Debate on Civil Unions

[precious_roy]

fix:

I think the entire point of this issue is civil unions are not about non homosexuals securing “rights”. It is specfically a vehicle for those who want public endorsement of "gay’ relationships or who want to devalue marriage. I am sure the smart lawyers could conjure up many ways to solve all the problems of inheritence, or medical visitations, and all the rest.

That may be so. If it is, and those rights are made readily available to all people without the necessity of a fancy lawyer then that’s fine. I just wanted to point out that all people who were in favor of civil unions were not trying to do so just because of the homosexual acceptance aspect.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

precious_roy:

Uh oh. I wasn’t attempting to give the impression I was for universal health care because I am not. But thats another story all together…

I guess the problem is that everyones complex thoughts and reasoning such as yours or mine get mapped into a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ vote which doesn’t express the full sentiment of thought. That is what I was trying to state with the idea of preaching values along with your actions.

And I do agree that the slide is quite slippery.

What is the difference between wanting health care for your room mate and universual health care? If everyone, wanted insurance for someone they know, would that not lead to universual health care?

 

[precious_roy]

Daniel Marsh:

What is the difference between wanting health care for your room mate and universual health care? If everyone, wanted insurance for someone they know, would that not lead to universual health care?

I don’t know if you are married, but lets say for sake of argument that you are. Your health care can cover your wife and kids.

Say I am me (that’s a stretch) and I will never get married and neither will my buddy Brian. Brian is my hetero-life-mate (stealing from Jay and Slient Bob). He and I share a house and living expenses. Why should your health care be able to cover your spouse and mine not cover my friend whom I live with? I was not saying I wanted it to cover ALL of my friends.

 

[Orionthehunter]

precious_roy:

I don’t know if you are married, but lets say for sake of argument that you are. Your health care can cover your wife and kids.

Say I am me (that’s a stretch) and I will never get married and neither will my buddy Brian. Brian is my hetero-life-mate (stealing from Jay and Slient Bob). He and I share a house and living expenses. Why should your health care be able to cover your spouse and mine not cover my friend whom I live with? I was not saying I wanted it to cover ALL of my friends.

It has been determined as a matter of public policy that marriage and families is conducive to a well-ordered civilized society. For this reason laws encourage the beneficial treatment of extending benefits to family members.

Furthermore, businesses rationally know that most people work to support and for the benefit of their family. A business that extends family coverage will be more attractive as an employer to a greater pool of potential employees. Concurrently, the business believes that allowing the extention of benefits beyond the family unit to “designated” friends would not result in significantly higher health insurance costs without a correpsonding increase in the pool of potential employees.

 

[precious_roy]

Orionthehunter:

It has been determined as a matter of public policy that marriage and families is conducive to a well-ordered civilized society. For this reason laws encourage the beneficial treatment of extending benefits to family members.

Furthermore, businesses rationally know that most people work to support and for the benefit of their family. A business that extends family coverage will be more attractive as an employer to a greater pool of potential employees. Concurrently, the business believes that allowing the extention of benefits beyond the family unit to “designated” friends would not result in significantly higher health insurance costs without a correpsonding increase in the pool of potential employees.

Right. I guess I could have summarized it by saying Brian IS my family and we work for mutual benefit, just as if I was living with a brother.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Ok, lets say you want to cover one friend, room mate. And, everyone who has a friend wants to cover their freind, and some sect wants to cover eveyone in their church,

how many friends covering just one friend will it take to reach universal health care?

How many church coops covering their members will it take to reach universal health care?

If every other gay person, put their room mate with aids on their health care, how long before the health care system goes broke?

 

[precious_roy]

Daniel Marsh:

Ok, lets say you want to cover one friend, room mate. And, everyone who has a friend wants to cover their freind, and some sect wants to cover eveyone in their church,

how many friends covering just one friend will it take to reach universal health care?

How many church coops covering their members will it take to reach universal health care?

If every other gay person, put their room mate with aids on their health care, how long before the health care system goes broke?

The question would be how many civil unions could you have?

I was only suggesting that the person with which you shared your civil union be able to fit under your health care plan.

 

[Black_Jaque]

I normally play the freedom of religion card. Since it is part of my religious belief that homosexual acts are evil, I cannot approve of it.

Which brings the discussion to the difference between approval and tolerance. Approval is actually declaring something as good, which would be against our faith to call something evil, good. Tolerance is to allow something to go on while maintaining that it is still wrong.

When the state issues a license, it is approving of something, not just tolerating it. It says right there in bold font on my Wisconsin hunting license “Approvals”. Since I live in a government “of the people, by the people” as a citizen I am approving of whatever my government issues a license to. Therefore it is my religious duty to oppose such marriages.

I realize this doesn’t convince people of why homosexual sex is evil, but it should at least explain how one can oppose such marriage without being a hateful biggot.

As for homosexual sex, well it get’s down to this:
Marriage-sex-human life.

If you believe human life is sacred, then the “vessels” that carry it are also sacred. Most people have some inkling of something they hold sacred in their life and can relate to the special treatment they give it. For example a special date might be observed by a special meal, for that meal one might use “the china”. Now the china is set aside only for special occasions, and it is by the very use of the china that helps us understand how special the occasion is. If the meal were served on ordinary plates the occasion is diminished. Likewise if the china is used for ordinary meals, it loses its effect at making a strong statement.

Basically, if a culture approves of homosexual sex, that culture will later approve of murder. Why? Because the people will no longer be able to “see” that human life is sacred. Because that act that begets human life is no longer sacred. Because the loving covenant that begets human life is no longer sacred.

 

[Orionthehunter]

precious_roy:

The question would be how many civil unions could you have?

I was only suggesting that the person with which you shared your civil union be able to fit under your health care plan.

There is nothing illegal with you starting a business that had a benefit that allowed an employee to designate additional unrelated people under the policy as being covered. Keep in mind the greater flexibility in choices in a benefit, the actuarial risks and costs go up.

Or are you suggesting there should be a law requiring it? Do I smell a hint of agenda not previously disclosed?

 

[precious_roy]

Orionthehunter:

There is nothing illegal with you starting a business that had a benefit that allowed an employee to designate additional unrelated people under the policy as being covered. Keep in mind the greater flexibility in choices in a benefit, the actuarial risks and costs go up.

Or are you suggesting there should be a law requiring it? Do I smell a hint of agenda not previously disclosed?

Law requiring what? I’m not sure what you mean.

I was just stating a reason that civil unions could be valid and needed for two non homosexual people, which is exactly what I stated at the beginning of this thread. I don’t understand why you would have to be married to get this benefit for a family member; why not if you permanently live with your brother?

EDIT. Appologies, but because I am not that knowledgable on civil unions, I am not so sure that it is true that being in a civil union allows you to cover someone in a health plan. If not, then replace health plan with whatever other benefit comes from a civil union in my above statement.

 

[Ruthie]

Rather than “civil unions,” I would endorse a “named next of kin” act by which anyone could name any one person as their next of kin.

It would confer the complete legal status of “next of kin” on the person.

Most importantly, one would not have to be having sex with the person in order to qualify!

IOW, it takes the whole sex/gender thing out of the discussion.

 

[precious_roy]

Ruthie:

Rather than “civil unions,” I would endorse a “named next of kin” act by which anyone could name any one person as their next of kin.

It would confer the complete legal status of “next of kin” on the person.

Most importantly, one would not have to be having sex with the person in order to qualify!

IOW, it takes the whole sex/gender thing out of the discussion.

Do you get the same tax breaks a person with a civil union has when naming the next of kin?

 

[Ruthie]

Precious Roy asked,

“Do you get the same tax breaks a person with a civil union has when naming the next of kin?”

I hadn’t thought that far ahead. I imagine it would be treated like adult children - the deductions would depend on whether or not they’re living “at home,” and how much you contribute to their support.

Or perhaps treat the co-habitors like “married filing separately.”

 

[Digger71]

I have to admit…‘civil unions’ made me think employee unions having tea and crumpets together…

another Himoer Simpson moment

 

[Digger71]

Daniel Marsh:

Hi Roy, I wonder what the priest of sodom had to say?

“Be kind to strangers, don’t worship idols, do not be haughty or slothful, or you get bombed”

you do know that the sins of sodom are enumerated many times in the bible and same-sex marriages are never mentioned, don’t you?

You do know that homosexual RAPE is implied only?

No?

 

[Digger71]

Black Jaque:

Basically, if a culture approves of homosexual sex, that culture will later approve of murder. Why? Because the people will no longer be able to “see” that human life is sacred. Because that act that begets human life is no longer sacred. Because the loving covenant that begets human life is no longer sacred.

Clearly you have a great future as an olympic athelete.

It would be a pity to waste such an ability to leap to conclusions and dodge simple thigns like evidence.

sheesh

 

[Digger71]

UKcatholicGuy:

Peter Kreeft is a Catholic philosopher and excellent apologist. He has a great speech on why homosexuality is wrong from a moral perspective.

It is a great lecture. Excellent. Consistent, insightful, and enjoyable.

Deeply mistaken. It is at best ‘a take’ on history. It links but does not demonstrate causality. The Incas, for example, were whipped out by disease and better technology…but somehow he transforms this in to 'they were not pro-family". He bandies around the word ‘successful’ without objectively defining it. Even the term ‘pro-family’ is bandied around without definition. Which is unfortunate because rhetorical devices work by leaving gaps that the listener fills in, usually with their own definitions.

more…later.

 

[Digger71]

UKcatholicGuy:

Peter Kreeft is a Catholic philosopher and excellent apologist. He has a great speech on why homosexuality is wrong from a moral perspective.

ouch! He knows nothing of the liberation gay people feel when they can come out. Great is his focus on exodus, how so-called ex-gays feel liberated. But he does not bother to compare what happens when people leave the heterosexual ‘lifestyle’ to BE (not do, but to BE) what they really are.

And they are REALLY homosexual, who were doing heterosexuality. He calls ‘liberation’ a ‘powerful psychological argument’, but clearly does not understand that coming out is the liberation.

At core it is a very good peice of speaking. It’s just wrong.

He does not help himself by conflating homosexuality with abortion…