Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gay and Lesbian Marriage....

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    And less than one year has passed and look at all the changes. BSA membership policy. Supreme Court decisions. Wow.

    Comment


    • #62
      OK why the hate? How does this effect boy scouts at all? How does a gay couple getting married (I.e. able to sign a person as life insurance beneficiary sign as spouse for hospital documents etc..) How does this impact your life? your son? If it make a couple happy to say they love each other great.

      Would you stop your son from helping a gay or lesbian if they needed first aid?

      If you would stop a gay from the right to be happy (Delcaration of Independence) you also would support the right to revoke any other right as declared in the Bill of rights. That includes the 2nd.


      Comment


      • dcsimmons
        dcsimmons commented
        Editing a comment
        Dude, put the hate card away. It's tiresome, cowardly and a really poor ad hominem attack. If you want to debate the issues then debate, stop the personal attacks. Just because somebody disagrees with you it doesn't make them a hater. Are you a hater of children when you tell them no? Or is that coming from a place of concern and love? Just asking.

    • #63
      There are valid reasons, pro and con, why gay marriage is or is not good for society. However, what we are obviously seeing is a very rapid change in public opinion in favor of allowing gays the same privileges in society as others.

      Comment


      • #64
        Allowing homosexual marriages privileges is not the same as granting them marriage recognition. It's a law-of-the-land legal term, and that never was and never will be any sort of ethical/moral determination. A marriage by law is nothing more than a partnership contract in which certain economic/financial benefits can be acquired. People can call it anything they want but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck... Yeah, it's pretty easy to see through the double-speak. People can have all sorts of legal partnership contracts and they do so for a myriad of reasons, none of which are determined by any moral or ethical considerations. So my buddy and I in Colorado are going to open up a strip-club where we serve booze and pot and then expand into Nevada and add prostitution. We're gonna make a ton of money.

        For the first 88 years of US existence the country allowed slavery, even at the onset it's ethical and moral stance was questioned. But for expedience sake, the founding fathers allowed it so that the southern states would join in the revolution. History is a never ending litany of such practices, why would the future be any different? The more politicized the process becomes, the less any sort of ethics/morality come into play.

        As far as the US government stepping on religious toes? There's nothing new here, just ask the residents of Utah, who had to give up their religious freedoms to become a state in the Union.

        Originally in the founding documents the government was to stay out of a person's religion, now it seems perfectly normal to persecute certain religions. This is why people left Europe hundreds of years ago, the world has come full circle and we're right back where we started. Aren't the citizens of this nation as upset with the political world of Washington as they were with the political world of King George III?

        Those who don't learn from history are destined to relive it.

        Comment


        • #65
          What persecution of certain religions?

          Comment


          • #66
            Sorry I don't buy the "I am persecuted, because I can't interfere and force my religious beliefs into the lives of others that I don't even personally know, and I am not free to persecute whom I deem worthy of my persecution". That argument just doesn't fly..

            Comment


            • Merlyn_LeRoy
              Merlyn_LeRoy commented
              Editing a comment
              Rick_in_CA is right -- those Catholic agencies could have continued to offer adoption services too, just not using public funding, but they decided to close down completely instead.

              And the insurance issue is bogus; otherwise, working for a Jehovah's Witness could mean you aren't covered for blood transfusions. A Christian Science employer could give you no medical coverage at all. Why should employees have to follow their employers' religious views on medical treatment?

            • dcsimmons
              dcsimmons commented
              Editing a comment
              Why should an employer be forced to accept an employee's political/religious views? Let the market rule. If an employer doesn't offer the benefits you are looking for, work elsewhere. If enough people feel that way then that employer will be forced to shutdown on its own. Having the government force their version of morality on everybody is the problem, not the solution.

              Separately, as a resident of Illinois, our bankrupt corrupt state government has enough issues already. Morality is certainly not their strong suit.

            • Merlyn_LeRoy
              Merlyn_LeRoy commented
              Editing a comment
              "Why should an employer be forced to accept an employee's political/religious views?"

              They aren't. They're providing insurance coverage.

              " If an employer doesn't offer the benefits you are looking for, work elsewhere."

              You can advocate for that scheme; that isn't what we currently have in the US.

          • #67
            I've written this before and I will write it again: employers should not purchase or provide, nor should they be expected to purchase or provide, health or any other kind of insurance for their employees. Instead, employees should be paid fairly and then they should make those decisions however they choose to. If they want to form health-care coops or even employee-union insurance companies that is just fine. But the employers should be out of this aspect of their employees' lives.

            Comment


            • jblake47
              jblake47 commented
              Editing a comment
              There is a provision called COBRA which allows a former employee the opportunity to purchase the previous company's health benefits. The only difference is that they need to pay both the employee and employer shares of the premium, which is pretty much what one would have to do if the companies didn't subsidize their employee's benefits. Most employees prefer the lower company subsidized premiums. If companies were to go with the no benefit option, then this option would be off the table. Then there's the company option that are self-insured in their medical benefits for employees. Of course this begs the question of: why should a company pay medical expenses out of their own funds for a former employee? Hardly seems fair.

              The reason they are called benefits is because it is a financial subsidy for their employees. Of course they don't have to offer that, but then they don't have to offer uniforms, expense reimbursements, and fleet cars/mileage for business travel. One can process all that finance through their income tax benefits and the company is out of the picture and doesn't need to be in the business of being tax assistants to their employees.

              Benefits are employee perks, not employee entitlements. After all no one is forced to sign up for employer's health benefits, and can like the Canadian/European model, purchase on their own. That option has always been there! It's just one that not many people want. Using the Canadian/European model only is in fact forcing most people to settle for something that the vast majority don't want. That doesn't hardly seem fair either.
              Last edited by jblake47; 06-28-2013, 07:07 AM.

            • packsaddle
              packsaddle commented
              Editing a comment
              Unless the business IS an insurance company, businesses should not provide insurance or pay premiums for employees. If businesses want to hire the best employees, they should instead divert those funds to wages and salaries, leaving health care up to the individuals who make their own decisions. This would take a huge bureaucratic and administrative burden off of business and give individual responsibility back to the individuals.

              However, if the business requires employees to travel in order to do business, then those costs are legitimate costs of doing business and should be reimbursed. But the employee should be reimbursed for actual expenses, and not expect some perquisite such as being able to use the 'company car' for all manner of activity, including personal business. But I see nothing wrong with being reimbursed for travel expenses as long as it is a legitimate business activity.

            • jblake47
              jblake47 commented
              Editing a comment
              No one is forced to purchase an employer's health insurance benefit. It's an option if they so chose. This has been around since day one. What happens though is people find that non-employer options are more expensive than the benefit offered by the employer. Naturally they all want the cheaper option.

              To remove employer provided subsidized insurance is something people really don't want and I'm thinking there's going to be an uproar if this happens. Oh, pardon me, this is what is happening with Obama care. But now ones only gets a single "option", take it or leave it.

              Could employers get out of the insurance business? Sure, in a heartbeat, increase the salaries/wages of the employee the amount they subsidize and it won't cost the businesses anything. Businesses all over the place are doing this right now. But to take that partial payment and match with own funds and then go out and get the one option out there and everyone is happy. However, people are beginning to realize that the premiums have been skyrocketing. Sure, with a single payer program, existing conditions don't come into play, but the government needs to recoup those extra costs that insurance companies are avoiding and of course the premiums go up.

              So, John goes out gets an interview for a job with no health benefits and an interview for a job that pays less with health benefits. Hmmmm. If all things are equal, how much of a pay difference would it take to offset the extra cost of public health care? and what about if the cost was the same? Government health care vs. private health care?

              Lots of things to consider most of which probably don't bode well for the Obama plan.

          • #68
            Agree 100% with Pack. Business should have no more input on an employee's health insurance than they do their car insurance. Period. My employer is currently going through the spectacle of requireing employees to sign a waiver to medical privacy laws and requiring employees to submit blood analysis results for the employee and all others in a family covered by a group health plan to a 3rd party to review as part of a "wellness" program. This is a natural consequence of employer subsidized health insurance.

            Comment


            • #69
              Lets start by removing the tax advantage to employers for providing medical insurance in the first place. If the medical insurance isn't comprehensive, then there shouldn't be a tax advantage in providing it.

              Comment


              • #70
                That's why the employer provided health benefits started in the first place. In the post WWII era, companies were competing for workers and, since employee health benefits were tax deductible, it saved them money over increased salaries. Of course, it reached the point that it became standard and expected. Take away the deduction, you take away the benefits overnight, except where unions are involved.

                Comment


                • #71
                  In the year since the original post, gay marriage has passed by referendum in Maryland, Maine and Washington State. Never say never.

                  Comment


                  • #72
                    Yes. Government marriage has changed. Churches made the mistake of getting stuck in advocating their beliefs thru a legal system. That's the same thing we ridicule many islamic countries for doing. That's the churches big mistake. But, it still doesn't make it right and that's what I teach my kids.

                    One of the big theological tenets of the Catholic church that I do believe fully is the principle of Free Will. Not every choice is easy. Not every choice is conscious. We as people are driven by obsessions and compulsions. But that's the human condition and we each have our battles to fight.

                    It's as simple as I have many friends of alternative life styles. I refuse to believe that they are the product of some generic defect that caused their orientation any more than generics caused people to be attracted to thin / fat bodies, small / large breasts, tan / pale skin, small feet, long necks, pierced lips or hairy arm pits.

                    Comment


                    • #73
                      Fred - as an administrator I almost went in and edited your post for clarity. Please tell me, you used "generic" many times in your post. Was that your intention or were you really implying "genetic?"



                      For this particular protestant and engineer - I struggle with the concepts of man having free will in concert with the concept of an all knowing God.

                      Comment


                      • #74
                        And in another year or so, even the Catholic Church is beginning to move away from their previous rigid stand.
                        I wanted to note that while a majority of states now have legal same-sex marriage, a lawsuit in this state poses an interesting challenge to the current ban. I read this morning that the two women who are suing the state have a set of twins for their children. One of the women actually gave birth to the twins and here's the interesting part: the other woman was the genetic contributor of the ova - and even though SHE is the genetic mother of both children, the state will not recognize this fact for any legal question. This is an interesting conundrum because if the state successfully defends the ban, they are essentially arguing that a genetic mother no longer necessarily has any legal standing. Interesting. I suspect even this state is going to have legal same sex marriage soon.
                        Last edited by packsaddle; 10-22-2014, 09:58 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #75
                          Interesting. Courts have also held that a non-genetic father is still liable for child support and by implication the genetic father is not. So will the genetic mother have no legal standing but still be liable financially? Or will it end up as whoever has the money is the one liable?

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X