Just to see...
Printable View
Just to see...
Unfortunately this is an impossible question to answer, because under US law gay marriage really involves two different issues not just one. The first issue is the union of two life partners, which I support. The second brings into play legal entitlements to spousal fringe benefits under existing employment/union contracts, income tax incentives intended for the rearing of children etc. which I do not support.
Well, yeah. But i made it black and white for a reason. It's a "which way do you lean" question. It's an internet poll so you can do that. Doesn't work in the real world, i'll agree with you there. But this is the internet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
BTW, i'm an astronaut. Will you go home with me?
It depends ... what are the tax rates and social policies on Saturn ? Besides, 'Mars Needs Women', so you'll have to sweeten your offer LOL ! And don't expect me to fall for 'a huge ring' either !Quote:
BTW, i'm an astronaut. Will you go home with me?
DAMN!Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
sheeeeeeesh,you guys get a room!!!;D
as for the pole...
Its like going to a Muslim wedding and asking everyone if they want a pork chop.
A much higher percent will say "NO" then if you went to an all catholic wedding and asked the same question.
Within the female strip industry,your going to have a much higher lesbian and bi sexual female headcount(thank god!!;) ),with a lower homosexual male population.
Within the male strip industry,well,lets just say,alot of the dancers are great actors and its a lopsided headcount as well.
We aint general population.:)
Im not saying the strip club industry is as bad as hairdressers,but we certainly have our fair share of the gay community within our ranks.
I think this whole issue will clear up and change for the benefit of those who would like to marry regardless of sex. Let em be ! Wish my dogs were a write off the food cost more then my own ! Can I train them to protect my house and write them off as a home improvement( elaborate alarm system ) Armed with the potential to lick to death all trespassers .;D
Let them be married, have kids and live happily ever after. They didnt chose to be gay. They probably had the same "life" dreams as heterosexuals, why should'nt they be entitled to the same dreams as us? I was partially raised by lesbians, she was my nanny's daughter (I spent A LOT of time there) and also her son was gay. I'm not screwed up. But I did have a "regular" mom & dad family so I guess I'm a particular case.. I only understood they were gay when I was 13.
I support gay marriage as do most of the people I know.....
::) ..... that might make sense ..... if we were discounting the following fact :Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
lots of married people without children also get those....not to mention plenty of gay couples have and raise kids too.
I think alot of people are in the dark about the impact on thier pockets alone if gays are allowed to change the marriage laws of this country.
Mainstream media wouldnt dare report such an unPC story about the collapse of the insurance industry alone should this happen.
Hell,if anyone says ANYTHING in oposition to gay marriage,or even questions it for ANY reason,they are instantly labeled as a homophobe.
So is there any way for the sides to meet? What if the excluded some of the "child rearing" stuff and just recognized the union?
Okay so Ididn't read the posts...
It's late, I'm a little bit tipsy, my cat is sitting on my mouse (or at least the wire... literally)
BUT, who cares? Really, what difference does it really make?
None that I can tell... Unless you are catholic (which I used to be :-\ )
YEAH for Lez Love!!!!
P.S. Not that this post is for that but after the men I have met I think maybe I should go to the other side... I should definetly support that view cause I never know what my future may bring ;)
Sure. Civil Union laws address issues such as 'family member' status re medical emergencies, inheritance issues etc. But Civil Union laws would not legally classify a gay couple as 'married' and would not trigger instant contractual obligations by the insurance industry, employers etc. to provide 'equal' health and life insurance benefits to gay spouses despite very high actuarial risk factors - very high actuarial risk factors which already make the costs of privately insuring a gay spouse somewhere between outrageous and impossible.Quote:
So is there any way for the sides to meet? What if the excluded some of the "child rearing" stuff and just recognized the union?
Definitely agreed. In this sense the gay lobby and liberal democrats are achieving a total polarization of the issue. The end result is likely to be that gay 'marriage' is in fact legalized in a handful of large blue states, while at the same time a majority of red states pass legislation which (tries to) specifically exclude the recognition of gay 'marriages' entered into in those blue states from affecting employers and insurance companies in their red state from being taken along for the ride under the constitution's 'full faith and credit clause'. Ultimately this matter will wind up before the US supreme court.Quote:
Hell,if anyone says ANYTHING in opposition to gay marriage,or even questions it for ANY reason,they are instantly labeled as a homophobe.
The gay marriage debate reminds me of how not too long ago, interracial marriages were illegal as well - and people defended their opposition with the same Bible verses, fear of "social" destruction, and "what about the children" arguments.
The ONLY time a couple's homo/hetero/bisexuality should be considered is in those churches that preach against homosexuality b/c hey..you can't change a religion's doctrine. Gay couples deserve the same benefits and privileges (and disadvantages lol)as their straight peers.
Oh, absolutely ! And I'm living proof ! People simply do not want to face financial facts about the legal/contractual obligations imposed by the legalization of gay marriage, and as you say media does not to report on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by BigGreenMnM
CDC data shows that US gays are 20 times more likely than US straights to contract hiv/aids. Granted worldwide statistics can be dredged up, or 'growth' statistics can be dredged up to attempt to obscure this data, but the CDC has the facts of how thing actually are in this country at this moment. Developing AIDS always results in years of treatment with very expensive antiviral drugs, months of hospital treatment with sophisticated tests and equipment, which can add up to medical costs easily exceeding $1 million per patient. This is the reason that private medical insurers do not want to cover gays, or attempt to charge them astronomically high insurance premiums.
AIDS also results in, well to be blunt, an early death. This means many fewer years of life insurance premium payments, and fewer years over which the paid premiums can earn interest, before the life insurance company has to write a death benefit check. This is the reason that private life insurers do not want to cover gays, or attempt to charge them astronomically high insurance premiums.
If gay marriage is legalized, it automatically forces govt's and unionized industries to provide 'equal' coverage for gay spouses as they already must do for gay employees. This means that if the actual cost risks are 20 times as high for gays and gay spouses, that adding even one additional gay spouse under the employer's insurance coverage by a company employing 100 people will cause the cost of providing insurance for EVERY employee to rise 20%. Adding two additional gay spouses to the insurance pool will cause the cost of providing insurance for EVERY empolyee to rise 40%. Adding 5 gay spouses doubles the employer's insurance costs. There is no way around the fact that actuarially speaking it cost much more per capita to provide medical treatment and life insurance for AIDS patients than it does for members of the general population, and the fact that gay males are 20 times more likely to contract AIDS and thus create those costs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
Lots of straight people get diseases and have longterm medical issues. 90% of positive people are not even gay to begin with so.....
To only take issue with hiv and then to only take issue with one group of people who have the disease ( and willfully ignore the fact that 90% of the worlds + population is hetero) is in itself the absolute epitome of discrimination.
how do I put this tactfully, Kitty .... you're just wrong. The CDC website has the historical numbers from actual US cases - check it out for yourself. Your comment about 90% of HIV positive people being straight might be true on a worldwide basis including Africans, but it is NOT the case here in the USA. Facts are facts in this regard, even though those facts don't support a 'politically correct' conclusion.
Yes it is true that the US population in general can develop expensive diseases other than HIV/aids. However, the probability of this happening is two orders of magnitude below the probability of a US gay male developing AIDS, and insurance costs are based on probabilities (example the odds of a straight developing a debilitating expensive disease is over 1 in 100, where the odds of a US gay male developing AIDS is less than 1 in 10).
Also, with one straight disease in particular, i.e. lung cancer, the law allows insurance companies and employers to charge higher premiums to smokers to go along with their proportionately higher risk factors. If the law allowed the same thing to happen in regard to gay insurance premiums, there wouldn't be an issue because gays would be charged 20 times the normal rate (as smokers are charged something like 1.5 times the normal rate). But the law does NOT allow this to occur, instead requiring that gays be provided insurance at equal cost, so the much higher actual insurance costs for gays must be recouped by spreading it onto straight employees (i.e. charging straights 20%-40% higher insurance premiums than necessary just to insure themselves in order to subsidize insurance coverage for gays).
Gay - Strait
Whatever makes whoever happy I'm for it.
This is America - freedom of speech and all that good shit
Nobody should be ashamed or embarrassed of who they are or what they like as long as there is a level of respect and understanding.
(which is expected in any relationship)
Madison82's avatar looks... agonizing...Quote:
Originally Posted by Madison82
Darth Vader: Where is the secret rebel base?
Me: I'll never tell!
Darth Vader: Then i'll stick a needle through the head of your dick and insert a barbell there.
Me: It's on Dantooine.
Darth Vader: Get me the needle...
Me:............................
Darth Vader: Ok, i'm all ready...
Me: Dude, Yavin 4. And watch out for this Skywalker dude. Shoot him down right away.
Darth Vader: Good choice.
Me: Whew...
I have to wonder why those here who clearly oppose gay marriage have not voted in the poll ? Plenty of posts (which I note can be deleted) in this section about how and why they oppose gay marriage... but no votes (which can not be self deleted from what I can tell)
What gives ? Why not vote ?
the real problem here isnt gay arriage
but marriage as a whole insitution/question of legality at all
whodo these fucks even think they are
this whole gay marriage maufactuired "issue" is just a divisionary diversion
what a big suprise
we dont see much of them
:(
Hey, I just had to jump in on this topic!! Melonie you are incorrect in your findings...Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/facts/msm.htm
Basically there are alot of men who are "on the down low" Basically these are bisexual/gay men who do not consider themselves as such. They carry on lives just like anyother heterosexual male, have a wife/girlfriend/kids yet they will have sexual intercourse with a man. Alot of these "DL" men figure, "oh I'm not takin it up the a** so I'm not gay"
Just because these men do not consider themselves to be gay on "paper" or in "studies" does not hide the fact that this is a growing trend especially among the younger generations.
Hope this helps,
CK
ultimately, this subject always leads right back where it started
Quote:
..... discrimination, bigotry and prejudice.
People like you just disgust me ! You promote some VERY bad juju not limited to this subject either........ Grr.... I gotta find out if mods be added to the ignore list !
what can I say ...Quote:
Hell,if anyone says ANYTHING in oposition to gay marriage,or even questions it for ANY reason,they are instantly labeled as a homophobe.
Cinnamon, the single year's statistics you cited do indicate that, in that year, gay/bi males were slightly outnumbers by IV drug users + heteros. However, this single year does not correspond to the overall percentage of US gay/bi male AIDS cases versus overall IV drug users + heteros. If you search the CDC database for ALL Aids cases for All years in the database, you get the following ...Quote:
Hey, I just had to jump in on this topic!! Melonie you are incorrect in your findings...
You can see that the gay/bi male exposure categories significantly outnumber the IV drug use and hetero risk categories.
While I'll certainly agree that the trend is changing re growth ratesin AIDS cases by exposure category, for a fact the existing US cases are what they are. But for the sake of argument I'll accept that of all recent and near future AIDS cases, 50% being likely to occur among gay/bi men with the other 50% occurring within the rest of the population is a reasonable number.
However, you must then put this 50:50 probability in context of the total population. By the most recent US census, something over 3% of the US population reported being gay males. With 50:50 odds that AIDS will occur, and comprising 3.3% of the total population, that makes gay/bi men 30 times more likely to contract AIDS than the rest of the population.
Even giving validity to claims that the US census data has been underreported based on homophobic backlash, with the true figure being closer to gay men comprising 5% of the total population, this means that gay/bi men are therefore ONLY TWENTY TIMES as likely to contract AIDS as the rest of the US population. It is actuarial statistics such as this which gives insurance companies and employers the willies when it comes to projected future costs of life and health insurance coverage for gays and gay spouses, given the associated facts that treating AIDS involves years worth of treatment with extremely expensive antiviral drugs plus usually 6 months worth of incredibly expensive hospital treatment near the 'end'.
~
Ok, so I'm a little buzzed here, but is everyone saying the main reason gay marriage is not allowed is because health insurance rates will get all whacked out? Sorry if I didn't read everything right.