Gay Marriage

[LucentBrave]

Okay, you need to use the rest room. What do you have to do? You have to go really bad. If you don't go to the bathroom you'll wet yourself. What do you value more? Wet pants or not wet pants. Yes, you can choose to go to the bathroom. However, do you have any control on the fact that you're going to have to go again? A limited one. Drink less water, beer, or whatever. Or look at it this way: I don't need to use the restroom now. If I wanted to go, this instant, could I do so? No, it is impossible.

I meant those things are uncontrollable in that sense. Wheather you eat or not, sleep or not, or use the restroom or not, your only prolonging the inevitable- because you only have limited control on when they happen, and no control or choice of the fact that they do happen. These are biological functions.

Although, your view on homosexuality is interesting, I don't feel a need to agree with you.

[y_feldblum]

"It is proper that men go to the bathroom on time, rather than dance around holding their crotches and waiting for the inevitable."

"It is proper that men engage in heterosexual relationships" for the same reason.

Not to say that there is anything more wrong with homosexuality than "holding it in" for extended periods of time....

Okay, so what's the Tenability Factor Rating - 1 to 10 - of this position?

[Capitalism Forever]

We have no right to know what makes a homosexual like the same sex, what makes a homosexual a homosexual, and why a homosexual is a homosexual.  If you truly want to know the reason to these answers, ask yourself the same question.  You DO have a right to ask YOURSELF these questions. 

I know what my values are, I'm a human being with the faculty of volition, and why I am a human being.  However you have know business knowing what my values are.  I think I'm quite capable of making my own decisions.  I don't need anyone else to make them for me.

"Moral" is not an equivalent of "legal."

[LucentBrave]

I quite aware of that fact. I never implied otherwise.

[Richard_Halley]

"Moral" is not an equivalent of "legal."

I quite aware of that fact. I never implied otherwise.

If this is the case than read this again:

However you have know business knowing what my values are.  I think I'm quite capable of making my own decisions.  I don't need anyone else to make them for me.

If you are not speaking of legal issues, you must be arguing that I have no right to pass moral judgement on you?

Please explain how not.

[LucentBrave]

LMAO!! I forgot to substitute the word "know" for the word "no"after the word "have." I always review my posts before posting them but this time I messed up. Thank you for pointing that out to me Richard. It's been corrected.

[Areactor]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but have we gone off the subject of Gay marriage?

[y_feldblum]

If going up a step in the hierarchy of knowledge is getting off-topic, then yes.

[Areactor]

If going up a step in the hierarchy of knowledge is getting off-topic, then yes.

Whoa buddy, then I guess I'll back off.

[Apprentice]

For example, it is irrational to discriminate according to race when judging moral content, and necessary when classifying ethnic origin.  In the case of sexual orientation, it is certainly a relevant factor in evaluating moral content (whether or not homosexuality is immoral.) 

If we're still looking at the idea of insurance companies, wouldn't it be smarter for them to ask more specific questions? For instance, "Do you engage in sexual intercourse with multiple partners without the use of a condom?"

It's been my understanding that the reason for homosexuality being a high risk factor is practices that are common to certain circles within that group. The risk factors go up for a heterosexual engaging in those behaviors as well. But for a homosexual who spends his or her life with a monogamous partner, there may not be much more of a risk factor than any heterosexual couple out there.

If you consider it in that light, are the insurance companies really adding many more people with that high risk factor considering that presumably they are seeking monogamy through marriage? Seems they'd get more useful information that could help them make smarter decisions by simply asking more specific questions. There's always the possibility that the person can lie in answer, but they could do the same with regard to other risk factors like smoking.

I love the idea of the sample contracts on the shelves of Walmart

[buiq]

Hi:

Criminals value thievery and murder by conscious choice; there is no criminal gene...

There may not be a gene for criminal tendency, but there is gene toward violent. Please see this article in PubMed.

Violence in male patients with schizophrenia: risk markers in a South African population. Koen L, Kinnear CJ, Corfield VA, Emsley RA, Jordaan E, Keyter N, Moolman-Smook JC, Stein DJ, Niehaus DJ.

I do understand that having the gene does not mean one is violent but one may have the risk of being violent. The point is there is a gene toward violent.

Fat people value overeating by choice; there is no obesity gene...

Please review: The future of genetic research on appetitive behavior. Kowalski TJ. "The risk for developing obesity has a significant genetic component. Several quantitative trait loci and candidate genes have been identified using current methodological approaches however the information gained thus far is insufficient to adequately explain the genetics underlying human obesity. The completion of a draft of the human genome sequence, the potential benefit of single nucleotide polymorphisms association studies for identifying risk conferring alleles, and developing functional genomics technologies promise to accelerate obesity gene discovery. These advances, used with current evaluative tools (murine molecular genetic techniques), may increase our understanding of human obesity, and ultimately provide better approaches to diagnosis and treatment."

Sick people get sick by choice; there is no sickness gene.

This may be true for some people but some do get ill not by choice. Aging may cause illness. This , obviously, not a choice.

Stupid people are stupid by choice; there is no stupidity gene.

There may not be a stupid gene but we do kbnow that some people intelectually are not well developed due biological determinant. Turner syndrome, Down syndrome...etc caused those individuals to have less than normal average intelect.

buiq

[Apprentice]

Nah, its too much of a coincidence. Most men are attracted to women, and vice versa. If this wasnt the case, then both their genes and the species would die out. Furthermore, most men and women are generally attracted to the TYPES of sexual partners that an evolutionary based study would predict (strong, 'protector' types in the case of the female, and good 'mother' types in the case of the male).

Poohat--

I've been trying to understand where your argument is going for a couple of days now. Since you're arguing that the urge to engage in a sexual relationship with a member of the same sex is controllable, I have to assume that you think it should be controlled. Why? (Correct me if I'm wrong in that assumption.)

You've explained the biological/evolutionary drive for heterosexuals to couple quite adequately, but I'm certainly not convinced that that drive is the only reason out there for humans to engage in a sexual relationship. I'm personally attracted to men, however, I don't choose to have children. My sexual relatioship is of no use in terms of providing the continuity of the human race. Is that wrong? What about two infertile people engaging in a sexual relationship--is there no reason for them to do so? Should they choose not to engage in it simply because choosing to have sex is a controllable urge? Or is there some other value that they can get from sex beside the production of rugrats?

Why should the urge to engage in sex that will never produce children be controlled if it is controllable?

[AutoJC]

I question government's right to regulate marriage, anyhow.

The constitutional amendment barring gay marriage will have a helluva tough time.

[Old Geezer]

It's been my understanding that the reason for homosexuality being a high risk factor is practices that are common to certain circles within that group. The risk factors go up for a heterosexual engaging in those behaviors as well. But for a homosexual who spends his or her life with a monogamous partner, there may not be much more of a risk factor than any heterosexual couple out there.

To an extent yes and that is where most of the spread comes from, but also remember that the Anal membranes and the vaginal membranes are very thin in comparison to the skin of the penis. (therefore all unprotected anal sex is somewhat more dangerous to the recipient)

[Apprentice]

(therefore all unprotected anal sex is somewhat more dangerous to the recipient)

And heterosexual couples never engage in anal sex? (Sorry--I'm not sure if this is the type of board that wants to get into a discussion about that. I'm just trying to follow where your logic is going in the quoted statement...)

[Old Geezer]

"And heterosexual couples never engage in anal sex? (Sorry--I'm not sure if this is the type of board that wants to get into a discussion about that. I'm just trying to follow where your logic is going in the quoted statement...) "

exactly my point.... Any insurance company which thinks it will save money by discriminating against married gay people would really only be logical if it discriminated against certain lifestyle choices (such as polygamy, unprotected anal sex etc) since it is these lifestyle choices not the "gayness" that affects someones health

[Apprentice]

Oh--okay. So we're actually driving at the same basic point. I thought you were going in the opposite direction

[y_feldblum]

Except that all gay couples are known to engage in it very often (ie, every time), whereas only some straight couples are and even then not nearly as often.

[Richard_Halley]

The fact is, on the average, gay couples are more of a liability than straight couples. And since it is hard to discover, with any accuracy, what risk factors an individual couple is engaging in, the insurance companies find it more convenient to simply up the price for homosexuals in general. They have every right to do it.

And I am sure that if polygamy was not illegal, they would charge higher premiums for that too.

[Old Geezer]

"The fact is, on the average, gay couples are more of a liability than straight couples."

This is only the case without a "preexisting condition" clause, which most insurance has .

[Richard_Halley]

This is only the case without a "preexisting condition" clause, which most insurance has .

Elaborate.

[Apprentice]

the insurance companies find it more convenient to simply up the price for homosexuals in general. They have every right to do it.

I'm not disputing their right to do it. A private company has the right to discriminate on any basis that it wishes. They absolutely have the right to up the price for gay couples.

What I am saying is that if they could get an idea of what behaviors an individual engaging in, that could give them a better standard on which to analyze risk and offer customers with low risk a better deal---if the company chose to do so. If they simply discriminated against gay couples, they could lose a lot of money on heterosexuals who engage in risky behaviors. But that's their choice if they think it's more convenient.

And since it is hard to discover, with any accuracy, what risk factors an individual couple is engaging in

Yes--that's the problem. Which I already partially identified by mentioning that you could lie about risk behaviors just like a person could lie to an insurance company about smoking.

[Old Geezer]

A pre-existing condition clause essentially ensures that insurance companies do not take on policies that would not be cost effective. For instance, lets say that I went 40 years without health insurance then found out I had a tumor that requires a $1,000,000 surgery tommorow.

Even if I went out and bought the cadilac of insurance that day, they wouldnt pay for my surgery the next day.

I would imagine that any Insurance company trying to grab market share of their new market (gay married couples) would probably find the most cost effective solution which would be a battery of STD tests before being insured, which would amount to discriminatory profiling perhaps, but not policy discrimination.

but any of those concerns are likely to be neutralized, since the fastest growing risk groups for the most expensive STD's are not gay men, but rather straight women, and the research that originaly suggested that people who are gay are more promiscuous doesnt seem to be panning out very well last I heard... (links would be appreciated)

[Richard_Halley]

You are assuming that all (or most) homosexual relationships are monogamous... if they are, than a pre-existing condition clause would cover the insurance companies very well; if they are not, than the clause would be of little to no value.

[Old Geezer]

You are assuming that all (or most) homosexual relationships are monogamous...

Well I was not talking about homosexual relationships.. I am talking about homosexual marriages...

but the only times I have heard research about promiscuity and sexuality, it has suggested that the overall rates of monogymy are about the same, have you heard recent research to the contrary? do you have it available as a link?

thanks