Homosexual Marriage

[Prometheus]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Aren't you Mormon?

Yes. But my support for plural marriage is not really religious. The church does not currently practice or advocate plural marriage. And i'ts certainly not something I want anything to do with. One woman at a time is more that I can handle already.

When we are discussing non-traditional marriage, plural marriage should be included with gay and incestual marriage.

[Dirty Name]

Yes. Gay, lesbo, incest you name it. Providing both partners are over the age of concent that is. And more then any two people. Plural marriage should be allowed.

Where would you draw the line with respect to businesses and the insurance benefits they provide to their employees?

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name And yet, Prometheus finally decided to answer, while you are again on record refusing to answer a very basic question.

Doing so didn't advance the debate. It simply gave you an opportunity to recite old material, yet again.

Quote by: Dirty Name Please cite the passage in the Constitution where you derive this from.

It's in the thread, stated several times by several people.

Quote by: Dirty Name And don't forget that the very definition of marriage itself didn't require the explicit description of the genders involved in a marriage relationship. When this country was formed, "marriage = man + woman" just like "water = hydrogen2 + oxygen

Wouldn't be because folks were jailed, pilloried, beaten, and hung by the Crown for engaging in "the love that dare not speak its name" back then in England, would it?

[Dirty Name]

When we are discussing non-traditional marriage, plural marriage should be included with gay and incestual marriage.

FYI, I happen to believe that yours is the only defensible position one can take if one is in favor of gay marriage. Those who say they want "equal rights" but seek to exclude other forms of marriage are only fooling themselves.

However, I believe that such a legalization would weaken the institution of marriage as we currently define it, via the stripping or dilution of benefits, and the wholesale changes in law that would be required to accomodate any form of marriage would further weaken an institution which I believe is crucial to the success of this nation.

[Dirty Name]

Doing so didn't advance the debate. It simply gave you an opportunity to recite old material, yet again.

Only because you refuse to participate. Once you answer the question, we can move forward. If you continue to refuse, and instead reference old material yourself, then you are correct.

It's in the thread, stated several times by several people.

Humor me.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Humor me.

Humor yourself. :)

[Dirty Name]

Humor yourself.

As a Master deBater, I humor myself all the time. But now I'm ready to try it with a partner.

[Osborn F Enready]

I would think by now people would see how futile it is to try to debate Dirty Name on this topic.

He is a sidestep specialist. Doesn't admit fact, and has been using circular logic now for about 40 posts..........

This is not conducive to the debate for me to say this, and it may be insulting, but no worse than the last 25 pages of this thread, so I feel somehwhat justified in saying this.

Dirty Name, why don't you start a thread with the reason you feel homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed, and then you can see how many people want to debate, and how your "argument" stands up?

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Dirty Name Where would you draw the line with respect to businesses and the insurance benefits they provide to their employees?

Insurance companies are private buisinesses. They should be able to give or deny benefits to whoever the hell they want, on any arbitrary basis. It's a private buisiness. They don't need government distinctions and recognitions of relationships to do buisiness.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: Dirty Name FYI, I happen to believe that yours is the only defensible position one can take if one is in favor of gay marriage. Those who say they want "equal rights" but seek to exclude other forms of marriage are only fooling themselves.

Agreed.

However, I believe that such a legalization would weaken the institution of marriage as we currently define it, via the stripping or dilution of benefits, and the wholesale changes in law that would be required to accomodate any form of marriage would further weaken an institution which I believe is crucial to the success of this nation.

I'm fine with weaken institutionalized marriage. The government should be involved. As a religious person, my conceptulization of what marriage is already so far from what the government says it is that the governments definition has no affect to me. Nor should it. Formalized marriage is basically a religious thing at its roots, so government shouldn't be in it.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Prometheus Insurance companies are private buisinesses. They should be able to give or deny benefits to whoever the hell they want, on any arbitrary basis. It's a private buisiness. They don't need government distinctions and recognitions of relationships to do buisiness.

There's another side to that equation.

When the concept of insurance first began, the companies failed miserably and contract/policyowners lost their shirts.

Without some kind of regulation (government, industry, or otherwise) insurance companies cherry pick low risk conditions and ignore all others, even today.

I worked for a major insurance company that marketed products to specific zipcodes to avoid risk. When folks from the company's self-identified 'high-risk' zipcodes attempted to enroll, they were automatically forwarded to agents specifically trained to encourage the enrollee to pick an alternatre plan that had less impact on risk. If the enrollee was persistent, the enrollment was either rigorously scrutinized and rejected, or, the agents dragged their feet for the maxium time allowed by law hoping the enrollee would lose interest and withdraw their enrollment.

[Prometheus]

Quote by: italiangm There's another side to that equation. When the concept of insurance first began, the companies failed miserably and contract/policyowners lost their shirts. Without some kind of regulation (government, industry, or otherwise) insurance companies cherry pick low risk conditions and ignore all others, even today. I worked for a major insurance company that marketed products to specific zipcodes to avoid risk. When folks from the company's self-identified 'high-risk' zipcodes attempted to enroll, they were automatically forwarded to agents specifically trained to encourage the enrollee to pick an alternatre plan that had less impact on risk. If the enrollee was persistent, the enrollment was either igorously scrutinized and rejected, or, the agents dragged their feet for the maxium time allowed by law hoping the enrollee would lose interest and withdraw their enrollment.

No company should have to sell insurance if they don't want too. It's a private buisiness - no one should force them to take a customer they don't want.

[Osborn F Enready]

Insurance is not a right.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Prometheus No company should have to sell insurance if they don't want too. It's a private buisiness - no one should force them to take a customer they don't want.

This results in rich company executives and poor stockholders/policyholders left hanging when the company folds. Operators simply form another company and do it again.

[belverron]

That's life. And we might be getting a little far afield, here....

[Prometheus]

Quote by: italiangm This results in rich company executives and poor stockholders/policyholders left hanging when the company folds. Operators simply form another company and do it again.

If the company fails it's because the company wasn't any good at making money (that or the government f***ed it up becase of some stupid regulation). There's a reason when they don't want to sell insurance to someone. I'm sure you know that better than me. Selling insurance to that person obviously hurts the buisiness, so why do you say it's bad for the buisiness?

Anyway, this whole insurance thing is really a distraction from the main issue. Insurance shold not be an issue when discussing civil rights. Especially when insurance companies are private anyway, so should not be bound by governmental concepts of marriage.

[Dirty Name]

I'm fine with weaken institutionalized marriage. The government should be involved. As a religious person, my conceptulization of what marriage is already so far from what the government says it is that the governments definition has no affect to me. Nor should it. Formalized marriage is basically a religious thing at its roots, so government shouldn't be in it.

I disagree on two counts here:

1) While the origin of marriage may have religious roots, there is ample evidence that the arrangement simply makes sense from a purely secular point of view, and our government has implemented the institution of marriage with absolutely zero religious requirements.

2) I believe that the nuclear family (mother, father and children) is a crucial element to the success of our nation, and I believe it is in jeopardy. Further weakening the institution of marriage would be detrimental to the country. The effects of legalization of all/any form of marriage would be extremely disruptive to our legal system and economy. If the company you work for currently gives you family benefits such as group insurance coverage for your dependents, you can kiss them goodbye, because there is no way your company could afford to provide benefits to the various combinations of dependents when polygamist marriage and non-sexual partnerships are allowed. This is just one way in which people are harmed by the gay marriage movement.

That said, there are several folks who are posting on this thread who are advocating gay marriage, but when their comments are analyzed, it becomes clear that they are really in favor of stripping away all federal and state recognitions of marriage. Their only rationale for supporting gay marriage is that it's a vehicle for accomplishing the goal of removing federal benefits from marriage. Thus, gay marriage weakens traditional marriages, and the mantra "it should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone" is incorrect.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Osborn F. Enready I would think by now people would see how futile it is to try to debate Dirty Name on this topic. He is a sidestep specialist. Doesn't admit fact, and has been using circular logic now for about 40 posts..........

If there is a single issue you believe I have sidestepped, bring it on. I'm right here, and I haven't ducked anything. Let me know what issue I haven't addressed.

Dirty Name, why don't you start a thread with the reason you feel homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed, and then you can see how many people want to debate, and how your "argument" stands up?

I don't see what the point would be. Please explain.

[Dirty Name]

Insurance companies are private buisinesses. They should be able to give or deny benefits to whoever the hell they want, on any arbitrary basis. It's a private buisiness. They don't need government distinctions and recognitions of relationships to do buisiness.

I'd love to watch you debate that topic here. That an insurance company or any other employer should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

As the law currently stands, businesses are immune from any lawsuit on that basis as long as they are consistent in who they offer benefits to. Every employee, and his/her spouse cannot be construed as discrimination so long as the law doesn't allow homosexual marriage. Businesses are free to extend benefits to "life partners" as they wish, but elevating gay marriage to the same status as heterosexual marriage would automatically force businesses to extend benefits to every employee's "spouse."

[Dirty Name]

Insurance shold not be an issue when discussing civil rights. Especially when insurance companies are private anyway, so should not be bound by governmental concepts of marriage.

The federal recognition of marriage has a huge impact on the private sector as well. Thus, it is fair game for discussion.