Repercussions of Same-Sex Marriages
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
phillycat
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 1953
Location: Da hood
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 11/17/04 - 13:01 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: |
Understandable, I know I'm reaching. Like I said, there's just not 'hard data'.
I can definitely understand how a person's trade comes in to play on message boards. I'm a CPA and when it comes to taxes, assumptions and ability to back them up gets real muddy real fast on something like an internet message board. So don't take it as a professional slight, I'm just tickling the keyboard here and not building a thesis.  |
Although I do agree with you on some points...that this is just a mssg board...I disagree on some others.
First, I did find some hard date (please see where I posted the article about gay couples in VT)
Second, you are making some assumptions that are pretty anti-gay so I don't take it lightly. Assumptions like that are what spread and support feelings of bigotry and intolerance.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 13:05 Post subject:
| megawill wrote: | i don't think you can use statistics and economic impacts as justification for what many see as a basic civil rights issue...
i understand that not everyone sees it as a civil rights issue but for those of us that do these type of arguments ring hollow... |
Absolutely, totally and fully agree with you. My own personal view of the subject is based on a belief other than economic. I was just putting up some ideas to answer the economic question that came up. I think the recent voting that happened show that America as a whole don't vote with their calculators anyway.
Last edited by jrjo on 11/17/04 - 13:10; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
phillycat
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 1953
Location: Da hood
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 13:09 Post subject:
| megawill wrote: |
i don't think you can use statistics and economic impacts as justification for what many see as a basic civil rights issue...
i understand that not everyone sees it as a civil rights issue but for those of us that do these type of arguments ring hollow... |
Just to clarify my point in regards to the statistical bent that this topic has taken. Often times I think that people try to back up their beliefs with data to provide some validity. That is what I feel has happened here. However, I think that the data was bogus, thus providing no validity to the comment that gay relationships don't last as long as straight marriages.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 13:09 Post subject:
| phillycat wrote: | | Second, you are making some assumptions that are pretty anti-gay so I don't take it lightly. Assumptions like that are what spread and support feelings of bigotry and intolerance. |
Perhaps at this point I should go to a PM, but I was pretty light on this thread until an accusation like that. Bigotry? Intolerance? Accuse me of a leap of logic or some skewed data, but pushing your perceptions of me into such an ugly world is something you couldn't be more fully wrong of!
|
|
|
|
|
phillycat
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 1953
Location: Da hood
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 13:14 Post subject:
| jrjo wrote: |
Perhaps at this point I should go to a PM, but I was pretty light on this thread until an accusation like that. Bigotry? Intolerance? Accuse me of a leap of logic or some skewed data, but pushing your perceptions of me into such an ugly world is something you couldn't be more fully wrong of! |
I know the topic is meandering a bit, but thought I'd add a few thoughts. Some of the 'costs' of same-sex marriages in terms of healthcare coverage could be from the gay segment of the population as a whole. It probably goes without citing numbers that HIV and AIDS is more predominant and being an 'expensive' disease in terms of healthcare and it's incurability, a healthcare plan group bringing in more gays would at some point end up with higher costs and thus higher premiums.
And another cost that I don't think many people outside the human-resourses world realize is the cost of administration. When people change plans, change spouses, marital change has costs attached to all the manpower to get paperwork and documentation done. There's COBRA when employment changes and when spouses divorce. Again, I think it's a commonly known statistic that gay relationships are much shorter term when compared to married men-women.
Just a couple things off the top of my head.
I think that there are several statements in your above post that push the boundries of being anti-gay. Sorry if I mis-read that but I can't imagine that I am alone in my reaction to your post. I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything, I felt that your views came across pretty clearly.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 13:17 Post subject:
| phillycat wrote: |
I know the topic is meandering a bit, but thought I'd add a few thoughts. Some of the 'costs' of same-sex marriages in terms of healthcare coverage could be from the gay segment of the population as a whole. It probably goes without citing numbers that HIV and AIDS is more predominant and being an 'expensive' disease in terms of healthcare and it's incurability, a healthcare plan group bringing in more gays would at some point end up with higher costs and thus higher premiums.
And another cost that I don't think many people outside the human-resourses world realize is the cost of administration. When people change plans, change spouses, marital change has costs attached to all the manpower to get paperwork and documentation done. There's COBRA when employment changes and when spouses divorce. Again, I think it's a commonly known statistic that gay relationships are much shorter term when compared to married men-women.
Just a couple things off the top of my head.
I think that there are several statements in your above post that push the boundries of being anti-gay. Sorry if I mis-read that but I can't imagine that I am alone in my reaction to your post. I wasn't trying to accuse you of anything, I felt that your views came across pretty clearly. |
I've read it three times, and I don't say any anti-gay message there. Prehaps you are making an unfair assumption
|
|
|
|
|
phillycat
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Jul 2004
Posts: 1953
Location: Da hood
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 13:22 Post subject:
Then I guess we just agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
elkid
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Nov 2002
Posts: 8353
Location: hiding out in Philly
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 13:38 Post subject:
| Cappy wrote: | | I've read it three times, and I don't say any anti-gay message there. Prehaps you are making an unfair assumption |
I read it several times and see it as offensive: "a healthcare plan group bringing in more gays would at some point end up with higher costs and thus higher premiums". First, the source was from 1992 - times have changed dramatically since then; I bet that number's different. Second, note that "monogamous" has nothing to do with commitment, gay, straight, or otherwise. "Monogamous" would include those 'living in sin' as well so the "argument's" premise is faulty at best. To continue ...
| Quote: | | Some of the 'costs' of same-sex marriages in terms of healthcare coverage could be from the gay segment of the population as a whole. It probably goes without citing numbers that HIV and AIDS is more predominant and being an 'expensive' disease in terms of healthcare and it's incurability, |
Sort of, if you choose to exclude over half the US population. According to the the same source I found that Claire referenced, the CDC, 60% of last year's new HIV infections in men were contracted via homosexual sex, but 0% of women (75% from hetero sex, 25% from IV drug use). Globally HIV/AIDS infection is on the rise due to IV drug use, not homosexual sex.
So I, too, found the generalization misleading, and on its underlying assumption offensive.
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 13:48 Post subject:
if we can agree to keep this civil, then I will say that when I read jrjo's statements as quoted by phillycat, that I did, indeed, hear anti-gay rhetoric. perhaps, that is not what is intended, and maybe jrjo doesn't realize that his words, conveyed as such, have that ring to them.
here are the specific phrases that bother me: Some of the 'costs' of same-sex marriages in terms of healthcare coverage could be from the gay segment of the population as a whole. who covers the costs of health insurance for homosexuals now?
It probably goes without citing numbers that HIV and AIDS is more predominant and being an 'expensive' disease in terms of healthcare and it's incurability, a healthcare plan group bringing in more gays would at some point end up with higher costs and thus higher premiums. this is branding Aids and HIV as a "gay" disease. A lot can be read into this, including the concept that "straight" people aren't responsible for the spread of the disease and thus shouldn't be forced to pay for it directly or indirectly. Much like smoking and health insurance, but in this case, one has to assume that homosexuals choose to be homosexual.
Again, I think it's a commonly known statistic that gay relationships are much shorter term when compared to married men-women. I don't know that we can make this assumption or rely on the sources that claim this to be true. It is my opinion, and experience, that our society has determined that gay relationships are not valid relationships. That may be the reason that gay relationships appear to be shorter. Perhaps, if given the chance to marry and have their relationships validated by society, same-sex marriages would last as long as hetero marriages.
If this is not what you meant, I apologize. However, I thought I should put out what I "heard" in your post.
|
|
|
|
|
jrjo
Gone Fishin
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 16451
Location: Lake Wobegon, MN
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 14:02 Post subject: Hey Steve
| keltic63 wrote: | | If this is not what you meant, I apologize. However, I thought I should put out what I "heard" in your post. |
Mutual apologies. I would hope it is, but obviously not, apparent that I'm not out to stir up anti-gay sentiment.
The problem with situations like this is once 'anti-gay' or 'bigot' is tossed out there pubically, there is no recourse. I'll look like I'm digging a hole with however I reply. 
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 14:13 Post subject:
I don't think you're digging a hole, jr. I just think we have all remember to take care to write things the way we mean for them to come across. It's come up before, I'm sure it will again.
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 14:33 Post subject:
I guess I look at things more like megawill. The statistics really are meaningless to me. Insurance is ALL about spreading risk, anyway. It's about whether a human being has a right to make choices. There are many couples that carry recessive genes that can lead to babies with major problems. I had a classmate that had 3 sibs die from cystic fibrosis complications. After the birth of the first child, was this couple told they cannot procreate? (dr. may have suggested). No. Do we tell the parents that they can't be married? No. How can we tell a gay couple that they cannot be a couple based on the "possible" repercussions of HIV/AIDS? I find the premise of "medical costs" of a gay marriage reaching.
I can only find biblical intepretations as the only reason against. Without it, there isn't a basis to prevent a person's right to "the pursuit of happiness".
If there are valid studies that a gay couple would cost an insurer more, then the companies can assess the risk just like they would determine the risk of people that smoke, drink, fly airplanes, rock climb......
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 14:52 Post subject:
| runaroundsue wrote: | | I can only find biblical intepretations as the only reason against. Without it, there isn't a basis to prevent a person's right to "the pursuit of happiness". |
and believe it or not, there are scriptures that would indicate that same-sex relationships are ok. I may have said this before, but I'll repeat it so that you all can understand where I'm coming from. I have a minor in Religious Studies, I have worked within the Church (professionally) since 1982. I bought the anti-gay stuff from the church for years, until I realized that no matter what I did, how hard I prayed, etc. there was nothing that could change this very basic trait of who I am. I went back to the literature and did some more research and have found that: committed loving relationships between persons of the same-sex are not addressed as being sinful in either the New or Old Testament. Many scholars believe that David had a homosexual affair with Jonathan, and that Ruth and Naomi may have been lovers. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality, but inhospitality to strangers and rape. Even when those cities are mentioned by later prophets, homosexuality is not listed as one of their sins. In the book of Deuteronomy, homosexuality is listed as a sin, but then so is wearing a fabric made of 2 fibers (think cotton/polyester blends). there's so much that people ignore when they invoke the Bible as clearly stating that Homosexuality is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Ms. Jenn
Fresh, Hot & Wild
|
|
|
Joined: 14 Feb 2004
Posts: 7935
Location: Suite 550
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 11/17/04 - 16:50 Post subject:
Denying people rights based on who they love is discrimination. Based on the arguments put forth here, it'd be like saying I can't marry a black man because there is a greater risk for sickle cell disease being passed on to my children. I can't marry an Italian because he's more likely to cheat on me and we'll get divorced and my employer is too lazy to fill out the paperwork.
Can the word marriage mean a man and a woman only, sure. We can also let homosexuals join together emotionally and legally through a ceremony (which mimicks a wedding word for word and right for right) and call it something else.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
