Ever been married? Then how do you know? Pessimist.
No, but it's more logical than anything.
What is marriage but an illusion that is binded by law. Were you and Sequ less happier pre-wedding? Did marriage unlock a secret passion?
Sure it's a major commitment but why not just buy "commitment rings" or something. It's as effective.
"commitment rings" don't protect you from getting "bent over" if someone decided to accidentally forget their "commitment". On the other hand, when you are married you have more to lose should you actually forget where you left your "commitment". Nes pas?
Just me, but why not let people decide who they want to not forget their committment with?
I'm not going to get into a discussion over gay marriage as this state has already decided that with the Defense of Marriage Act or whatever the it was called, but did we really need it written into the cons ution that there shall be no civil unions when all most of those fighting for either gay marriage or the non-passage of the amendment want are the same things you just made clear to The Writer above?
So they're not bent over or have so much to lose (such as insurance rights, beneficiary rights, children from the relationship, etc.).
Your best argument in favor of Prop 2 is puzzles?
Yup. I was always taught the K.I.S.S.
Keep It Simple Smarty
I guess if simplicity is all that you are capable of...
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. - Leonardo da Vinci
Okay well how about this then:
Link http://www.avert.org/usastatg.htm
Estimated adult and adolescent HIV diagnoses in 2003 by exposure category
Exposure category Male Female Total
Male-to-male sexual contact 14,532 - 14,532
Injection drug use 3,189 1,628 4,817
Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 1,224 - 1,224
Heterosexual contact 4,041 6,942 10,983
Other/risk not identified 168 163 331
Total 23,153 8,733 31,886
* Because totals are calculated independently of the subpopulations, the values in each column may not sum exactly to the figure in the Total row
Estimated adult and adolescent AIDS diagnoses by exposure category
Exposure category 2003 diagnoses ulative diagnoses
Male Female Total Male Female Total
Male-to-male sexual contact 17,969 - 17,969 440,887 - 440,887
Injection drug use 6,353 3,096 9,449 175,988 70,558 246,546
Male-to-male sexual contactinjection drug use 1,877 - 1,877 62,418 - 62,418
Heterosexual contact 5,133 8,127 13,260 56,403 93,586 149,989
Other/risk not identified 281 276 557 14,191 6,535 20,726
Total 31,614 11,498 43,112 749,887 170,679 920,565
* Because totals are calculated independently of the subpopulations, the values in each column may not sum exactly to the figure in the Total row
Now: I may sound insensitive, but my health insurance costs me enough as it is. Do you know how they derive the amount of money you have to pay through your employer for health insurance? That's right, by risk. I refuse to pay more for me and my family's health insurance because my cubicle neighbor Joe and his hersband Josh put us in a higher risk category because they are clearly at a higher risk of contracting a very expensive to treat long term illness and now that they're married he is being put on his spouses insurance policy through our employer.
Good enough?
So do we eliminate heterosexuals from it, too?
Basing off the stats you posted along with the information from your link...the spread of AIDS between heterosexual contact is fast increasing. The increased risk of heterosexual contact and the increase in the diagnosis of AIDS would also increase your insurance rates, no?
Do people in your insurance group smoke? Isn't that an action not guaranteed equal protection under the law in which we could amend our cons ution so that your insurance rates don't get higher with increased rates of lung cancer?
Woah, now you're about to open a pandora's box with that. Did you know that women are the biggest group who get the following:
Cervical Cancer
Breast Canscer
Also, the rate of Hystorectmies amoung women is much higher than amoung men!
Why shoudl I be forced to pay for women's increased health costs?
To take your arguement further, why are employers forced to cover sexual employees at all?
Or better still, why are they forced to honor straight marriages????
one day some of ya'll WILL have gay or lesbian children - wonder if your perspectives/opinons will change then - breeders put us here on earthwe haven't mastered the cloning process just yet - getting close though
I tried to keep it simple, but PM5K wanted it otherwise, so that was the bone I threw to chew on.
Besides, smokers.... smokers? Come on man.... there are anti smoking ads everywhere. What kind of upheavel would occur if you drove down 410 and saw an anti-gay billboard?
Breast cancer is now very diagnosable and curable for many. For many it is not a long term illness any longer. Can you say the same about AIDS?
That the bond was restructured is what got me to vote in favor this time around. I don't mind paying for education and infrastructure first and foremost. Sports complexes? It will have to be very creative funding mechanism.
I thought Prop 2 was going to fail. People can justify being against same sex marriage with their moral beliefs all they want. But let's be honest the basic problem is the psychological aversion to the thought of fudgepacking. Even my religiously conservative 77 year old mom has said "two women aren't that bad - but two men? Yuk!"
do you file jointly or seperately? you see in this country you really cannot say that marriage is not a contract, largely becuase especially in texas we are a community property state, therefore marriage in many ways is a contract in this and many other ways.
Pseudofan where did ya find that picture of my ol' lady.
Are sexuality and smoking both two actions not given equal protection under the law?
for the record regarding the accd bond issue, i think there are better ways to get your money that you so desperately need than to tax citizens that will never use the school system.
however, for my own future bottom dollar, it will be more beneficial for me for these people to have their cheap, subsidized education and therefore have more money in their pocket than for them not to. i pay more in property taxes, but in the end i make more. easy tradeoff.
We weren't talking about the curability of any illness, the point that was made was because of the increased costs to employer based health insurance because of the increased health risks fo a certain group.
I tried to keep it simple, but PM5K wanted it otherwise, so that was the bone I threw to chew on.
Besides, smokers.... smokers? Come on man.... there are anti smoking ads everywhere. What kind of upheavel would occur if you drove down 410 and saw an anti-gay billboard?
Breast cancer is now very diagnosable and curable for many. For many it is not a long term illness any longer. Can you say the same about AIDS?
And what is worse, is that your arguement would read more like a debate against covering sexuals (or any other group with increased health risks read: women) from group health insurance policies.
sexuality does carry with it an added health risk for AIDS that other subsets other groups do not have. But almost every subset has added health risks! Hispanics are at higher risk for diabeties, African Americans for sickle cell anemia, Men for Prostate cancer and Women for the aformentoined ailments.
But what is at issue here is whether employers have to recognize a contract between 2 spouses of the same sex. I'd be interested to see the HIV/AIDS rates for sexuals in a serious partnership as opposed to in and out of a relationship. I think they would be incredibly different and remove the entire basis for your objection above.
But either way, if someone can give me a good legal arguement as to why an employer who covers spouses of heterosexual employees should not have to do the same for sexuals.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
