North Carolina voters ban gay marriage, civil unions

[NonServiam]

Then everyone’s opinions are meaningless even if aggregated through a vote into law. If there is nothing metaphysical then there is no meaning.

This is just jibber-jabber.

“Meaning” is necessarily individual. There doesn’t need to be any kind of “metaphysical reality” for me to care about myself and the world I live in, and the same goes for everybody else. You might be some kind of bizarre nihilist who would stop caring about yourself and others if you didn’t have your supernatural beliefs, but enough of the rest of us care about things, and we’ll continue to care whether or not there are incorporeal fairies floating around us unseen.

What are the valid reasons for creating a law? You’ve excluded Natural Law. But what standards will we use? People often tell me what I can’t use to think with but they never really tell me what I can use.

We measure actions against our goals. If the goal is to have a safe and orderly society, there are a number of actions we can prohibit to arrive at that goal. “Morality,” and “Natural Law,” and all the rest of it don’t have to enter in.

Aren’t laws passed because the action they prohibit is wrong?

No. The actions they prohibit are deemed to be harmful to our societal goals.

If our laws were based on what many people think is “wrong,” then we would outlaw adultery, telling lies, divorce, pornography, and “bad words” on TV.

Or do you maintain that laws are simply arbitrary rules with no moral component?

Laws are passed so as to uphold our societal goals.

Seems to me the pro homosexual lobby is always telling me legalizing ‘gay marriage’ is the right thing to do.

Lots of people say lots of things. As a serious piece of friendly advice, you may want to consider that the vast majority of what other people say or think or do – most of which is going to be silly and nonsensical – has very little bearing on your day-to-day life and even less bearing on the conversation we’re having.

You’ve proclaimed public safety is some good I and all others should seek.

No. I’ve said that it is something that we do seek. Whether we “should” or whether it’s “good” are different questions for different conversations.

I’m saying that – putting aside for the moment good and bad, right and wrong, should and shouldn’t – just about everyone wants safety and order. Starting with that goal, we can determine what actions would be most harmful to that goal and ban them.

Do me a favor. Take a few deep breaths and read my post three times before you respond to it. Stop overlaying your own assumptions onto my words and just read what I’ve said.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Just about everyone wants to live in a safe and orderly society where our basic needs are met: that near-universal desire is the basis for what we call society.
…
There’s no such thing as Natural Law. It’s part of your religion, which is super for you, but keep it to yourself when it comes to creating laws that people who aren’t part of your religion have to live by.

Let’s leave “right” and “wrong” out of it. We’re talking about why actions should be made illegal.

And it should be obvious that if our chief societal goal is to have a safe and orderly society, we need to outlaw individual citizens privately murdering one another. I’m almost surprised I have to explain this: the opposite of safety is being killed indiscriminately, and the opposite of order is a society where one’s life – or the lives of family and friends – can be taken away by another human being without warning. Thus, in the interest of promoting the kind of society we want, we outlaw murder.

You are being hypocritical when it comes to natural law. On one hand you say that natural law does not exist. On the other hand you clearly subscribe to natural law (although you don’t give it that name) when you assume that everyone naturally feels drawn to have a society where people are secure from murder. That is natural law too. At best you might argue a disagreement over which particular “laws” are part of natural law. But you surely can’t deny the concept of natural law while at the same time promoting it as the “obvious” basis of societal goals. I think you should go back and seriously consider the question posed by exnihilo that you refused to answer: why does society want laws against murder?

 

[exnihilo]

“Meaning” is necessarily individual. There doesn’t need to be any kind of “metaphysical reality” for me to care about myself and the world I live in, and the same goes for everybody else. You might be some kind of bizarre nihilist who would stop caring about yourself and others if you didn’t have your supernatural beliefs, but enough of the rest of us care about things, and we’ll continue to care whether or not there are incorporeal fairies floating around us unseen.

We aren’t getting any where so you can have the final word after this.

Why would being a nihilist be bad if it is just following your philosophy? You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. If there is no meaning there is no meaning. If meaning is individual that is the same as what I mean by no meaning. There is no transcendental meaning. Personal meaning would be illusory.

I think ‘the rest of us’ care about others because they still cling to the basic morality of theism while denying it and because we have a conscious which understands metaphysical reality (if you deny this then you are effectively saying to ignore your conscious and do as you will).

We measure actions against our goals. If the goal is to have a safe and orderly society, there are a number of actions we can prohibit to arrive at that goal. “Morality,” and “Natural Law,” and all the rest of it don’t have to enter in.

But you still haven’t told me what does enter into it. You just tell me what can’t enter into our decision making.

No. The actions they prohibit are deemed to be harmful to our societal goals.

OK, so you believe there is no true wrong that occurs when you murder. You have just broken a law that a majority considers convenient. And we can’t really say breaking that law is any worse than breaking the law for speeding since there is no objective standard for right and wrong. The problem is if everyone truly lived by this philosophy you’d never achieve your societal goals. The only way to achieve those goals is to fool everyone into believing the rules actually have meaning.

If our laws were based on what many people think is “wrong,” then we would outlaw adultery, telling lies, divorce, pornography, and “bad words” on TV.

Well actually all of those were illegal at one time. The relativist got to be in charge and then told the people who believed those were wrong that wrong is relative and the only moral laws that you can have are ones the relativists believe in.

But I must also point out a wrong assumption you make. Just because something is wrong does not mean we have to make it against the law. Talking back to your parents is wrong, but that wrong is, or was, handled by the parents. I admit the state has usurped almost all power and replaced the family in modern states. You would measure the cost and negative side effects of any law. Having a police to monitor what every teenager says to his parents would be costly and certainly do more harm than good.

I’m amazed you are willing to accept the consequences of believing that laws have no basis in right and wrong.

I’m saying that – putting aside for the moment good and bad, right and wrong, should and shouldn’t – just about everyone wants safety and order. Starting with that goal, we can determine what actions would be most harmful to that goal and ban them.

Most people also want great wealth. So if the state exists to give most people what they want as you say then it seems that the state should give everyone great wealth. Since most people want to have more than their neighbor you of course run into problems. This pretty much describes the root idea, and problem, behind the scourge of communism, which is atheist (denying metaphysical truth) and the most deadly, tyrannical form of government ever devised.

You are being hypocritical when it comes to natural law. On one hand you say that natural law does not exist. On the other hand you clearly subscribe to natural law (although you don’t give it that name) when you assume that everyone naturally feels drawn to have a society where people are secure from murder. That is natural law too.

Great point!

 

[Holly3278]

I say it is a good thing that they have done so. I don’t know if it is actually banned in my state of Indiana or not but if it isn’t, it should be.

 

[NonServiam]

We aren’t getting any where so you can have the final word after this.

Whatever you say.

Why would being a nihilist be bad if it is just following your philosophy? You seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. If there is no meaning there is no meaning. If meaning is individual that is the same as what I mean by no meaning. There is no transcendental meaning. Personal meaning would be illusory.

But not to the individual. I’m not saying that it would be “bad” – in some transcendent sense – for you to be a nihilist. I’m saying that I, personally, find it extremely weird to imply that you’d stop caring about your own life and the lives of those around you if you found out that there are no metaphysical ghosts and goblins.

OK, so you believe there is no true wrong that occurs when you murder.

I actually didn’t say that, if you read my post carefully a few times (which I asked you to do).

Now, it may be that I don’t accept morality, but that’s a different discussion. What I said was that I want to leave morality out of this discussion.

You have just broken a law that a majority considers convenient. And we can’t really say breaking that law is any worse than breaking the law for speeding since there is no objective standard for right and wrong.

Are you even listening to yourself? If I’m playing chess, and I leave my queen in jeopardy, I’m hampering my goals in the game. I’m also hampering my goals in the game by leaving my pawn open to capture. Do you seriously think there’s no way to judge which is the worse mistake to make, given a set of goals?

You’re still reading into what I’m writing, rather than what I’m writing.

I’m amazed you are willing to accept the consequences of believing that laws have no basis in right and wrong.

That’s because the “consequences” are entirely in your head. You’re imagining them. If you stopped overlaying your assumptions onto what I’m saying, you would quickly cease to be amazed.

Most people also want great wealth. So if the state exists to give most people what they want as you say then it seems that the state should give everyone great wealth.

I didn’t say that the state exists to give everyone what they want. I said that the state makes laws based on our societal goals. It’s not our goal – at least not in this country – to have a country full of rich people: it is our goal to have a country where it’s safe to live and have property. So our laws serve that goal.

Anyway, thanks for the last word, and good luck on getting over these imaginary ideas that plague you.

 

[NonServiam]

On one hand you say that natural law does not exist. On the other hand you clearly subscribe to natural law (although you don’t give it that name) when you assume that everyone naturally feels drawn to have a society where people are secure from murder. That is natural law too.

No, it’s not.

I’m not arguing for any kind of “moral values” here: I’m talking entirely about goals, what people tend to desire and want. I wouldn’t call it “natural law” for a person not to want to live a society where he could easily die. And if you are calling people’s desires “natural law,” then by your own logic, homosexual desire must be “natural law,” too, along with the goal of having a society that tolerates homosexuals, which many people have,

So either you’re saying that “natural law” coincides with desire and goals – which invalidates your objection to homosexuality – or you’re defining “natural law” as something other than desire, meaning that I’m not talking about natural law under a different name.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I’m not arguing for any kind of “moral values” here: I’m talking entirely about goals, what people tend to desire and want.

There are many different things that different people desire, and not all of them are what you would want to adopt as societal goals. For example, bank robbers desire to take money that the rest of society says does not belong to them. You do seem to approve of the societal goal of living free from murders. But I doubt you would approve of the desire to rob banks. You may not call it “moral values” but by your own approval or disapproval you do categorize some desires as “good” and others as “bad”. Furthermore, are these categorizations of yours merely personal opinions or do you claim they represent something more universal? For example, if you met someone who claimed that murder is OK and should be allowed by society, would you not try to convince him that his view is wrong and that your view opposing murder is right? If so, then you are supporting natural law.

…And if you are calling people’s desires “natural law,” then by your own logic, homosexual desire must be “natural law,” too.

As I explained above, not every desire of every person is natural law. Now if you want to get into the more sticky question of whether or not homosexuality is against natural law, then by all means go for it. But you are not going to get off easy by denying the general concept of natural law in its entirety.

 

[NonServiam]

For example, bank robbers desire to take money that the rest of society says does not belong to them.

But I doubt bank robbers would want to live in a society where bank robbing is common: I don’t even know how one could construct a society where that was permitted, since having property is also fundamental to the notion of a society.

You do seem to approve of the societal goal of living free from murders. But I doubt you would approve of the desire to rob banks. You may not call it “moral values” but by your own approval or disapproval you do categorize some desires as “good” and others as “bad”. Furthermore, are these categorizations of yours merely personal opinions or do you claim they represent something more universal?

In this case, where we are talking about what to allow in a society, they are evaluations produced by measuring actions against societal goals.

Given the societal goals of order, safety, and property, we can draw absolute conclusions about what actions we should outlaw to promote those goals.

For example, if you met someone who claimed that murder is OK and should be allowed by society, would you not try to convince him that his view is wrong and that your view opposing murder is right? If so, then you are supporting natural law.

No. I would convince him that a society that permits murder cannot be safe and orderly, and – assuming that he values those things – he should want to live in a society that outlaws murder. “Natural law” and “morality” don’t enter into the question.

You’re not going to convince me simply by saying that same things over and over again.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But I doubt bank robbers would want to live in a society where bank robbing is common: I don’t even know how one could construct a society where that was permitted, since having property is also fundamental to the notion of a society.

I didn’t say that the bank robber’s desires were rational or sustainable.

In this case, where we are talking about what to allow in a society, they are evaluations produced by measuring actions against societal goals.

Given the societal goals of order, safety, and property, we can draw absolute conclusions about what actions we should outlaw to promote those goals.

“Given the societal goals of order, safety, and property…” neatly side-steps the consideration of where we got those goals from. If you keep tracing this backwards sooner or later you are going to have to come to some point where something is “just assumed” to be good - not because it follows from something else. At that point you will be at natural law. I don’ know what your reluctance is to call something natural law anyway. It doesn’t really hurt your case to admit there is such a thing. You can more honestly take a stand trying to show that whatever natural law is, opposition to homosexuality isn’t part of it.

No. I would convince him that a society that permits murder cannot be safe and orderly, and – assuming that he values those things – he should want to live in a society that outlaws murder. “Natural law” and “morality” don’t enter into the question.

They do enter the question at the point where you say “* assuming that he values those things*”. What if he says he does not value those things (safe and orderly society)? Wouldn’t you then try to convince him that his values are unreasonable and that he is just fooling himself by claiming that he doesn’t value those things? Or would you say “Oh, well in that case I totally understand your desire for a murderous society, and your values are as good as anyone else’s so who am I to criticize you?”

 

[NonServiam]

I didn’t say that the bank robber’s desires were rational or sustainable.

My point is that even a bank robber – if asked about the kind of society he wants to live in – would probably want a lawful society, full of law-abiding people he can steal from.

“Given the societal goals of order, safety, and property…” neatly side-steps the consideration of where we got those goals from.

There’s no indication that these goals come from some “moral” source. Broadly speaking, these goals come from a combination of evolution and tradition. Ever since people started grouping together into societies, they have enforced rules that maintain order and safety. Heck, we see similar things in other social animals: groups working together increase chances of survival, so those animals with an instinct to cooperate tend to survive and pass on those cooperative instincts.

If you keep tracing this backwards sooner or later you are going to have to come to some point where something is “just assumed” to be good - not because it follows from something else.

Or because it’s something that people just want, not because it’s a priori “good” but because our nature and training incline us to want that.

They do enter the question at the point where you say “* assuming that he values those things*”. What if he says he does not value those things (safe and orderly society)?

Honestly, I’d probably just laugh at someone who seriously doesn’t want a safe and orderly society. Then I’d tell him it’s too bad that 99.99999% of people do want that, so he’s just fresh out of luck.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There’s no indication that these goals come from some “moral” source. Broadly speaking, these goals come from a combination of evolution and tradition. Ever since people started grouping together into societies, they have enforced rules that maintain order and safety. Heck, we see similar things in other social animals: groups working together increase chances of survival, so those animals with an instinct to cooperate tend to survive and pass on those cooperative instincts.

Fine. I’ll accept that for the time being as a working definition of natural law. I didn’t say it had to come from any “moral” source. So now the real question is whether gay marriage and/or civil unions are contrary to this “groups working together increase chances of survival, so those animals with an instinct to cooperate tend to survive and pass on those cooperative instincts”. I have not taken a position on that question yet, so go ahead and convince me.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, NonServiam,

One of the more obvious problems with this presentation is that you just gotten in the habit of being dismissive. So your response to a logical argument that you do not agree with is “…jabber-jabber” Truly in keeping with other posts - all of which have been disappointing for their lack of content beyond how you feel about a topic.

While everyone has their own meaning to various realities, this does not negate a comprehensive view. While you may think that “There doesn’t need to be any kind of ‘metaphysical reality’ for me to care about myself…” you have just made a factually flawed statement. We all engage in metaphysics as soon as we try to describe what is ‘there’ or what it is that we think should be there.

Those of us who oppose homosexual behavior influencing the community (so-called ‘hate crimes’, insurance for homosexual partners, civil unions, etc) view this as an active threat to the continuity of society. Sodomy does not produce children. Those who refuse to connect the dots as to what the consequences are by whining about ‘fairness’ have their own world view for sure - but, it does not conform to reality as anyone who studies history can state. From a strictly humanistic position, sodomy leads to the death of a society. When we look at God’s prohibitions against this objectively disordere act, we see that it takes on even more significance.

The goal you have claimed for all is that living in a society that is safe is worth acieiving. It makes no sense for you alone to be safe in a society where others are un-safe or threatened. By the fact that you have such a goal - wanting something - you see it as a ‘good’ and we are really in the world of metaphysics. No one would argue aganst a safe society - the basic problem is that sodomy is not safe, is not productive, and offers nothing positive to society in general. Most people see this - in fact - every time this has been put to a vote of the general population of a state, marriage as defined as one man and one woman has consistently won. And this has happened in 20 states so far.

Another 30 to go.

God bless

My point is that even a bank robber – if asked about the kind of society he wants to live in – would probably want a lawful society, full of law-abiding people he can steal from.

There’s no indication that these goals come from some “moral” source. Broadly speaking, these goals come from a combination of evolution and tradition. Ever since people started grouping together into societies, they have enforced rules that maintain order and safety. Heck, we see similar things in other social animals: groups working together increase chances of survival, so those animals with an instinct to cooperate tend to survive and pass on those cooperative instincts.

Or because it’s something that people just want, not because it’s a priori “good” but because our nature and training incline us to want that.

Honestly, I’d probably just laugh at someone who seriously doesn’t want a safe and orderly society. Then I’d tell him it’s too bad that 99.99999% of people do want that, so he’s just fresh out of luck.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, LeafByNiggle,

I think there are two major issues that need to be addressed in such a discussion:

1.) Social insects (ants, bees, etc.) have a very rigid society order that relates directly to instinct. Social animals (cows, sheep, zebras, etc.) also work on instinct but have a bit less of a rigid order form. While humans do have basic instincts, the real issue to humanity is thinking, reasoning, logical discourse and finally the arrival of a intellectual choice. We have more then basic instincts and this is a reality that must be recognized. This can sometimes be seen in legislative bodies deliberating a particular law.

2.) Man can act in a moral and ethical manner - and the oppisite is also true. Animals can only act on instinct. There is no evidence that any animal ever contemplated consequences for particular choices. If the animal is hungry and sees food it will eat. If the mother animal is hungry and has cubs, or chicks or young that can not hunt for themselves - the mother’s instinct is to bring food back to the den so that the species will survive. This is not a moral choice, but rather strictly instinctual behavior. Man acts in moral ways - and the absence of morality in human behavior ultimately leads to chaos - or just living like animals.

Man can recognize the existence of the Natural Law. The evidence of how it has been recognized exists throughout the world. While NS would simply dismiss its existence because it is not convenient to his argument, the reality remains. Homosexual behavior runs contrary to the Natural Law. Even in this permissive society in the US, active homosexuals is estimated between 1-3% of the entire population. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality This is not an issue that the majority claim is for them. The sheer numbers alone are a tip off to how fundamental our attraction to the opposite sex for the survival of the human species.

God bless

Fine. I’ll accept that for the time being as a working definition of natural law. I didn’t say it had to come from any “moral” source. So now the real question is whether gay marriage and/or civil unions are contrary to this “groups working together increase chances of survival, so those animals with an instinct to cooperate tend to survive and pass on those cooperative instincts”. I have not taken a position on that question yet, so go ahead and convince me.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Man can recognize the existence of the Natural Law. The evidence of how it has been recognized exists throughout the world. While NS would simply dismiss its existence because it is not convenient to his argument, the reality remains. Homosexual behavior runs contrary to the Natural Law. Even in this permissive society in the US, active homosexuals is estimated between 1-3% of the entire population.

Be careful about using such statistics to prove a point about morality. The first century Christians were an even smaller percentage of the Roman Empire in which they lived. But that does not mean their position was immoral. Bottom line: Popularity has no bearing on morality.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Those of us who oppose homosexual behavior influencing the community (so-called ‘hate crimes’, insurance for homosexual partners, civil unions, etc) view this as an active threat to the continuity of society.

How does providing insurance for homosexual partners pose a threat to society? Are you going to deny them social security too?

 

[edwest2]

Homosexuals have been living however they wanted to for a long time. Why the push for gay marriage, or failing that, civil unions? They wish to use bodily organs not designed for a natural end. Men and women have complimentary bodily organs. It’s that simple.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

To our atheist friends here: I’m sure you’ve already heard this, but in case you haven’t, I’d like to point a few things out. Most Catholics don’t oppose gay marriage because they find gays “icky.” It’s because we understand marriage as an institution directed towards producing families. In that respect, we do not view marriage, sacramental or not, as a right. The breakdown of the nuclear family in modern times is an obvious reality, and in a society that has already assumed a selfish position on marriage (i.e. it’s all about feelings), gay marriage only further undermines the historical and true purpose of marriage: to create stable, loving environments in which to produce and raise children.
The phenomenon of marriage as being purely about “being in love” (while that is an important part, but still only a part) is a wholly modern one and the results speak for themselves. So, it might seem to be simply “mean” or “homophobic” to you, but for many, if not most, of us, that’s just not the case.

Being in love is certainly not modern. Just check your Bible where husbands are told to love their wives and wives are told to love their husbands. Sex without commitment has always been the goal. So-called modern media has reduced it to “just sex,” like going to the bathroom.

Pleasure is the ultimate goal, and in the case of marriage, we have been brainwashed to believe that sex is the most important part, and anything that annoys us about our partner is on a billboard I saw recently: “Do it yourself divorce.” Having lots of sex is fun, having a real loving relationship takes work. I know that from married couples I know. It’s like any relationship. But why work at it? See all those celebrities getting married and divorcing shortly after? Marriage has been reduced to nothing along with divorce.

And same-sex marriage? Why? There’s evidence that there is not a one to one relationship between it and heterosexual marriage.

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[tqualey]

Hi, LeafByNiggle,

I will try to be careful… You are quite right, popularity has no bearing on moraliy. But, that was not my point.

My idea in identifying that the estimated number of homosexuals in the US as from 1-3% - a genuine miniority - was in identifying that while there are those who verbally and/or effectively deny the existence of the Natural Law - at least in this area - they are at least 3 standard deviations from the mean. This in no way means that objective morality is determined by a show of hands - but, rather, the vast majority of individuals know that sodomy is a serious departure from normal human behavior.

Christians during their 1st 300 years of persecution under the Roman Empire began as a numerical minority - but, their focus was quite different. Their desire was to honor the God Who made all - unlike the pagan Romans who worshiped the emperor as a god. I think most people with unaided reason (you do not need formal education) know that they did not make the universe, no human was capable of making this and the astounding designs that we find can clearly point to the existence of a Grand Designer. Let me move on to your questions.

How does providing insurance for homosexual partners pose a threat to society? Are you going to deny them social security too?

Ultimately, insurance is based on principles with pooled risk being the foundation. The ‘pool’ is identified by the insurance company as a group that they think has statistical stability with the potential for making money for the company. For example, not many groups sells life insuance to people getting hospice care. Acturies calculate the stability of the known group and from this, rates are set. And, while I a sure you know all of this - we now need to look at what happens when you take a stable group with stable events and then add an unknown variable. Risky behavior generates much higher adverse events and the increased pay-outs from the company.

Homosexuals who already form a ‘insuance risk pool’ should band together and get their own insurance. The problem is when they piggy-back on heterosexual couples to get their rates that problems develop for the lower risk heterosexuals. For example, a while ago, auto insurance companies charge unmarried males <25 years of age a much higher fee for insurance then unmarried femals <25. The insurance companies had the data to prove that the males got into more auto accidents, cost more money, and caused more damage to life and property then females. Rates were set accordingly. The ‘fairness crowd’ was livid and petitioned various state legislatures for ‘fairness’. Well, they got it. Since the insurance companies were not going to out of business - they simply raised female insurance rates to match the male rates. And, here we have what is trying to pass for ‘fair’.

For most people, Social Security is not an option. If you work in the private sector, the tax is deducted from your paycheck (along with your employer’s contribution) so once eligibility is determined, you get benefits If you work for some government entities who have opted out of SS, you are not eligible because you did not participate. No one is denied who is eligible. From what I have seen, many homosexuals qualify for Disability Benefits because of their deteriorating health. Few, in my opinion, will live long enough to qualify for Retirement Benefits.

God bless

Be careful about using such statistics to prove a point about morality. The first century Christians were an even smaller percentage of the Roman Empire in which they lived. But that does not mean their position was immoral. Bottom line: Popularity has no bearing on morality.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Hi, LeafByNiggle,

I will try to be careful… You are quite right, popularity has no bearing on moraliy. But, that was not my point.

My idea in identifying that the estimated number of homosexuals in the US as from 1-3% - a genuine miniority - was in identifying that while there are those who verbally and/or effectively deny the existence of the Natural Law - at least in this area - they are at least 3 standard deviations from the mean. This in no way means that objective morality is determined by a show of hands - but, rather, the vast majority of individuals know that sodomy is a serious departure from normal human behavior.

Christians during their 1st 300 years of persecution under the Roman Empire began as a numerical minority - but, their focus was quite different. Their desire was to honor the God Who made all - unlike the pagan Romans who worshiped the emperor as a god. I think most people with unaided reason (you do not need formal education) know that they did not make the universe, no human was capable of making this and the astounding designs that we find can clearly point to the existence of a Grand Designer. Let me move on to your questions.

How does providing insurance for homosexual partners pose a threat to society? Are you going to deny them social security too?

Ultimately, insurance is based on principles with pooled risk being the foundation. The ‘pool’ is identified by the insurance company as a group that they think has statistical stability with the potential for making money for the company. For example, not many groups sells life insuance to people getting hospice care. Acturies calculate the stability of the known group and from this, rates are set. And, while I a sure you know all of this - we now need to look at what happens when you take a stable group with stable events and then add an unknown variable. Risky behavior generates much higher adverse events and the increased pay-outs from the company.

Homosexuals who already form a ‘insuance risk pool’ should band together and get their own insurance. The problem is when they piggy-back on heterosexual couples to get their rates that problems develop for the lower risk heterosexuals. For example, a while ago, auto insurance companies charge unmarried males <25 years of age a much higher fee for insurance then unmarried femals <25. The insurance companies had the data to prove that the males got into more auto accidents, cost more money, and caused more damage to life and property then females. Rates were set accordingly. The ‘fairness crowd’ was livid and petitioned various state legislatures for ‘fairness’. Well, they got it. Since the insurance companies were not going to out of business - they simply raised female insurance rates to match the male rates. And, here we have what is trying to pass for ‘fair’.

For most people, Social Security is not an option. If you work in the private sector, the tax is deducted from your paycheck (along with your employer’s contribution) so once eligibility is determined, you get benefits If you work for some government entities who have opted out of SS, you are not eligible because you did not participate. No one is denied who is eligible. From what I have seen, many homosexuals qualify for Disability Benefits because of their deteriorating health. Few, in my opinion, will live long enough to qualify for Retirement Benefits.

God bless

I think you over-exaggerate the difference in health risk for homosexuals. Some of that risk may be directly due to their choice of lifestyle, particularly when it is promiscuous. But some of that risk might also be due to the fact that society tends to push them to the fringes where life is inherently less healthy. It is something like the Germans pushing the Jews into ghettos with terrible living conditions and then remarking on what dirty people the Jews are.

Secondly, there are a lot of other choices people make that might put them into a technically higher risk group health-wise. Some of those choices do result in higher insurance premiums, such as smokers. But there are probably others that have just the same added risk as homosexuals but without having to pay higher premiums. And if added risk was the only objection to offering health insurance to homosexuals then people would be lobbying for higher premiums for them instead of insisting that they get no benefits at all. And if there is any added health risk in being a homosexual, that risk is certainly reduced by having committed monogamous relationships - something that is also not supported by society.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, LeafByNiggle,

So, it is the obviously oppressive society that not only creates homosexual behavior, but inflicts various forms of economic and health-related punishments for this behavior? While you may think I have over-exaggeragted the situation with insurance - you offer nothing but your opinion to refute this idea. You admit that homosexual behavior is more risk focused then heterosexual behavior - and added risk means added opportunities for an adverse outcome.

I think what you have to evade is the simple fact sodomy is totally and gravely disordered. Sodomy produces no children - and society is about continuation - not mindless pleasure seeking. Waltzing around with societal arguments about ‘fairness’ is really just a smoke-screen for unrestrained sexual license. Really.

And the idea of these homosexual committed monogamous relationships is simply unproven rhetoric approaching the wishful thinking stage. One of the first ‘challenges’ to allowing for legalized homosexual unions parading around as ‘marriage’ was how does the State handle the divorces that quickly followed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples

No argument with my comment on Social Security benefits?

God bless

I think you over-exaggerate the difference in health risk for homosexuals. Some of that risk may be directly due to their choice of lifestyle, particularly when it is promiscuous. But some of that risk might also be due to the fact that society tends to push them to the fringes where life is inherently less healthy. It is something like the Germans pushing the Jews into ghettos with terrible living conditions and then remarking on what dirty people the Jews are.

Secondly, there are a lot of other choices people make that might put them into a technically higher risk group health-wise. Some of those choices do result in higher insurance premiums, such as smokers. But there are probably others that have just the same added risk as homosexuals but without having to pay higher premiums. And if added risk was the only objection to offering health insurance to homosexuals then people would be lobbying for higher premiums for them instead of insisting that they get no benefits at all. And if there is any added health risk in being a homosexual, that risk is certainly reduced by having committed monogamous relationships - something that is also not supported by society.