- Status
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, LeafByNiggle,
Please accept my apology - I really had thought this was common knowledge. The entire epidemic nature of Karposi Sarcoma (nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/kaposissarcoma.html) that sprang out of San Francisco’s homosexual bars and bath houses with people dying wasting type deaths in about 1981 avert.org/aids-history-america.htm. Since that time >500,000 people in the US have died of AIDS. I realize that this is not a discussion on HIV/AIDS - but merely producing the documentation you requested that homosexual behavior is risky, unsafe, highly contageous, and deblilitating before it (or some type of secondary cause)proves fatal. Your dismissive approach to this entire matter has the potential of truly misleading others. I do not know if this is your intent - but, to raise the issue that homosexual is somehow ‘ok’ is truly misguided.
I can supply many other references as to the inherently unhealthy life style, as measured in morbidity and mortality. Here are two links from the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):
cdc.gov/stdconference/2000/media/STDGay2000.htm
cdc.gov/hiv/topics/research/index.htm
And here is a non-governmental source that goes into detail about the global spread of this disease: avert.org/aids-hiv.htm#contentTable0
I am quite confident that there are no reliable references that claim that the homosexual life style is as healthy as the heterosexual life style.
Masturbation is off topic, is a poor analogy for it only involves one person (usually) and there simply are no examples that would match the ‘Gay Rights’ parades and public displays. May I suggest you get serious about this topic - it is serious and not a mere matter of one opinion agaist another.
Before I address any of your other items, take the time to assess this objective material and kindly respond.
God bless
Please accept my apology - I really had thought this was common knowledge. The entire epidemic nature of Karposi Sarcoma (nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/kaposissarcoma.html) that sprang out of San Francisco’s homosexual bars and bath houses with people dying wasting type deaths in about 1981 avert.org/aids-history-america.htm. Since that time >500,000 people in the US have died of AIDS. I realize that this is not a discussion on HIV/AIDS - but merely producing the documentation you requested that homosexual behavior is risky, unsafe, highly contageous, and deblilitating before it (or some type of secondary cause)proves fatal. Your dismissive approach to this entire matter has the potential of truly misleading others. I do not know if this is your intent - but, to raise the issue that homosexual is somehow ‘ok’ is truly misguided.
I can supply many other references as to the inherently unhealthy life style, as measured in morbidity and mortality. Here are two links from the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC):
cdc.gov/stdconference/2000/media/STDGay2000.htm
cdc.gov/hiv/topics/research/index.htm
And here is a non-governmental source that goes into detail about the global spread of this disease: avert.org/aids-hiv.htm#contentTable0
I am quite confident that there are no reliable references that claim that the homosexual life style is as healthy as the heterosexual life style.
Masturbation is off topic, is a poor analogy for it only involves one person (usually) and there simply are no examples that would match the ‘Gay Rights’ parades and public displays. May I suggest you get serious about this topic - it is serious and not a mere matter of one opinion agaist another.
Before I address any of your other items, take the time to assess this objective material and kindly respond.
God bless
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, LeafByNiggle,
Looks like all you are left with is your own opinion. You asked for documentation, I gave you quite a bit that clearly identified that homosexual behavior is unhealthy. You have evaded the matter in two ways:
1.) you have not supplied any documentation to refute what I provided to you, and
2.) you have inserted the totally unsubstantiated hypothesis that so-called ‘gay marrieage’ rules out promiscuity.
The very nature of this condition is spread by promiscuity. The CDC’s articles were quite well focused on homosexual behaviior.
Those who engage in risky behavior not only pay the price in their bodies, but, if they wanted health insurance like the rest of the population gets, would be paying more for it - just like smokers pay more for their risky behavior.
I must confess that I mixed the terms!
I should have said either, ‘objectively disordered’ or ‘intrinsicaly disordered’ or ‘grave depravity’ . Here is the actual souce from the CCC.
Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
God bless
Looks like all you are left with is your own opinion. You asked for documentation, I gave you quite a bit that clearly identified that homosexual behavior is unhealthy. You have evaded the matter in two ways:
1.) you have not supplied any documentation to refute what I provided to you, and
2.) you have inserted the totally unsubstantiated hypothesis that so-called ‘gay marrieage’ rules out promiscuity.
The very nature of this condition is spread by promiscuity. The CDC’s articles were quite well focused on homosexual behaviior.
Those who engage in risky behavior not only pay the price in their bodies, but, if they wanted health insurance like the rest of the population gets, would be paying more for it - just like smokers pay more for their risky behavior.
I must confess that I mixed the terms!
I should have said either, ‘objectively disordered’ or ‘intrinsicaly disordered’ or ‘grave depravity’ . Here is the actual souce from the CCC.Chastity and homosexuality
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
God bless
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
Indeed, promiscuity is an issue that presents health risks for both heterosexual and homosexual populations. The African data reveals that the epidemic had its start and is tied to prostitutes and truck drivers who frequent(ed) the transportation routes, with indulgent married drivers infecting their wives. I would not discount the homosexuality factor from the discussion, however, given the non-monogamous quality that characterize even supposed committed gay relationships. See the Gay Couples Study by two gay researchers and Many Successful Gay Marriages Share an Open Secret featured by the NY Times, not exactly a conservative newspaper.
Further, you and those following the discussion may be interested to read of the recent health data on gay Dutch men, Netherlands: In Amsterdam, Gay Men Have More Risky Sex. The country was first to legalize gay ‘marriage’ in the world in 2001, actually having had domestic partnerships before that, with a claim to the longest history on said social experiment. The Dutch are no strangers to state of the art HIV / AIDS prevention and treatment methods, just as here in the U.S. In 2009, said study noted an increase in HIV / AIDS infection in men who have sex with men (MSM).
According to the study:
*MSM should be cautious with steady partners as well. One-quarter of all HIV infections during the study period were likely transmitted from a steady partner. A growing proportion of infections among men in their 40s and 50s was associated with steady partners; why is not clear, the team said. It could be that older men were more likely to be in long-term relationships and had fewer casual partners compared to younger MSM.
“Targeted prevention messages should continue to focus on sexual behavior with casual partners, but also on sexual behavior within steady relationships,” the authors concluded.*As an interesting aside, and I will be brief, efforts to legalize gay ‘marriage’ in the Netherlands had its origin in 1985 with a public prosecutor, Jan Wolter Wabeke, reported to be living in a gay partnership with Jan Swinkels, a photographer and contributor to Gaykrant newspaper (the name should clue you). It was Jan Wolter and Henkel Krol, editor of said newspaper and spokeperson for the liberal Dutch party, also gay, who both teamed up and capitalized on Dutch law that did not explicitly state that marriage has to be only between a man and a woman. You can do your independent research on this.
Jan Wolter (now an appellate court judge!) played a key role in setting the wheels in motion toward changing the marriage law, using the separation of church and state argument effectively, to effect civil marriage to simply be a contract of care between two partners, a legal marriage. The other key player Henkel Krol was and still is connected to the political and media elite.
The two devised a strategy, casting advocates of the gay cause “like you would in a film production,” Wabeke recalls. “They had to be lovable. We wanted two couples: two women, two men, longtime partners who wanted to get married. They had to be hardworking, not controversial in any other way, nothing strange, just normal people. They could be your teacher, your caretaker, your nurse, your neighbor.”
The “drama” playing out of this unholy social experiment has spread to other European countries, Canada, and currently gaining momentum in the U.S. How is this being done? Not unlike the nexus of law, media, and production of an appealing narrative by gay protagonists that bore fruit in the Netherlands in just five years. It is bad fruit, no matter if it is legally permitted and how much homosexual union is attractively packaged.
May God help the good people of the U.S., like the voters of North Carolina who have spoken, to prevail against a nationwide movement to legalize gay ‘marriage.’ People across the country of like mind with the North Carolinians are against a force of activist and agenda driven judges and legislators, with politicized psychiatrist and psychological associations, in alliance with mainstream media, and the most radical U.S. President ever to sit in office.
T
tqualey
Guest
L
lerapt78
Guest
I only brought it up to illustrate the fallacy of deciding public health policy based on what is “gravely disordered”, which was a point you seemed to be making when you talked about homosexuality being gravely disordered. I agree. It is. But that is not grounds for denying someone health insurance.
Just to clarify: When you ask what would be the grounds for denying insurance to homosexual couples, I assume you are talking about the option of adding one person as a beneficiary to the other’s policy, correct? Because as it stands, homosexuals are not denied the ability to purchase health insurance under single policies to the best of my knowledge.
I assume the reason insurance companies offer package plans to families instead of forcing each individual to buy a separate policy would be because of the financial dynamics of the nuclear family. If a wife is a stay-at-home mother, then she obviously would not have the income to buy her own policy. Likewise, any children they have would not be able to purchase their own plans that would cover their annual pediatrician visits. Therefore, it’s reasonable to offer coverage that would include all family members that cannot pay for their own coverage.
In contrast, when two men (or women) are in a homosexual partnership, there is nothing to keep one of them from working, as they naturally would not have children that would require one of them to stay home and sacrifice an income. Therefore, if both of them earn a wage, the insurance company can assume that both of them can pay for their own policies, just as any single person who works is responsible for his/her own coverage.
As with any other argument regarding family dynamics, there can always be exceptions (a heterosexual couple that does not have children, or a homosexual couple in which one man is the “house-husband”), but these would be just that - exceptions - and possibly not of great significance for insurance companies to consider. Especially if, as stated by Tqualey, the sexual nature of homosexual unions put them in a “risk pool” , and the subsequent costs of the insurance claims paid out to them would outweigh any profits that could be gained by giving them a break on their premiums.
Just to clarify: When you ask what would be the grounds for denying insurance to homosexual couples, I assume you are talking about the option of adding one person as a beneficiary to the other’s policy, correct? Because as it stands, homosexuals are not denied the ability to purchase health insurance under single policies to the best of my knowledge.
I assume the reason insurance companies offer package plans to families instead of forcing each individual to buy a separate policy would be because of the financial dynamics of the nuclear family. If a wife is a stay-at-home mother, then she obviously would not have the income to buy her own policy. Likewise, any children they have would not be able to purchase their own plans that would cover their annual pediatrician visits. Therefore, it’s reasonable to offer coverage that would include all family members that cannot pay for their own coverage.
In contrast, when two men (or women) are in a homosexual partnership, there is nothing to keep one of them from working, as they naturally would not have children that would require one of them to stay home and sacrifice an income. Therefore, if both of them earn a wage, the insurance company can assume that both of them can pay for their own policies, just as any single person who works is responsible for his/her own coverage.
As with any other argument regarding family dynamics, there can always be exceptions (a heterosexual couple that does not have children, or a homosexual couple in which one man is the “house-husband”), but these would be just that - exceptions - and possibly not of great significance for insurance companies to consider. Especially if, as stated by Tqualey, the sexual nature of homosexual unions put them in a “risk pool” , and the subsequent costs of the insurance claims paid out to them would outweigh any profits that could be gained by giving them a break on their premiums.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Lerapt,
Welcome to CAF!
You have started off with an excellent post - and, I appreciate the clarification you articulated about being added as a dependent as opposed to simply buying their own policy. I had just assumed that, but, it is the unspoken assuptions that tend to cause more confusion then anything else.
There are a lot of genuine myths about ‘homosexual behavior’ that are causing a lot of confusion. The recent example here is that they have a healty life style or as least as healthy as a heterosexual couple. This, however, simply fantasy with the appealing camioflage of ‘fairness’ or ‘anti-discrimination’ or ‘the new civil rights’, or whatever sounds good. Ultimately, it comes down to documentation - and the hard facts are these: greater morbidity and mortality associated with homosexual behavior then heterosexual behavior.
Even on the natural order of events - homosexual behavior is a dead end. When it comes to spiritual order of events there is all eternity to contemplate profound folly.
God bless
lerapt78:
I only brought it up to illustrate the fallacy of deciding public health policy based on what is “gravely disordered”, which was a point you seemed to be making when you talked about homosexuality being gravely disordered. I agree. It is. But that is not grounds for denying someone health insurance.
Just to clarify: When you ask what would be the grounds for denying insurance to homosexual couples, I assume you are talking about the option of adding one person as a beneficiary to the other’s policy, correct? Because as it stands, homosexuals are not denied the ability to purchase health insurance under single policies to the best of my knowledge.
I assume the reason insurance companies offer package plans to families instead of forcing each individual to buy a separate policy would be because of the financial dynamics of the nuclear family. If a wife is a stay-at-home mother, then she obviously would not have the income to buy her own policy. Likewise, any children they have would not be able to purchase their own plans that would cover their annual pediatrician visits. Therefore, it’s reasonable to offer coverage that would include all family members that cannot pay for their own coverage.
In contrast, when two men (or women) are in a homosexual partnership, there is nothing to keep one of them from working, as they naturally would not have children that would require one of them to stay home and sacrifice an income. Therefore, if both of them earn a wage, the insurance company can assume that both of them can pay for their own policies, just as any single person who works is responsible for his/her own coverage.
As with any other argument regarding family dynamics, there can always be exceptions (a heterosexual couple that does not have children, or a homosexual couple in which one man is the “house-husband”), but these would be just that - exceptions - and possibly not of great significance for insurance companies to consider. Especially if, as stated by Tqualey, the sexual nature of homosexual unions put them in a “risk pool” , and the subsequent costs of the insurance claims paid out to them would outweigh any profits that could be gained by giving them a break on their premiums.
Welcome to CAF!
You have started off with an excellent post - and, I appreciate the clarification you articulated about being added as a dependent as opposed to simply buying their own policy. I had just assumed that, but, it is the unspoken assuptions that tend to cause more confusion then anything else.
There are a lot of genuine myths about ‘homosexual behavior’ that are causing a lot of confusion. The recent example here is that they have a healty life style or as least as healthy as a heterosexual couple. This, however, simply fantasy with the appealing camioflage of ‘fairness’ or ‘anti-discrimination’ or ‘the new civil rights’, or whatever sounds good. Ultimately, it comes down to documentation - and the hard facts are these: greater morbidity and mortality associated with homosexual behavior then heterosexual behavior.
Even on the natural order of events - homosexual behavior is a dead end. When it comes to spiritual order of events there is all eternity to contemplate profound folly.
God bless
I only brought it up to illustrate the fallacy of deciding public health policy based on what is “gravely disordered”, which was a point you seemed to be making when you talked about homosexuality being gravely disordered. I agree. It is. But that is not grounds for denying someone health insurance.
Just to clarify: When you ask what would be the grounds for denying insurance to homosexual couples, I assume you are talking about the option of adding one person as a beneficiary to the other’s policy, correct? Because as it stands, homosexuals are not denied the ability to purchase health insurance under single policies to the best of my knowledge.
I assume the reason insurance companies offer package plans to families instead of forcing each individual to buy a separate policy would be because of the financial dynamics of the nuclear family. If a wife is a stay-at-home mother, then she obviously would not have the income to buy her own policy. Likewise, any children they have would not be able to purchase their own plans that would cover their annual pediatrician visits. Therefore, it’s reasonable to offer coverage that would include all family members that cannot pay for their own coverage.
In contrast, when two men (or women) are in a homosexual partnership, there is nothing to keep one of them from working, as they naturally would not have children that would require one of them to stay home and sacrifice an income. Therefore, if both of them earn a wage, the insurance company can assume that both of them can pay for their own policies, just as any single person who works is responsible for his/her own coverage.
As with any other argument regarding family dynamics, there can always be exceptions (a heterosexual couple that does not have children, or a homosexual couple in which one man is the “house-husband”), but these would be just that - exceptions - and possibly not of great significance for insurance companies to consider. Especially if, as stated by Tqualey, the sexual nature of homosexual unions put them in a “risk pool” , and the subsequent costs of the insurance claims paid out to them would outweigh any profits that could be gained by giving them a break on their premiums.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
L
lerapt78
Guest
Hi, Lerapt,
Welcome to CAF!
You have started off with an excellent post - and, I appreciate the clarification you articulated about being added as a dependent as opposed to simply buying their own policy. I had just assumed that, but, it is the unspoken assuptions that tend to cause more confusion then anything else.
Thanks for the welcome
The FAQs page only instructs to hit quote, but what is the multi-quote button? Nothing happens when I click it.
(Sorry to go off -track on this thread, but the Tech Support Forum is not accessible to me at this time. Any guidance on where to get some “tutoring” on this would be much appreciated)
L
lerapt78
Guest
Being that I’m very much against private companies being told what they can or cannot do, I can’t really argue that they have no right to offer package benefits to homosexual partners either. As long as they are called “Domestic Partnership Plans” and not “Family Plans”. Sometimes words are meaningless, but in this case (and it seems from your posts that you agree) the distinction needs to be made or the gay “rights” agenda ends up being passively endorsed through verbiage.
Out of curiosity (since I’ve never pondered the insurance side of this matter too deeply), do you have any ideas on how socialized medicine or “Obamacare” would affect any of this? Just off the top of my head, I’m thinking that if homosexual couples are “high-risk” (which I take to mean that more expensive or highly recurrent claims would paid out to these groups), this would be yet another case of the taxpayers having to subsidize the irresponsible actions of others, much like in the cases of welfare abusal. (Although I realize that homosexual couples, unlike welfare abusers, do pump money via taxes back *into *the system.
Any thoughts?
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Lerapt,
Let me comment on a couple of items.
God bless
Let me comment on a couple of items.
It is not so much what private companies can or should do, but if there is direct relationship between these ‘private’ companies and the Catholic Church. The idea is that if an organization, e.g., a college or hospital or homeless shelter calls itself ‘Catholic’ then they should be following the teachings of the Catholic Church. If a civic club’s name that is being used by another group - wouldn’t you expect this group to abide by the rules of the civic club?
This is an interesting concept and one that needs further consideration. While I have no evidence of this - my guess is that, if given half a chance, pedophiles would claim that they, too, have rights that are being violated by laws, customs and social mores. Now, as people, they DO have rights (and corresponding responsibilities). The real problem is there are no ‘rights’ to do evil. There are no ‘rights’ to destroy the foundations of the society claimed to be enforcing these ‘rights’. This is illogical.
God bless
P
Pfaffenhoffen
Guest
T
tqualey
Guest
Maybe putting the North Carolina vote within cotext would be helpful. As I see it, Christ gave some amazing stories about His Love for each one of us - all of them had His desire for each of us to be with Him forever as a central theme. For those who tried and failed repeatedly (woman caught in adultery [John 8:1-11], Zacchaeus, the dishonest tax collector [Luke 19:1-10], the denial of Peter [Luke 22] He offered Love and Hope. For those whose religious activity was all for public display directed at human respect He was brutally honest [Matt 23, Luke 11, etc.] and was explicit in the warning of eternal damnation for those who break the Commandments, make a pretense out of religion, mislead others and twist the Word of God [Matt 25]. This political vote was not a ‘feel good event’ or a ‘warm fuzzy’ of unrealistic emotion - rather a ‘wake-up call’ for the citizens of N.C.
Christ was clear about the origin of marriage and God’s eternal design -and all Three Synoptic Writers provide the story: Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 20 within the context of those who tried to make a mockery of God’s Word with an absurd question. These deceitful fools had not thought through what challenging Christ really involved.
The issue was clear and the results of this vote meaningful - true love orbits around doing good and avoiding evil - even in the political world. Homosexual behavior is always sinful, always disordered and now on the losing end of public vote with N.C. becoming the 30th State to ban SSM nytimes.com/2012/05/09/us/north-carolina-voters-pass-same-sex-marriage-ban.html
God bless
Christ was clear about the origin of marriage and God’s eternal design -and all Three Synoptic Writers provide the story: Matthew 22, Mark 12, Luke 20 within the context of those who tried to make a mockery of God’s Word with an absurd question. These deceitful fools had not thought through what challenging Christ really involved.
The issue was clear and the results of this vote meaningful - true love orbits around doing good and avoiding evil - even in the political world. Homosexual behavior is always sinful, always disordered and now on the losing end of public vote with N.C. becoming the 30th State to ban SSM nytimes.com/2012/05/09/us/north-carolina-voters-pass-same-sex-marriage-ban.html
God bless
M
MillTownCath
Guest
I have a conservative view on marriage, but even I realize that eventually this country will legalize gay marriage.
As a Catholic, my priorities are poverty and the unborn. If we make banning gay marriage our top priority, we fail to carry out Christ’s message of love and sacrifice.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, MillTownCath,
Interesting arrangement. My understanding is that the Catholic Church has established the #1 priority as protecting the unborn. Truly there is nothing more important - but, this does not relegate all other concerns to the ‘Unimportant’ category. I am not sure where ‘poverty’ fits into this… after all, ‘…the poor will be always with us…’ but, the same can not be said for leagalizing ‘homosexual unions’
I do not share your thought that these gravely disordered will take over. Don’t give up. Even posting positive comments on the holiness of sacramental marriage is a move in the direction for upholding God’s Will for humanity.
Would you like to start a thread on protecting the unborn?
God bless
Interesting arrangement. My understanding is that the Catholic Church has established the #1 priority as protecting the unborn. Truly there is nothing more important - but, this does not relegate all other concerns to the ‘Unimportant’ category. I am not sure where ‘poverty’ fits into this… after all, ‘…the poor will be always with us…’ but, the same can not be said for leagalizing ‘homosexual unions’
I do not share your thought that these gravely disordered will take over. Don’t give up. Even posting positive comments on the holiness of sacramental marriage is a move in the direction for upholding God’s Will for humanity.
Would you like to start a thread on protecting the unborn?
God bless
- Status