything north and east of New York to the Canadians was a bad idea...the better idea is to sell them to one of the Scandinavian countries. They appear to be far more screwy than the Canadians.

Johnny5
2/9/2004, 03:18 PM
It is an out hole, not an in hole.

FaninAma
2/9/2004, 03:26 PM
Frozen, the reason the divorce rate is lower in Europe is because nobody is getting married in the first place...or at least far fewer couples in Europe choose marriage over cohabitation v. couples in the US. So yes, I would expect their divorce rate to be lower.

So SD, why do you think Europe is spiraling toward negative population growth? I'm not saying disregard for traditional marriage is the only reason, but I do think it is one of the more important reasons.

Negative population growth is disaterous for any society and culture. As the population ages and there are no enough younger people to replace them or take care of the aged then that culture will tend to be very chaotic. As the culture deterioates I can see it's demise hastened by people fleeing this very bad situation by moving to other more vibrant cultures ans societies.

This is one of the reasons I have no problem with immigration to this country and I do support legalizing the undocumented immigrants here.

I also think it would be a very intelligent idea for the governement to encourage stable, baby-producing families.

Stoop Dawg
2/9/2004, 03:33 PM
So SD, why do you think Europe is spiraling toward negative population growth?


Well, I'm going to go with the reason given by your article:

The change in the traditional role of women has been a major factor in the projected decline in population, the authors said. The demands of education and career encourage many women to put off having their first child.

He said the research demonstrates that fertility in a population can be significantly affected by social trends that encourage women to delay starting a family.


Heh. Maybe instead of fighting to prevent gay marriages, we should be fighting to keep women from being educated and having careers.

FaninAma
2/9/2004, 03:55 PM
No, maybe we should tell young women that there is no shame in being a mother. In fact it is one of the most honorable and respected things you can do as a human being.

Instead, women have been made to feel like failures if the only thing they become is a good mother.

It's funny that since women have decided the rat race that men have always been mired in is also a goal they want to pursue that a lot of disesases that tradtionally afflicted men are also striking women in higher and higher numbers....namely stress related illnesses like cardiovascular disease.

Just another example of how traditional marriges have been undermined to the detriment of society.

Also, the CBS article glosses over the faact that alot of younger couples in Europe aren't even getting married in the first place.

I guess it's just a matter of societal priorities. Choices have consequences and personally I hope American society doesn't have to suffer the consequences that European societies are faced with over the next few decades.

How about you? Would you really want your children to have to try and and live in a society that is collapsing in around itself. What a friggin' nightmare.

49r
2/9/2004, 03:55 PM
How do you delete a post?????


:confused:

49r
2/9/2004, 03:58 PM
Hey! I just noticed! I got a STAR!!!!! woo-hoo!!!!

Carry on...

FaninAma
2/9/2004, 04:10 PM
And maybe we should empahsize to young men that one of the most honorable things they can do is be a good father to their children.

Success is measured in different ways. To my way of thinking, the real measure of success is being a good parent to your children.

The type of job you have, how much money you make, what kind of car you drive, how big of a house you live in is all superfluous.

BigRedJed
2/9/2004, 04:16 PM
Hey! I just noticed! I got a STAR!!!!! woo-hoo!!!!

Carry on...
Congratulations on getting your star... ...but in the gay marriage thread? NTTAWWT

Stoop Dawg
2/9/2004, 04:23 PM
No, maybe we should tell young women that there is no shame in being a mother. In fact it is one of the most honorable and respected things you can do as a human being.

Instead, women have been made to feel like failures if the only thing they become is a good mother.

It's funny that since women have decided the rat race that men have always been mired in is also a goal they want to pursue that a lot of disesases that tradtionally afflicted men are also striking women in higher and higher numbers....namely stress related illnesses like cardiovascular disease.

Just another example of how traditional marriges have been undermined to the detriment of society.

Also, the CBS article glosses over the faact that alot of younger couples in Europe aren't even getting married in the first place.

I guess it's just a matter of societal priorities. Choices have consequences and personally I hope American society doesn't have to suffer the consequences that European societies are faced with over the next few decades.

How about you? Would you really want your children to have to try and and live in a society that is collapsing in around itself. What a friggin' nightmare.

You know what, I had a fairly serious debate with a pretty good female friend of mine just a couple of months ago about that very thing. We somehow got on the topic of what you want in a relationship and I said "a mother for my children". She, being very career oriented, thought that was just horrible. I said "No problem, you are welcome to pursue a career all you want, but when I marry I'll marry a girl who wants to raise children and not work". She said I'd never find a girl like that. Just then, another of our female friends said "That's what I want to do".

I tried to explain exactly what you just said. That raising our children will be much more important than any career either of us could have. She asked if I would be willing to stay home and raise the children, to which I answered "I'd rather not have children if that was the case". I feel it's more responsible to not have children at all than to have children and not raise them well. If my future wife wants children she'll need to be willing to stay home with them. If she wants a career that will be fine too, but no kids. If she wants a career and kids, well, she'll need to find someone else to marry. My children won't be raised by day care workers.

What this has to do with gay marriages, I have no idea.

Frozen Sooner
2/9/2004, 04:36 PM
Yep. If'n I get married, it'll be to someone who has similar values to mine. That person won't have a problem staying home and taking care of the kids if it makes economic sense.

By "making economic sense," I mean that we'd be in a financial position to afford one of us quitting our job/putting our career on hold to take care of the kids before we had kids. We'd also discuss who had the more lucrative position and who had the most opportunity for growth within their job before deciding who was going to quit their job.

Soonrboy
2/9/2004, 04:38 PM
I, for one, do not want my daughter to grow up to rely on anyone for her life. My wife has a career, and we raise our children just fine. We make sure we surround them with people that are like-minded. I expect my daughter to go to college. I expect her to raise a family that will contribute to society, just as she is being raised, no matter whom she decides to marry..lol.

PDXsooner
2/9/2004, 04:46 PM
faninama, just for the record, i am a "liberal", (according to most on this board, for whatever that's worth), and i agree with you...at least on the post that stoop dawg replied to about 3 posts before this one...

Frozen Sooner
2/9/2004, 04:46 PM
And that's cool, Soonrboy. That's a decision each set of parents has to make. Personally, I just don't think that I would have time to juggle a career and taking care of the kid-but I also realize that my time-management skills suck. My potential wife is likely to have bad time management skills, too. I figure that we'd just do without the stress and have one of us stay home until the kid is in junior high or something.

It's a long ways off, so my plan isn't real developed. No immediate prospects for marriage, so this may all be moot for me.

FaninAma
2/9/2004, 04:49 PM
What this has to do with gay marriages, I have no idea.

It has to do with societal traditions. What cultural traditions make a society stronger and more viable and what changes weaken those traditions.

I'm not even talking about staying home and raising children. I think you can have a career and have children but the children take precedence which means you might have to take a job that pays less if it means you get to spend more time with your kids and family.
It means that you might not progress up the corporate ladder as rapidly as someone who is totally dedicated to the job. It means that you might have to have some foresight to choose a career that allows you to spend quality time with your family. It means that husband and wife will have to work together to make sure the kids get the attention they need. Raising kids is not the woman's responsibility only.

It's not an either/or choice to me.

PDXsooner
2/9/2004, 04:57 PM
it is interesteing if you look at gender roles for the last couple thousand years, they remained pretty consistent. and then all this change, gender equity, women in corporate america, etc. has really transpired over only the last 40 years or so...you have to wonder how this will affect our culture...

FaninAma
2/9/2004, 05:06 PM
Oregon, it's not about being conservative or liberal...it's about setting your priorities.

How many of us will be lying on our death bed wishing we had spent more time at the job?

What is the better legacy: amassing great wealth and power or leaving behind happy, caring children who will work to make society better.

It's all a matter of priorities.

Stoop Dawg
2/9/2004, 05:31 PM
It has to do with societal traditions. What cultural traditions make a society stronger and more viable and what changes weaken those traditions.

Well, according to the article you posted (and your response to it), having women be educated and have a career is a "bad" change in "societal traditions" leading to decreased population growth. This has nothing to do with gay marriage.

You could reach waaaaaaaaay out there and say that any change in "societal tradition" must be bad since women having a career is bad (per the article, not my own personal view). But I don't think anyone will really buy that.

FWIW, I don't think raising children is a woman's responsibility only. I do think that one parent needs to be able to spend a lot of time with them while one parent earns a living. That's a "societal tradition" that has worked for quite a while now. It's funny how I keep agreeing with you but it sure seems like we are debating something.

Ike
2/9/2004, 05:31 PM
it is interesteing if you look at gender roles for the last couple thousand years, they remained pretty consistent. and then all this change, gender equity, women in corporate america, etc. has really transpired over only the last 40 years or so...you have to wonder how this will affect our culture...

It will affect our culture in some way, but somehow I think it will be a good thing. In the last century and a half, america has probably taken 50,000 years worth of traditions (thats a few thousand years multiplied by a bunch of traditions) and tossed them to the wind. with most of these, everyone can agree that it was a good thing. like getting rid of slavery. Just because something has been a certain way for thousands of years is not nessecarily a very good argument for keeping it that way. Sure it affects our culture and directly affects everyones life in some way, but all of these changes have had some fundamental principle behind them which is supposed to be for the greater good of all people.

PDXsooner
2/9/2004, 05:43 PM
faninama- i know it's not a liberal/conservative thing...but i know people love to stereoptype and i'm just saying i know i'd be called a "liberal" on this board, but i have planty of traditional/conservative values.

stoop dawg- i agree both parents have a huge role. i have a 14-month old daughter, and i am flat-out convinced that mothers have an extra instinct with their children that men just don't have. and this applies to just about all of our friends with children.

that doesn't mean there aren't men that are great single dads, and moms who are terrible mothers, but by and large, there are a lot of reasons why moms are better prepared to stay home with kids over dads...

49r
2/9/2004, 06:49 PM
Congratulations on getting your star... ...but in the gay marriage thread? NTTAWWT
I don't think I actually got the star in the gay thread...just noticed it there. NTTAWWT

:D

49r
2/13/2004, 11:14 PM
TTT

OUMO
2/14/2004, 12:18 AM
How do you delete a post?????


:confused:

Once you find out I hope you stay busy.

FaninAma
2/14/2004, 11:13 AM
Well, according to the article you posted (and your response to it), having women be educated and have a career is a "bad" change in "societal traditions" leading to decreased population growth. This has nothing to do with gay marriage.

You could reach waaaaaaaaay out there and say that any change in "societal tradition" must be bad since women having a career is bad (per the article, not my own personal view). But I don't think anyone will really buy that.

FWIW, I don't think raising children is a woman's responsibility only. I do think that one parent needs to be able to spend a lot of time with them while one parent earns a living. That's a "societal tradition" that has worked for quite a while now. It's funny how I keep agreeing with you but it sure seems like we are debating something.

I see it differently. I think you can easily draw a conclusion that actions that have deemphasized the role and importance of marriage have led to these trends. Gay marriage is just the last in a long line of actions that assault the role of marriage in society. There have been many that have preceeded and we already see their effects. The fact that women are getting married later, if at all, is not a cause but just another consequence of the assault on marriage and family that has been waged since the early 60's.

Jerk
2/14/2004, 11:32 AM
49er - why should tax money be used to subsidize irresponsible behavior? Your Haliburton argument doesn't make sense ; they're getting contracted to perform a service. I have tried to do the right things in my life, for the most part, and I am by no means perfect, but I am trying to pay bills with a wife and 2 kids and I get a tad angry everytime I see 40% taken out of my check on a weekly basis. You can call it mean-spirited, or uncompassionite, but I have no desire to help fund some homosexual's healthcare expense because he made bad decisions and got an HIV infection. You know as well as I do that HIV is almost totally preventable. If they were born with it, I'd understand, but they choose to get it, and want me to pay for it when I struggle to pay bills?? Fugg that.

Ike
2/18/2004, 05:17 PM
Gay marriage is gay

Stoop Dawg
2/18/2004, 06:42 PM
This thread was much better than that other piece of crap thread.

49r
2/18/2004, 07:27 PM
Man, my insurance rates are going to skyrocket after this...

TAFBSooner
2/19/2004, 10:26 AM
. . . and I get a tad angry everytime I see 40% taken out of my check on a weekly basis.



How do you figure 40%? State tax, fed tax, Medicare, and CS retirement (approximately equal to social security) equals 28% withholding, and that's probably too high since I usually get a tax refund. If I assume that all the rest of my pay is subject to sales tax (still erring on the high side), I get up to a total of 34%.

If I add in health insurance premiums, the percentage goes up to 37%, but that's still a highball estimate.

If you're looking at your optional deductions, don't rant against government or medical insurance for that.

Have you done the math and really get 40% for all taxes and health insurance?

(Disclaimer) this is a threadjack. I'm not making a comment on the gay marriage issue, I just wonder where all the claims of 40-50% taxation come from. I expect they're from the fat guy with the patriotic boil on his butt. (/disclaimer)

TAFBSooner
2/19/2004, 10:40 AM
(disclaimer to previous disclaimer) This post is a comment on health care costs as an issue in the gay marriage debate (/disclaimer to previous disclaimer)

AIDS is spread by promiscuous sexual behavior, whether among gay men or straight people. Wouldn't gay marriage tend to lower the promiscuity rate (at least a little), thus slowing the further spread of AIDS? Wouldn't this lead to lower health care costs?

TAFBSooner
2/19/2004, 10:56 AM
I think gay people are making a mistake to push for the right to marry at this time. As seen in the discussions on this board, the issue is causing a backlash that will probably result in a loss in the overall well-being of gay people in this country. I think this is an issue for another time.

It's only been since 1787 that people began to work to abolish the slave trade. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17696
Since that time the well-being of blacks has risen and fallen several times, but you can't deny that it's much better now than then. The wheels of progress grind slowly.

Ike
2/19/2004, 10:58 AM
I think gay people are making a mistake to push for the right to marry at this time. As seen in the discussions on this board, the issue is causing a backlash that will probably result in a loss in the overall well-being of gay people in this country. I think this is an issue for another time.

It's only been since 1787 that people began to work to abolish the slave trade. http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=17696
Since that time the well-being of blacks has risen and fallen several times, but you can't deny that it's much better now than then. The wheels of progress grind slowly.

aint that the truth! wait a minute...I thought we all agreed not to post anymore intelligent conversation on the gay marriage threads! :D

but you are right...it takes time...

Stoop Dawg
2/19/2004, 12:58 PM
How do you figure 40%? State tax, fed tax, Medicare, and CS retirement (approximately equal to social security) equals 28% withholding, and that's probably too high since I usually get a tax refund.

How do you figure 28%? The federal income tax rate alone for income over $28,400 is 27%.

Let's say a guy made $75K (after deductions).

10% x $6000 = $600
15% x ($28400 - $6000) = $3360
27% x ($68800 - $28400) = $10908
30% x ($75000 - $68800) = $1860

Total: $16728

16728 / 75000 = 22%

Oklahoma has 8 freaking tax brackets, but let's simply ignore the first 7 and concentrate on 7% over $10K

7% x ($75000 - $10000) = $4550

The real rate comes to: 4550 / 75000 = 6%

So, for Federal and State alone, you get (16728 + 4550) / 75000 = 28.37%

Next, we can start talking about social security (c'mon, it's a tax), sales tax, property taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, death taxes, telecom taxes, taxes for when you blow your nose, taxes for when you take a ****, blah, blah, blah.

Frozen Sooner
2/19/2004, 01:10 PM
"Death Tax"-I love this bugaboo. How many of you have an estate worth more than $1.5MM? Remember, this is net, so deduct any liens or mortgages against your property or other debts...

crawfish
2/19/2004, 01:16 PM
Gay marriage to the death tax? Stay on topic, people!

Ike
2/19/2004, 01:18 PM
death of gay marriage tax?

LosAngelesSooner
2/19/2004, 01:39 PM
Now, listen carefully, I'm only going to say it once:

(1) The states north and east of New York are unnecessary. Nothing they do contributes positively to the United States - economically, socially, etc. I say we sell them all to Canada where their views are already acceptable.

Give the Canadians a low, low interest rate and like 100 to 150 years to pay off the note. Goodbye and good riddance to the yankee queer-mongers and tax-raisers.

(2) Why Hawaii? It became a state in 1959. We needed it as a military buffer in the days before intercontinental ballistic missles. But, that was years ago and now Hawaii is nothing but a useless drain on the country. They give absolutely nothing to the United States in the way of economy either.

We should overthrow Castro and let the pro-democracy exiles in Miami go back home. Then, we can revoke Hawaii's statehood and let it be the Guam or the Virgin Islands that it is in reality, and gives it's statehood to the new Cuba, which has economically viable resources such as gas and oil.

(3) Oh, yeah...and lower my taxes again, please, government parasites! What does any of this have to do with the "whole gay marriage thing?"

I think you just used that because you KNEW it would automatically make your thread LIVE ON FOREVER!!!!!! :D

LosAngelesSooner
2/19/2004, 01:54 PM
Now, listen carefully, I'm only going to say it once:

(1) The states north and east of New York are unnecessary. Nothing they do contributes positively to the United States - economically, socially, etc. I say we sell them all to Canada where their views are already acceptable. Maine gives us Castlerock Pictures and every Steven King novel. It also gives us lobster. I like lobster.
Massachussets gives us Clam Chowder, people who talk funny (pahk the cah in the gahrahge), Dennis Leary, and if it was in Canada, that means that a CANADIAN team would have won two of the last three Superbowls.


(2) Why Hawaii? It became a state in 1959. We needed it as a military buffer in the days before intercontinental ballistic missles. But, that was years ago and now Hawaii is nothing but a useless drain on the country. They give absolutely nothing to the United States in the way of economy either. Your formal living room gives nothing to the rest of the house. Mom makes you take your shoes off before you walk in it, etc. But it sure looks pretty.

Hawaii is America's formal living room. Except all the chicks there have good tans and only wear skimpy bikini's. I'll keep it.


We should overthrow Castro and let the pro-democracy exiles in Miami go back home. Then, we can revoke Hawaii's statehood and let it be the Guam or the Virgin Islands that it is in reality, and gives it's statehood to the new Cuba, which has economically viable resources such as gas and oil. We should do that anyway. He's more of a direct threat to the U.S. than Saddam was, anyway. Plus, then we could get his cigars legally and I wouldn't have to pay Pedro double time for him to sneak Cuban cigars across the boarder for me.


(3) Oh, yeah...and lower my taxes again, please, government parasites! Oh, yeah, and lower the MIDDLE income people's taxes for the FIRST TIME during your presidency, instead of lowering the top 1% income's taxes for the THIRD TIME in your presidency, Mr. President.

Stoop Dawg
2/19/2004, 03:06 PM
"Death Tax"-I love this bugaboo. How many of you have an estate worth more than $1.5MM? Remember, this is net, so deduct any liens or mortgages against your property or other debts...

Wait, this would mean that "rich" people pay more taxes than "poor" people. Surely you jest.

Seriously though, why does the fact that you died mean the government gets to take some of your money, regardless of how rich or poor you were?

Every time a dollar changes hands in this country the government gets a slice! Give me a piece of that action, baby!

TAFBSooner
2/19/2004, 03:36 PM
How do you figure 28%? The federal income tax rate alone for income over $28,400 is 27%.

Let's say a guy made $75K (after deductions).

10% x $6000 = $600
15% x ($28400 - $6000) = $3360
27% x ($68800 - $28400) = $10908
30% x ($75000 - $68800) = $1860

Total: $16728

16728 / 75000 = 22%


I think I see an error. You start with 75K as after deductions (i.e., net). However, when you then figure the percentage, you're using it as the gross income.

For my figures, I used the numbers from my pay stub, since the discussion was about what we see each payday. I'm in the general range of your example. I erred a bit too, since I have some tax-deferred items that are held out of my pay, and also subtracted from the gross pay. If I correct that it makes the total taxes withheld (fed, state, Medicare, and civil service retirement which is equivalent to social security) 30%. Adding an estimate for sales taxes makes it 35%, and adding my portion of my health insurance premium does in fact bring the total to just under 39%.

I'm not sure if you meant to include your health insurance premiums in your required withholding.

I figured out my property tax on my house as being 11% of the sum of mortgage payment (p&i) and homeowner's insurance. This was a check on my assumption of 8.25% for sales tax for my whole net pay. I think this is valid because there is some spending out of the net pay that is not taxed at all.





Oklahoma has 8 freaking tax brackets, but let's simply ignore the first 7 and concentrate on 7% over $10K

7% x ($75000 - $10000) = $4550

The real rate comes to: 4550 / 75000 = 6%

So, for Federal and State alone, you get (16728 + 4550) / 75000 = 28.37%

Next, we can start talking about social security (c'mon, it's a tax), sales tax, property taxes, estate taxes, gift taxes, death taxes, telecom taxes, taxes for when you blow your nose, taxes for when you take a ****, blah, blah, blah.

I've accounted for social security, sales tax, property taxes, and telecom taxes (still fits in the sales tax amount). Consult your tax advisor on avoiding taxes on bodily excretions.

I have no rich relatives so I'm not affected by the estate/"death" taxes, or the gift tax which is an appendage to the estate tax. Gift taxes apply to amounts over $10,000 per recipient per year for each spouse. And amounts over that number are counted against the 1.5 million estate tax exemption. If by dint of smart investing, good luck, and living in America I have anywhere near $1.5 million later in life, after spending the money on grandchildren's education (those amounts are exempt), I will have no problem donating the amount over the then-current estate tax exemption to my favorite tree-hugging charity. :D

At any rate estate/death/gift taxes do not figure in to your normal cash flow.

In short, I don't complain about the 39%. I do, however, complain about the fact that out of Oklahoma's 8.25% they can't keep the lines on the highways painted. I wonder if the good highway maintenance in Texas helps keep any of their high school football stars from coming to Oklahoma. I think too much of that 8.25% goes into someone's pockets. Thank goodness for New Jersey and Louisiana!

Stoop Dawg
2/19/2004, 03:46 PM
I think I see an error. You start with 75K as after deductions (i.e., net). However, when you then figure the percentage, you're using it as the gross income.

I'm no accountant, so it wouldn't be surprising for me to make some basic error. But isn't adjust gross income what is used both to determine tax bracket and to calculate the percentage? 75K after deductions would be 85-90K gross, maybe a little more depending how clever you are (I'm not clever at all). I wouldn't consider $100K per year "rich". Otherwise there sure are a lot of "rich" people running around.


Consult your tax advisor on avoiding taxes on bodily excretions.

That's really the point here, IMO. There is a tax on everything you do. Everything.

TAFBSooner
2/19/2004, 03:57 PM
Wait, this would mean that "rich" people pay more taxes than "poor" people. Surely you jest.


I think we all agree that rich people do pay more taxes than poor people. Conservatives argue that they shouldn't pay more taxes than poor people.

Taxes go towards education and maintaining the infrastructure of this country - law enforcement, national defense, highways, enforcement of contracts. People that make a lot of money benefit much more from an educated populace and from this infrastructure, so ILHO (in liberals' humble opinion) it's reasonable that they should pay more for it than do poor people. Employers also benefit from the existence of some amount of unemployment (due to the downward pressure on wages), so it's also reasonable that they pay for unemployment compensation and for a larger proportion of welfare.



Seriously though, why does the fact that you died mean the government gets to take some of your money, regardless of how rich or poor you were?


Our founding fathers wanted to avoid the hereditary aristocracy of Europe. We don't have dukes and earls like they did, but inherited wealth tends to create the same effect in this country. Estate taxes were developed to counteract this effect.



Every time a dollar changes hands in this country the government gets a slice! Give me a piece of that action, baby!

Become a defense contractor or a highway contractor or a politician or a government employee. Remember the outrage you feel right now and don't be a crooked contractor, politician, or employee.

Frozen Sooner
2/19/2004, 04:09 PM
Wait, this would mean that "rich" people pay more taxes than "poor" people. Surely you jest.


Well, yes. That's sort of the point of a progressive tax structure.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not a big fan of our current tax system, nor am I necessarily a fan of progressive taxation. The fact of the matter, though, is that the "Death Tax" is a bugaboo. Nobody lost their family farm as a result of the "death tax." Agribusiness is a MUCH bigger threat than the "death tax" to the family farm-but you didn't see ANY candidate railing against agribusiness in a speech.

TAFBSooner
2/19/2004, 04:10 PM
I'm no accountant, so it wouldn't be surprising for me to make some basic error. But isn't adjust gross income what is used both to determine tax bracket and to calculate the percentage? 75K after deductions would be 85-90K gross, maybe a little more depending how clever you are (I'm not clever at all). I wouldn't consider $100K per year "rich". Otherwise there sure are a lot of "rich" people running around.

If you're figuring percent of gross pay, which is what the original 40% of a paycheck comment was based on, then you need to figure total taxes over gross pay.



That's really the point here, IMO. There is a tax on everything you do. Everything.

:)


Nunh-unnnhhh!! :p ;) :p

Frozen Sooner
2/19/2004, 04:10 PM
By the way-if you don't consider someone with 1.5MM rich, then I wish I lived in your neighborhood!

Stoop Dawg
2/19/2004, 04:49 PM
If you're figuring percent of gross pay, which is what the original 40% of a paycheck comment was based on, then you need to figure total taxes over gross pay.

Gotcha. :o


People that make a lot of money benefit much more from an educated populace and from this infrastructure, so ILHO (in liberals' humble opinion) it's reasonable that they should pay more for it than do poor people.

law enforcement, national defense, highways, enforcement of contracts

How so? Certain businesses benefit from an educated work force, but I don't see how a certain individual benefits from other people's education. Poor people need law enforcement, national defense, highways, enforcement of contracts too. In fact, I could argue that poor neighborhoods require even more law enforcement, so they should pay more taxes! The guy in the Jalopy (sp?) drives on the same road as the guy in the Ferrari.

The progressive tax structure is bad, IMO, but that's not really what irks me. What really irks me is all the outrage over "tax cuts for the rich". You can complain about tax cuts, that's fine. You can complain that you are over-taxed (or under-taxed), that's fine. But don't tell me that "rich" people aren't paying their fair share -- and then some. I'm not going to go look for the link, but there was a thread a couple of weeks ago about what percentage of total tax income is paid by the top 10% of wage earners. It's like 2/3 or something.

I think that rant got a little off topic there. If we agree that roughly 40% of your "middle class" income goes to the government, do you think it provides adequate bang for your buck? Think about it, man. 30-40 freakin percent of almost everyone's income. Everyone in the whole country. Holy crap! That's a HELL of a lot of money!

And Frozen, I said $100K per year is not "rich". I would consider $1.55MM in net assets pretty well off.

Stoop Dawg
2/19/2004, 04:52 PM
Oh, and none of this should make anyone think that I make any kind of money. Far from it. But I plan to one day!

TAFBSooner
2/19/2004, 06:42 PM
How so? Certain businesses benefit from an educated work force, but I don't see how a certain individual benefits from other people's education. Poor people need law enforcement, national defense, highways, enforcement of contracts too. In fact, I could argue that poor neighborhoods require even more law enforcement, so they should pay more taxes! The guy in the Jalopy (sp?) drives on the same road as the guy in the Ferrari.


People who make a lot of money do so because they skillfully harness the energy of a whole lot of other folks. Whether they're a CEO, the "upline" of an MLM sca, err business, a venture capitalist, an owner of a bunch of rent houses, or Bob Stoops, he or she makes all that money by dint of a lot of other people succeeding at what they do and doing so as a team. Not to mention that organizations depend on the transportation infrastructure to move their product, they depend on the legal system to enforce their contracts, etc., and organizations are simply a form for said leaders to harness the energy of all those other folks.

People that can successfully harness the energy of a lot of other folks towards a socially desirable goal (I'm trying to exclude drug pushers here, not widget makers) deserve to be compensated for the energy and skill they bring to that task. However, ILHO it's also reasonable that they be taxed more on that compensation because they depend so much more on the infrastructure that lets those other folks succeed.



I think that rant got a little off topic there. If we agree that roughly 40% of your "middle class" income goes to the government, do you think it provides adequate bang for your buck? Think about it, man. 30-40 freakin percent of almost everyone's income. Everyone in the whole country. Holy crap! That's a HELL of a lot of money!


It's a lot of money, and they do a lot with it. I agree that government is not as efficient as it could be at doing that. I think national defense is important, maintaining a legal system is important, educating our children is important, in fact most of the things government does are important. I would venture that liberals and conservative agree that government doesn't do as good a job as it could on these important things. The difference, IMHO, is that conservatives don't think some of those things should be done at all. Discuss.

RacerX
6/18/2004, 12:52 PM
Deja vu all over again.

49r
6/19/2006, 04:54 PM
I don't think this is the "original" one of these...

...but may be apropos in light of what is going on in the Episcopal church

OklahomaRed
6/27/2006, 09:59 AM
My issue? What does the homosexual community demand to be "married"? Isn't the word "marriage" in itself a religious term? If the want to be held socially accountable for their actions towards their significant other, and if they want insurance to cover their significant other, why don't they simply have a lawyer draw up a contract? Why don't they just push for a "civil union?" Why does the homosexual community deem it necessary to have their relationship "blessed" by the government or the Church?

That tells me that it's not about health insurance or taking care of the person they care for. It about the homosexual community's agenda to force their lifestyle on the rest of society. I agree with FaninAma's contention that it just further efforts to chip away at the traditional family and weaken our society as a whole.

OklahomaRed
6/27/2006, 10:18 AM
SO WHY IS MARITAL STATUS RELEVANT FOR GAYS?????


My God, you may be the most obstinate person I've ever had the displeasure of chatting with.


So, using your arguement, "we should legalize junkies?" :confused:

OklahomaRed
6/27/2006, 10:20 AM
I really don't see why my position matters. I'm just trying to get you to think about what the real problem is that you are trying to solve. Is it really gay marriages, or is it bad marriages? If it's the latter, then I don't see what sexual preference has to do with it. Unless, of course, you contend that all gay marriages are "bad" marriages. Maybe that's the point I'm missing?

I don't support it. I'm not going to write to my senator or walk any picket lines or attend any rallies for it. I won't donate a single dime to the cause. But I'm not going to fight those who are trying to get it done either. I hope this clears it up for you.


So, what you are saying is that you are a pacifist? That bodes well for our society. What we need is more pacifist. We could all be speaking German right now. Not that there's anything wrong with that ! :rolleyes:

OklahomaRed
6/27/2006, 10:33 AM
Yep. If'n I get married, it'll be to someone who has similar values to mine. That person won't have a problem staying home and taking care of the kids if it makes economic sense.

By "making economic sense," I mean that we'd be in a financial position to afford one of us quitting our job/putting our career on hold to take care of the kids before we had kids. We'd also discuss who had the more lucrative position and who had the most opportunity for growth within their job before deciding who was going to quit their job.


There you go making decisions with you wallet instead of your brain! You just agreed that raising your children to reflect your own principles and moral values was what was important, but then you dash that reason with the statement, "if it makes economic sense?" :confused:

OklahomaRed
6/27/2006, 10:34 AM
Sorry for getting in on the debate too late, but at least I get to have the last word ! ;)

Scott D
6/27/2006, 10:35 AM
yeah, nothign like being two years too late.

NormanPride
6/27/2006, 10:56 AM
http://img373.imageshack.us/img373/5571/internetargument4tf.png

colleyvillesooner
6/27/2006, 10:58 AM
I think we all know what comes next.

White House Boy
6/27/2006, 11:03 AM
http://www.theomnivore.com/photos/monkey_shocked2.jpg

Stoop Dawg
6/27/2006, 11:36 AM
Man, those were good times.

OklahomaRed
7/24/2006, 01:07 PM
yeah, nothign like being two years too late.


Last word. :D