Bill would extend insurance benefits to same-sex partners
By Ed Sealover, Rocky Mountain News
Published January 15, 2009 at 9:58 a.m.
Updated January 15, 2009 at 9:58 a.m.
Colorado could offer insurance benefits to same-sex partners of state employees under a bill introduced late Wednesday.
Sen. Jennifer Veiga and Rep. Mark Ferrandino, Denver Democrats who are the only openly gay and lesbian members of the legislature, are sponsoring Senate Bill 88. No date has been set yet for its first committee hearing.
The bill is needed to help Colorado compete for quality workers against private companies and other states, which increasingly offer these benefits, Ferrandino said Thursday morning. It is also an issue of fairness to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender employees who don't know enjoy the same benefits as their heterosexual cohorts, he said.
"It's about equity and equality, and it's about competing in the marketplace as more and more employers offer it," said Ferrandino, who worked for the state before his appointment and subsequent election to his seat.
Senate Minority Caucus Chairman Mike Kopp, R-Littleton, asked, however, how the bill is appropriate for a legislative session in which Democratic leaders have said there needs to be a full focus on the economy and an understanding that bills that create new costs for the state are unlikely to pass. Colorado has a projected $604 million budget deficit it must close by the end of June.
Kopp, who referred to Veiga as a friend, also said it is a "terrific irony" that Democrats who used to complain about Republicans pushing divisive social issues would now get behind this.
"I find it remarkable that they would be introducing special-interest legislation that will cost the state more money at a time when we're all scrambling to make our state budget work, fix roads, stimulate job growth and protect jobs," Kopp said.
Ferrandino said that he did not know what the cost of the benefits extension will be, but he does not think it will be excessive. He also argued that at a time when nearly 800,000 Coloradans remain uninsured, any steps toward getting health care to more people are needed.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Inauguration Keepsakes
Pre-order special edition copies of the Wed., Jan. 21 Rocky and other inauguration keepsakes.
-
Midyette trial
Alex Midyette's trial started today. Follow the trial through live updates from the courtroom.
-
Nuggets dancers
See the Nuggets dancers' fashion shoot.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: No Bull: Fans speak out on the Broncos' new head coach.
-
Stock Show
A roundup of the best coverage from the National Western Stock Show.
-
Legislature Blog
The Rocky's Lynn Bartels and Ed Sealover provide live updates from the Capitol.
-
Boulder Wildfire
See photos from the Boulder County fire.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
January 15, 2009
10:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
FRN4U writes:
Keep your "equity and equality" in your personal mating room. Pay your own way.
January 15, 2009
10:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Nobama writes:
This is such a stupid illogical issue. Do you have to declare that you're sexually involved with your same sex partner? How else do you differentiate between that situation and an average same sex room mate? And, can you just declare one partner? If there is not a legal marriage, why can't I have multiple same sex partners? There is just no end to the problems you create.
January 15, 2009
10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Thousands of companies offer doemstic partner benifits. Even freaking Starbucks offers them! Colorado does need to compete with the private sector to attract the best employees in order to manage our budget and continue to grow our state's economy. In all honesty, this Bill would probably have a negligible cost since you still have to pay premiums on the insurance.
January 15, 2009
11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
cassidy22 writes:
Some consider this "special interest" legislation? I think it's just the right thing to do.
Allow them to get married and then you don't have to write special legislation to allow them the same benefits that heteros get. It's that simple.
January 15, 2009
11:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Sandy_S writes:
Both CU and CSU offer domestic partner benefits. Get used to it.
January 15, 2009
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
timeandagain writes:
This is brilliant!! Just what our financially broke state needs right now!! More expense. (And for our legislature to spend its valuable time pondering a divisive issue.)
January 15, 2009
12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
Faux_Noise writes:
Nobama writes:
This is such a stupid illogical issue. Do you have to declare that you're sexually involved with your same sex partner? How else do you differentiate between that situation and an average same sex room mate? And, can you just declare one partner? If there is not a legal marriage, why can't I have multiple same sex partners? There is just no end to the problems you create.
Solution: Same-Sex marriage!
January 15, 2009
12:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hragel writes:
RIGHT...just what we need with the economy taking a nose dive...drive up the cost of employment.
Have you j@asses EVER balanced a checkbook? EVER had to sweat to earn a single dollar? EVER HIRED SOMEONE OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET?
Nope.
January 15, 2009
12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Blair writes:
Just another silly question. Does the state offer insurance to un-married heterosexual couples?
January 15, 2009
12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Uno writes:
They have money and time to waste on this?
January 15, 2009
12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
RMN article: "Ferrandino said that he did not know what the cost of the benefits extension will be, but he does not think it will be excessive."
The State pays $340 a month towards single employees' health care coverage, and $565 a month towards married employees, a difference of $2,700 a year. Take 60,000 total State employees, and extend the new same-sex-partner to 5% of them, and you potentially get about $8.1 million per year, at this year's rates.
Nah, that's not excessive. Let's just raise license registration fees to cover it.
January 15, 2009
12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
JustMe writes:
yes, under domestic partner benefits, plans would be offered to un-married heterosexual couples who are domestic partners. It goes both way. Studies have been done, the costs of this are negligible, so the argument of this being a bad idea during a down economy is moot.
It's about time Colorado!
January 15, 2009
1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
psyclone writes:
Sandy_S - great example of the intolerant "tolerance crowd" imposing your values on the rest of us ["... Get used to it."] What about those of us who believe this is immoral?
I find it amusing that the Left screams and hollers when the Right tries to advance their social agenda(s), but turns around and does the exact same things themselves.
Will the 'tolerance crowd' become outraged and riot (ala Prop8) if this law doesn't pass?
January 15, 2009
1:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
buzzman writes:
More of my tax $$ wasted to be so PC--I'm startng to puke--
January 15, 2009
1:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
loudsurfguy writes:
Can I say that I'm married to my pet dog "Charlie" and get insurance benefits for him too? That'll be next....
January 15, 2009
1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
psyclone-
Here is the difference. No one is taking a right or benifit away from you. You are still able to do and believe everything you always have. There will be no impact whatsoever on your life. However, tens of thousands of gay couples across the country do not enjoy many of the things that you likely take for granted. No one is working to take those things away from you, so why would people work so hard to prevent others from having those as well?
January 15, 2009
1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
Right. The solution is gay marriage. No, no, no. That is not a solution for the people who oppose gay marriage. Just another stab at making gay marriage acceptable. Don't p_ss down my back and tell me its raining.
January 15, 2009
1:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
JustMe: "Studies have been done..." "costs are negligible..."
You forgot: "pigs fly".
January 15, 2009
1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
grystphns writes:
So does this mean I can get health benefits for my friends whom I love?? Or do I have to have some sort of homosexual relationship with them?? I find it sad to think how much people believe they deserve whatever they want... Hell I want to be a gynocologist, but I would have to study otherwise...
Homosexual relationships are not, and never will be equal to a heterosexual one. Homosexuals relationships are nothing more than 2 friends of the same sex. There is no reason to give them health benefits, unless you decide your going to give me the same rights for all my uninsurred friends whom I love. Or do I have to have sex with them ??? You homosexuals are way too needy and selfish. Get over your entitlement issues and move on...
Playing house isn't equal to raising a family.
Homosexuals don't deserve any rights other than the civil rights given to all people. You get benefits for a friend because your gay ?? What about the rest of us ??
January 15, 2009
1:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Broncos1 writes:
I guess we need a prop 8 passed in this state. Marriage is between one man and one woman. Why should taxpayers be required to pay for benefits for couples who are not legally married.
January 15, 2009
1:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
grystphns
Let me be the first to second your statements. Right on!
January 15, 2009
1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
immunizer writes:
The state should not be required to pay benefits for people who breed excessively. I find it immoral that some married Catholics have more than 3 children. This immorality increases taxes by inflating the costs of the insurance pool occupied by good, upstanding Protestants. Why should my taxpayer dollars go to support the result of what they do in their mating room? How dare you be so intolerant as to suggest that we should allow them rights equal to people who have only the 2.3 children required to maintain population? They should pay their own way! If they want to populate the earth, let them do it on their own dime - not on mine!
January 15, 2009
1:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fisherman writes:
Faux_Noise writes:
"Solution: Same-Sex marriage!"
So, if I marry my roomate, who is of the same sex, I should get insurance benefits if one of us is employed by the state? Even though I'm not gay, or do I have to declare that I am? What business is it of the state whether I'm gay or not? This bill is dumb.
January 15, 2009
1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
IRUNMAN writes:
Elkman- We don't need to hear about your sexual fantasies. No more urine talk, k?
loudsurfguy- I don't see how two consenting adults in a relationship both receiving health benefits equates to you marrying your dog. Once again, no need to hear about your sexual fantasies...mmmkay?
All I have to say on this topic, fantastic!!
You all should get used to the idea of gay marriage.
You can't stop it. We will not back down, the more you complain, the louder we become.
It will happen.
No use in being a stick in the mud, come on down Pride weekend!
I will even buy you a beer.
January 15, 2009
1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
kayaker80206 writes:
Companies that offer same-sex insurance to domestic partners find that this affects 1% of the their work force.
January 15, 2009
2:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
O_TRAIN writes:
Eskimos used to put their elderly on ice flows and send them out to sea - because the "costs" of doing the right thing was too much of a burden to society. Folks that use the excuse of the "costs" of doing the right thing for not doing it - were never interested in doing the right thing in the first place. The "costs" of discrimination and ignorance are always greater in the long run.
January 15, 2009
2:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Hragel writes:
"Playing house isn't equal to raising a family."
Brevity is the soul of wit. I tend to run off for paragraph after paragraph to say the same thing.
Homosexual relationships do not produce children (turkey basters do NOT count!) but heterosexual relationships DO. Each and every person tapping at their keyboard today is the product of a man and a woman. Wanna tap out of the "breeding cycle" [jeez your heterophobia makes me want to PUKE!]? Fine, but marriage is treated as it is by society because heterosexual relationships SUSTAIN societies, homosexuality is a genetic dead-end.
Married benefits for married people ONLY, marriage between a man and a woman ONLY, and I say that as a single man. A homosexual man has EXACTLY the same rights I have regarding marriage, he can marry ANY woman who will put up with him.
Jeez it's like having to redefine the color of orange juice to purple to make these drama queens happy...
January 15, 2009
2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
SparkyJourno writes:
For the enlightened "straight" folks urging gays to "pay their own way," how about you stop collecting a big chunk of my gay income every year to pay for public schools? I don't have kids, so I'm paying your way, as far as I can tell.
January 15, 2009
2:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"A homosexual man has EXACTLY the same rights I have regarding marriage"
the ignorance in that statement is astounding.
January 15, 2009
2:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
grystphns writes:
hey immunizer, your point would be valid, if the fact that a family raising multiple children, in your example over 3, is a family full of do nothings collecting welfare. I gaurentee those Catholic families with large #'s of children will never have to use your tax dollars to pay for child care. They don't get special medical benefits, so you don't pay there either. Yes they get tax credits, but where do you think that money goes? back into the economy.
Plus let's review what happens when each of those fetus's, in your society's words, when they grow up. they get jobs, they go to school, they can do what you do, either contribute to society, or sit around. See they have a return on investment, your butt love doesn't.
Get it ?? No offense, just trying to help you understand your argument is weak at best
January 15, 2009
2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
grystphns writes:
Hey Sparky your post saying "For the enlightened "straight" folks urging gays to "pay their own way," how about you stop collecting a big chunk of my gay income every year to pay for public schools? I don't have kids, so I'm paying your way, as far as I can tell."
Single Straight folk here, your points a good one, however the number of authentic families compared to the number of authentic homosexuals is probably 10000:1. So unless your making 10,000 times as much as everybody else your missing the point.
Do you even realize the difference between someone who is authentically homosexual, and the person who just likes sex with anyone in particular?? I bet less than half of all people who claim to be homosexual are actually in fact homosexual, half of them are, and they are getting cheated by the other half who seriously just likes the lifestyle....
January 15, 2009
2:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
psyclone writes:
jb - the impact on my life is the slow degeneration of society.
Fringe groups have figured out that the way to advance their agenda is not in one big sweeping move, but rather to chip away at societal norms a little bit at a time. It's called 'normalization' and 'moral relativism'. The more and longer you pretend something's normal, the more normal (and accepted) it becomes.
No one is taking rights *away* from homosexuals. Rather, gays are trying to establish special rights for themselves based on their (sexual) behavior. Name me one other protected class of citizen based solely on their behavior.
Every single state that has put a traditional marriage amendment on their ballot has seen them pass, usually by a wide margain. Does this say anything to you? When presented with the opportunity, Americans have reiterated their preference to uphold traditional marriage - not your attempted redefinition of it.
January 15, 2009
3:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fisherman writes:
This sounds like ploy to get more people on a state government healthcare plan. My taxes will go up. No thanks.
January 15, 2009
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
yes, that's it, fisherman, it's all part of a conspiracy to raise your taxes and has nothing to do with equal rights for all americans regardless of gender, sexual orientation or race.
"the impact on my life is the slow degeneration of society."
lol...in your opinion.
which of course...is never a valid rationalization for discrimination.
ever.
January 15, 2009
3:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
psyclone-
First of all, how is it denegration of society? I think that is the big part of the problem. A lot of people still see gay people as some sort of perverts who go out having crazy orgies and lots and lots of partners. Frankly, that's not the case. They are EXACTLY like you except they love someone of the same sex. I don't see how two people who love each other...sitting at home arguing about whose turn it is to shovel the driveway or walk the dog is a drain on or bad for society.
You also say that no one is taking away rights from gay couples, but that's not true. In CA, gay couples had the right to marry, and that was taken away. Our country does not allow the majority to vote on the rights the minority. The Founders recognized this as the Tyranny of the Majority and specifically drafted the Constitution to protect against it.
Also, being gay is not just a behavior. Another problem I think is that so many people just think gay is about sex, which it isn't. A gay man can no more make himself straight than a straight man can make himself gay.
January 15, 2009
3:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
psyclone writes:
jay: does society discriminate against child molesters? How 'bout murderers? Bank robbers? You bet we do - because it's not socially acceptable behavior.
Let's take your opinion of acceptable behavior one step further - if same sex marriage is okay then why not polygamy? Or pedophilia? Or honor killings? Where do you draw the line? Why don't we just say that anything goes and be done with it?
Moral relativism has been a contributing factor in the downfall of several societies throughout history. We *should be* more intolerant because some things are just plain stupid.
Would it be a correct assumption that you believe the 30 or so states that have passed traditional marriage amendments have (legally) rationalized discrimination? If so, you need to wake up and smell the coffee and realize that you're in the minority on this one...
January 15, 2009
3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fisherman writes:
jay writes,
"equal rights for all americans regardless of gender, sexual orientation or race."
Insurance benefits or not, where is anyone's rights being violated?
January 15, 2009
3:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
psyclone writes:
jb - good, rational discussion. However, I didn't realize there was more in the dictionary under the definition of homosexuality than just the act of having sexual relations with a person of one's own gender. Care to elaborate?
Your argument re: CA is flawed: the people had passed a traditional marriage law until 4 judges on the Supreme Court discovered a right in their constitution allowing for SSM. SSM was allowed only long enough for the outraged electorate to tell the court they were out of line and to put things back the way they were.
You are right, the Framers did put in mechanisms to protect against Tryanny of the Majority. Now, how do we protect ourselves against Tryanny of the Minority?
January 15, 2009
3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
HassanChop writes:
I think every single right wing cliche regarding homosexuality is in this thread. I was waiting for some idiot to ask "where's the line" and start asking about polygamy or pedophelia, and I honestly thought for a moment it wasn't going to happen, and then I read the last entry by psyclone.
Just to be clear, we're talking about giving homosexual people the right to get HEALTH CARE for their partners. That's it. Psyclone, I promise you, there is no way you find homosexuals more disgusting than I find you, and I still would prefer that you be able get health care because quite frankly it ought to be a basic human right.
In 100 years, students will sit around in classrooms and ask how we could be such a backwards society, just like we feel when we wonder how it took so long for women to get the right to vote, or the end of "separate but equal" segregation.
Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and those who sniffed paint thinner during high school history apparently post in this forum.
January 15, 2009
3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
psyclone writes:
sorry - i can't spell "Tyranny"... :-(
January 15, 2009
4:01 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
sorry psyclone, we've debunked the laughable polygamy/childmolestor talking points many times here. are you new to the blog or just trying to get away with one?
what it boils down to is this...no matter how you "feel" about homosexuality, your feelings in no way justify discrimination against fellow americans because of gender, sexual orientation or race.
January 15, 2009
4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
psyclone writes:
gee, hassanchop, i didn't realize you knew me so well! ;-)
To set the record straight, I never said I find gays disgusting (I have a brother who's gay and don't feel differently towards him). And having an opinion on maintaining societal norms and fighting moral relativism doesn't make me an idiot anymore than you believing that health care is a basic human right makes you an idiot.
If I made my 'draw the line' argument to say 'driving on the wrong side of the road' instead of polygamy, would that make you happy? You're missing the bigger point: some of us object to having our tax dollars spent on state-sanctioned behavior we believe to be immoral.
In this particular instance, couldn't we both use your left-wing cliche' and say that your morals aren't my morals?
and imho, you'll get further with folks that disagree with you by avoiding the paint thinner comments and other insults...
January 15, 2009
4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
IRUNMAN
But we have to hear about yours? You are a hypocrite of the worst kind. Go change your panties. Everyone has a right to an opinion jerk.
January 15, 2009
4:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
IRUNMAN writes:
Don't think I did elkman.
Your last post explains exactly who you are.
Which is not very smart.
Go to college my friend.
January 15, 2009
4:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
IRUNMAN
Been there and have two degrees. So, my opinion does not count? Only yours? What an ego. As I said, go change your panties, because you seem to have a problem.
January 15, 2009
4:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
IRUNMAN writes:
Lying is not good elkman.
Get off mom's computer and start your homework.
January 15, 2009
6:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
FRN4U writes:
IRUNMAN,
there is a cure available. Why would you tell elkman to "go change your panties"?
January 15, 2009
6:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
immunizer writes:
grystphns: thanks for the reasoned response, but you missed the point of my satire so I'll be more explicit:
Health insurance - insurance of any kind - is a method of distributing risk. In other words insurance is socialism with a capitalist facade.
A profit element is added atop the total costs incurred by the insurance company paying out benefits to the entire covered group. This number is then divided among all members of the group resulting in the premiums paid for coverage (by the government).
Employer-provided health insurance is typically offered in three levels: employee only; employee + spouse; and employee + family (i.e. spouse + children). No differentiation is made between one child and 17 - the cost is the same to the covered member (the employee).
So, the good Catholic raising 7 children increases costs for everybody. How? Each child incurs costs for - at least - pre-natal care for the mother and neo-natal and pediatric care for the child. Further, each additional child carries a risk of a profound ailment. Our good Catholic would never consider aborting, so incurable diseases discovered in early stages of the pregnancy will cause additional and staggering costs to the insurance company as the child struggles through life. Again, the individual will not pay these costs: that's what the insurance is for. So, the insurance company will pay more than they would have had the good Catholic committed the 'sin' of contraception. But, because the insurance co is a good capitalist, they will simply jack up the prices for everyone and continue to add their profit element on top.
Ultimately, if our good Catholic is employed by the government and has 7 children, that Catholic will disproportionally cost the insurer money. The insurer will raise costs for every covered member and the government will have to pay more to provide that coverage to their employees.
So, clearly the good Catholic's immorality (my judgment) has caused government expenditure on insurance to increase, thus decreasing the portion of tax revenues that can be used providing services and potentially necessitating tax increases. Catholic immorality has therefore cost me money. Capisce?
January 15, 2009
6:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
lilymatha writes:
I admire those groups working for GLBT, also those online services like the one **BisexualMingle dotcom**. Members there are very active. Hope you are the one. Many of my friends there have spent their careers working for equality for lesbian, gay,bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons. I think they are really very great.If you come back here frequently, you may find what you are looking easily and quickly.
January 15, 2009
10:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
InEssence writes:
This could cost a lot more than you could imagine. Since gay sex is immoral it is also very expensive. In the 1970s, when gays were worried about health insurance companies charging extra, the gays claimed that their health care was 25 times more expensive than that of moral people. The pro-gay insurance companies were more than happy to oblige. We have been paying for gay immorality for a long time through increased health insurance premiums. With this bill, we will also have to pay through higher taxes.
January 16, 2009
6:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
gregu710 writes:
"Name me one other protected class of citizen based solely on their behavior."
Actually, psyclone, every religious group in this country. Practicing a religion is a behavior, it is not something that you are genetically born with, so your right to behave a certain way by going to church, taking sacraments, etc... is protected. As is your right not to. So far, more and more evidence is pointing to homosexuality NOT being a "chosen" behavior, and frankly, although not thrilled with the idea of homosexuality, I don't see it as the great degeneration of our society, any more than I see interracial marriage as a degeneration of society. That was a commonly accepted belief 30-40 years ago, a strong belief amongst the majority of Americans, that interracial dating and marriage would destroy the fabric of American society, and some recalcitrants STILL believe this (and not just among the white population). I see a lot of posts on here about how it will raise the cost of insurance, well, sorry, the cost of insurance is going up astronomically anyhow when most states DON'T allow coverage for SSM partners, so what is the excuse for that. NO, the real reason has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with higher costs (how does it suddenly cost MORE to insure a couple than it does 2 separate individuals with their own insurance?) Two separate individuals with insurance aren't going to magically have lower insurance costs and medical costs than 2 people living together, sorry that does not compute. SO, how about stepping out from your bias against homosexuality and just admit it, you folks don't want this because gays disgust you, you all think that they are immoral, and that's that. I am so much reminded of people I knew in South Carolina who swore up and down that they weren't racist but then made little jokes and comments about blacks or hispanics, but then got irritated when confronted. Just like the post by InEssence, all I can say after reading that is "What the F"????, but at least InEssence comes right out of the closet and there is no doubt at all that he/she can't stand "them gays"!
January 16, 2009
7:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
IRUNMAN
You really have nothing of value to say. Probably because you did not get out of grade school. Guess all you want to do is get ugly with people on the thread. I suppose that is because you lack the common sense, education, and decency to be a real person. O well, people like you are a dime a dozen. Intolerant, abusive, and lacking in any social graces.
January 16, 2009
7:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
gregu710
"So far, more and more evidence is pointing to homosexuality NOT being a "chosen" behavior,"
And your evidence is? Here is some evidence you might like to read.
"The issue of special rights for homosexuals hinges in part on the notion that the trait is genetic. To date there is no credible evidence to support this view, though many have been searching for a gay gene for years. There have been three "studies" which were once cited to suggest an inherited homosexual trait, but all three have been scientifically discredited. (One of these was the 1991 study by Simon LeVay. Another was a study by J.M. Baily and R.C. Pillard in 1991. The third was the Dean Hamer study in 1993.) The medical and scientific evidence suggest that indeed, there is no such thing as "homosexuality," in the sense of genetic determination. Indeed, some in the homosexual community are now acknowledging that there is no "gay gene."
January 16, 2009
8 a.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
HassanChop writes:
"...Just to be clear, we're talking about giving homosexual people the right to get HEALTH CARE for their partners. That's it."
Just to be clear, that is not at all true. We are talking about changing the law to force State taxpayers to PAY THE ADDED COST for health care coverage for the domestic partners of homosexual employees.
That TRULY is what we're talking about, HassanChop. So go ahead and state your opinion and argue your points; but please tell the truth.
January 16, 2009
8:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
FRN4U writes:
keep your "bedroom activities" away from taxpayers. ekman said,
"don't p!ss down my back and tell me its raining," ----is very appropriate.
January 16, 2009
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cowboy63 writes:
"Kopp, who referred to Veiga as a friend, also said it is a "terrific irony" that Democrats who used to complain about Republicans pushing divisive social issues would now get behind this."
This is nothing more than a weak attempt to sneak gay marriage in through the backdoor... (Sorry, that didn't come out right). The people of Colorado have clearly spoken on the issue of gay marriage with a resounding "no".
Why would he be surprised? Democrats don't have a problem catering to special interests as long as it is THEIR special interests. They are only classified in the Media as "divisive issues" when they are conservative issues.
January 16, 2009
9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
gregu710 writes:
"elkman writes:
gregu710
"So far, more and more evidence is pointing to homosexuality NOT being a "chosen" behavior,"
And your evidence is? Here is some evidence you might like to read"
And there are a lot of studies that point to it NOT being a choice, but rather maybe something chemical or biological beyond the control of the person. For instance a study at the Univ. of Texas which looks at certain correlations and social observations (for instance kids that are "tomboy" girls or "effiminate" boys at an early age (or do these kids choose to exhibit "immoral" homosexual behavior when they are 7 years old?) have a higher incidence of homosexuality later in life. Or that in families where the gay child has older siblings, with each older brother or sister, the likelihood of homesexuality increases by 1/3 to 1/2, which is speculated right now as perhaps being attributable to the mother building certain antibodies with each child that cause a biological change in the male proteins. The fact is, homosexuality cannot be simply attributed to choice or immorality, because quite frankly we don't know. Further, look at homosexuality in pre-teen and teen kids, where expectations of social conformity are higher than at almost any other time in ones life, what rational sane person would CHOOSE to say "Hey, I'm different from everyone else" knowing that he will most likely be ostracized from most social groups, perhaps even bullied or beaten up, or worse in some extreme cases, killed for it. You say that these studies were discredited, can you back that up. The Univ. of Texas study makes no mention of that:
"In 1991, Simon LeVay reported a search for sexual preference differences in the size (volume) of 4 brain nuclei in a brain region known as the anterior hypothalamus. Work on rodents had demonstrated that this brain region affected sexual behavior, and work on humans had already identified a male-female difference in tiny regions or ‘nuclei’ of the anterior hypothalamus. LeVay found a difference between heterosexual and gay men in one of these nuclei (#3); the size of INAH3 in gay men was similar to that of (heterosexual) females and smaller than that of heterosexual men.
Other studies have reported brain differences associated with sexual preference."
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/bio301d...
Further, it doesn't seem to be something that is taught to kids, as there are NUMEROUS cases of homosexual kids being turned out of their homes by parents who can't stand the thought of their kids being gay after "raising them right". Just look at Ted Haggard, as "straight laced" as you can get (I suppose), but then engaging in homosexual prostititution. Did he destory his life just for thrills...
January 16, 2009
9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
gregu710 writes:
Oh, also, Elkman, my son has been labeled as having Noonans Syndrome, which has many various physical, emotional, and phsyiological traits, but as yet, cannot be detected by genetic testing. In fact, most doctors don't even know about it, but I can tell you that "something" exists, which these specialists I've seen call Noonans. I can look at him, watch him behave "oddly" (which he has no control over), or do other things which are not considered "normal" by social standards, yet I have no physical or genetic test whatsoever to say "Hey, this is what he has". SO, just because there is no test YET to say that homosexuality isn't caused by a genetic mutation or chromosonal abnormality does not disprove anything. I'm willing to give these people the benefit of the doubt, rather than just cast judgement on them as some kind of monsters who are just out for a kinky thrill. I've seen a lot of people judging other people (especially living in the south for a while) for their behavior, and have come to see OVER and OVER, these pillars of society who have been doing the judging should have been paying a little more attention to their own behavior behind closed doors or out of the light of day, and worrying less about others.
January 16, 2009
10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hragel writes:
Difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals:
The product of heterosexual relations can be born, grow up and get a job, pay taxes, and benefit society.
The product of homosexual sex can only be flusehd down the toilet.
So is there any reason society values heterosexual relationships more than homosexual relationships, and therefore sanctions benefits to heterosexual couples that do not need to be extended to homosexuals?
Nothing is wrong with homosexuals, I do not want to see them mistreated. I also do not want to see society advocating homosexuality, because it does not sustain a society. Allowing homosexual single people to get married benefits costs society plenty, and returns nothing; same with redefining marriage, it makes the homosexuals feel better about themselves, but provides NO benefit for society.
Men and women who live together without being married do not deserve marriage benefits, either.
The state does not need to add $8.1 million dollars PER YEAR to employment costs, especially in this economic climate, jsut to make homosexuals feel better about themselves. This entire issue is not about equality, that already exists; the issue is, however, all about VANITY.
January 16, 2009
11 a.m.
Suggest removal
gregu710 writes:
"Hragel writes:
Difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals:
The product of heterosexual relations can be born, grow up and get a job, pay taxes, and benefit society"
Last I checked, there is no requirement for heterosexuals to procreate. And just because homosexuals don't procreate, they can still work, pay taxes, contribute to society, etc..., so what exactly is your point, that a relationship isn't worth societies blessing unless you procreate? Or that those couples who are physically unable to procreate aren't or shouldn't be entitled to spousal benefits. I guess all those hetero couples out there who are unable to procreate because of physiological issues could save a bunch of taxpayer money if they were no longer allowed to have their spouses insured, right...
January 16, 2009
11:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
gregu710
Those who insist on a genetic cause must answer an obvious question. Whenever we hear of someone who says that so-and-so was "born gay," we ask, "Which parent did he inherit his homosexuality from?" Obviously, homosexuals do not propogate themselves. Wouldn't natural selection have eleminated any gene that resisted propogation from the population?
Then what does cause homosexual tendencies? Many who have counselled people who practice homosexuality are convinced that in most cases there has been a serious and extreme loss of confidence in own's manhood (or womanhood). This may have been the result of extremely detached parenting (especially from the father), from some other person who had a major influence at a young age, childhood sexual encounters, etc.
Even if it were shown that there is a genetic component to homosexuality, that would still not make it right. Compare, for example, alcoholism. It is generally believed that there is an inherited tendency for alcoholism. But that inherited tendency does not condone the behavior, nor does one who inherits the trait necessarily become addicted to alcohol. Society tries to compassionately help those caught in that addiction. While difficult, many people inflicted with alcoholism are successful in reforming their lives.
All human beings are faced with sexual temptation of some sort during their lifetime. Homosexual attractions and temptations are not exempted, just as adultery is not exempted from being sinful behavior. As heterosexuals, we argue that we ourselves have a tendency—which we are certain is genetically inherited—to want to cheat on our spouse. This desire is quite strong. Yet we do not act on this desire and are able to suppress it.
January 16, 2009
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hragel writes:
Correct, gregu. There is no REQUIREMENT that heterosexual relationships produce children. However, there is the PROPENSITY for heterosexual relations to produce children, therefore societies have ALWAYS promoted heterosexual relations as they perpetuate the existence of a society. Therefore, in many societies, there are benefits for heterosexual couples, called "marriage". Marriage and its concurrent societal benefits exists to encourage survival.
Homosexuals CANNOT produce biological offspring unless they engage in heterosexual union, therefore, homosexuality is anathema to the entire concept of marriage. As a societal construct, marriage is not there to reward a man and woman for being in a loving relationship, it is there to reward the possibility that the man and woman in the marriage will procreate, therefore sustaining society.
AGAIN: Homosexuality does NOT preserve the existence of the species, but acts in direct contravention of that basic driving motivation of the species. It is not that every heterosexual marriage produces children, it is because they have the POTENTIAL to produce children that we as a society (and the majority of other societies that led up to this one) lend greater credence to heterosexuality and provide marriage benefits to heterosexuals.
Please note that not ONE point I have made has any religious connotation. Being against homosexual marriage for me is a matter of biology and survival, not religious belief.
January 16, 2009
11:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Hragel writes:
ADDITIONAL: You cannot claim outrage at "government interfering with my bedroom" if you insist on forcing your bedroom into the public street. You point fingers at the right and the all-so-evil religious right that they are sticking their noses into your sex life, but in reality, those folks (and I) have NO interest in your sex life.
It is you who insist on wearing your sex life on your sleeve, and you have the nerve to act insulted when other people find your proclivities disgusting.
Most folks on the right are pretty much live-and-let-live on the issue of homosexuality, we really aren't interested in what you get up to with another consenting adult in the privacy of your own home. It is the homosexual community that is insisting everyone on the planet know what they get up to behind closed doors, then have the unmitigated gall of accusing others of sticking their noses in your private life.
So, sorry we won't just go along with the PC crowd as you try and redefine the entire biological/societal contract, and that we will fight tooth and nail to keep you from succeeding in your quest to do so, and from bankrupting us in the process.
We want to see the species survive, not slowly die out as less and less children are created to take the places of their progenitors. And, yes, we do NOT see two women with donated DNA material and a turkey baster as a natural way to propigate and preserve the species.
January 16, 2009
12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
gregu710 writes:
actually Hragel, I don't see what the bedroom has to do with this. What goes on behind closed doors should stay behind closed doors and neither the government, nor insurance companies, or for that matter anyone, should interfere with that. If something is going on that is illegal, such as pedophilia, then that's different, but to my knowledge, homosexuality is no longer a crime in this country. Further, the notion that homosexuality will somehow cause the decline in birthrates of heterosexuals is a completely nonsensical argument, unless you believe that by having two gay men living next door to you in a civil union will make you suddenly want to stop being hetero and become gay. Further, although I won't deny that there are a large number of "in your face" gay people, there are also a large number who just want to live their lives in a quiet private manner like the rest of us, who plan on spending their lives in a monogamous relationship. Sorry, all of the arguments about prolong and propigating our species don't work for several reasons. One, we are talking about a relatively small percent of the population. Two, as mentioned above, unless gay people have some magical powers to wave a wand and make all of us heteros run screaming out into the street in drag clamoring to be gay, whether two people are gay or not is not going to change how many children you or I are going to have. And since they are gay, they are not going to be having children of their own, because they are not physically attracted, or will they mate with those of the opposite gender, so they are pretty much taken out of the pool for reproduction. That is unless it's through artificial insemination, and if that's the case, there goes your propagation argument right out the window. Three, there are many, many, many hetero couples who DO propagate who shouldn't (how about the parents of Adolph Hitler Cambpell), yet no one even dares to talk about their rights to benefits. SO, that says to me that two hate-filled, sociopathic nutjobs who are physically able to procreate are just dandy, because it's natural, but two people who love each other and just want to have as much of a normal life with a life partner but for some as yet unknown phsyiological reason aren't attracted to those of the opposite gender should be banned from any fruits of that dedication.
January 16, 2009
12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
gregu710 writes:
By the way, I would not classify myself as PC, because quite frankly, I call things the way I see them, I don't go out of my way to offend people, but if someone is prejudiced, he is prejudiced. To hide behind spurious arguments about saving the biological future of man because 2% of the population of the world doesn't want to mate with the opposite sex seems more like a smokescreen. The marriage of my father and my stepmom (caucasian and black) was decried as "the end to humanity and civlization" a few decades ago as well, using the exact same empty arguments, and the exact same moral outrage was expressed against those who would mix races. To my knowledge, our country has survived that great calamity so far, I am pretty sure it will survive all 300,000 (or whatever the number) gay couples being allowed to "marry" and get spousal benefits....
And as I mentioned, homosexuality does not thrill me, the thought of 2 guys having "relations" makes me very queasy, but that doesn't make me want to stand in the way of their happiness if they aren't hurting someone else. Regardless, the Pandoras Box is open, since most states are at least allowing Civil Unions which entitles the "spouse" in that Union to the benefits equivalent to marriage, even if not called marriage under the law. History has shown that once such a thing becomes accepted and supported by the law, undoing it is unlikely. We as a country may fight over it for some time to come, but as more and more states keep moving in that direction (the trend is increasing, not reversing), the whole argument is a moot point.
January 16, 2009
12:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
gregu710
I take it from your lack of response that you cannot disagree with what I presented. Or maybe, you just don't want to answer questions?
January 16, 2009
12:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
gregu710 writes:
"Even if it were shown that there is a genetic component to homosexuality, that would still not make it right. Compare, for example, alcoholism. It is generally believed that there is an inherited tendency for alcoholism."
The difference here Elkman, is that we do not deny people who are alcoholic or genetically abnormal, any rights or priviledges that one part of the population is entitled to, so comparing homosexuality to alcoholism is not really an honest comparison.
Further, to my knowledge, those who do counsel homosexuals do not try to counsel their patients to NOT be homosexual. I agree, maybe there are underlying social or psychological issues, or it may be something chemical, we just don't know, but regardless of what causes it, I feel about 99% certain that NO licensed, ethical practicing physician of any type EVER tries to "undo" someones homosexuality or counsel them AGAINST it. If it is a medical condition or psychological in nature, why do counselors not try to help those people back on the right "heterosexual" path through therapy. Obviously, letting them "stay" gay is going to cause them societal, and psychological harm due to the negative connotations and reactions that gay people encounter, so just like we try to counsel and provide therapy to pedophiles and rapists, we should be doing this for gays as well by your logic. YET, no one does, other than perhaps religious counselors who believe it to be immoral.
January 16, 2009
12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
gregu710 writes:
Oh, and Elkman, don't make assumptions, especially falsely based ones. In this case, you would be wrong. I can't type to you and Hragel at the same time, I only have one keyboard and two hands, not to mention I have to get back to work from my break. But even if that were not the case, mabye I would choose to NOT answer you if I thought that your argument was not worth the time. That doesn't automatically make your argument "right", does it? There are a LOT of people on here who I wouldn't waste my breath arguing with, but it doesn't make them right...
January 16, 2009
1 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
"The difference here Elkman, is that we do not deny people who are alcoholic or genetically abnormal, any rights or priviledges that one part of the population is entitled to, so comparing homosexuality to alcoholism is not really an honest comparison".
What rights or priviledges are you referring to? No, homosexuals do not have the priviledge of being married. That priviledge is given to one man and one woman. The problem is that the gay community cannot and will not accept it. Again I ask the question: "Which parent did he inherit his homosexuality from?" If you believe as you do, give me the answer. If it is a gene, then it will be passed on. I don't know of any doctor or scientist that would disagree.
January 16, 2009
1:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
gregu710
By the way, you cannot be counseled unless you ask for it. How many gay people go to the psychologist and ask to be treated? The answer is that the gay person does not feel that they need treated and would rather live the lifestyle of homosexuality.
Every member of society has a duty to contribute to the commonwealth. Yet the empirical evidence indicates that those who engage in homosexuality 1) contribute less and cost more in goods and services, 2) disproportionately disrupt social functioning, and 3) have few children while being more apt to harm them. Thus, homosexual practioners not only fail to 'pay for their keep,' but by their negative influence on children, cloud society's future.
Those who engage in homosexuality seek what they say are 'gay rights." In reality, they are demanding Super Rights. Super Rights are those privileges that allow one to ovverride the inalienable rights of other citizens, such as freedom of speech and association. These Super Rights—which are conferred by 'non-discrimination,' 'hate crime,' and 'hate speech' laws—allow homosexuals, if they so choose, to endanger or punish those who would exercise their associational rights to avoid them or protect their children from them.
January 16, 2009
1:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Ok, I'm swamped at work so I can't take too much time to type. But, elkman, first of all there are plenty of genetic traits that are recessive that can still manifest in offspring and not in either of the parents... sickle cell gene, blue eyes, CF, etc... Also, you assume that all biological conditions are genetic, however that is not the case. There are many biologic traits that are totally uncontrolled by the person/animal/plant that posess them but were not inherited. For example, did you know that a cloned animal often still won't look exactly like the animal it was cloned from? The conditions in the host womb affect its fur, coloring, etc... much like the observed phenom of the number of bilogical older brothers contributing to exponetially increased homosexuality...even if the younger sibling was raised by a different family. It's thought to be due to an immune response from the mother against the fetus in the womb. Not genetic, but biological nonetheless.
Also, according to the Supreme Court of the United States, Marriage is a basic human right. Read the full ruling on Loving v. Virginia.
January 16, 2009
1:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Oh, another problem with one of your claims elkman. You stated: "empirical evidence indicates that those who engage in homosexuality 1) contribute less and cost more in goods and services..."
This is 100% untrue and anyone who works in Marketing or sales knows so. In fact, The median combined household income of gay couples is 60% higher than opposite-sex couples (source: OpusComm Group).
You can read more about how much $$$ the gay community contributes compared to the average at http://www.expressmilwaukee.com/artic... or just Google it.
January 16, 2009
1:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
JB
Maybe you should re-read Loving v. Virginia
It states:
"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State".
Please show me where they were talking about anything except "racial" marriage. This decision had nothing, and I mean nothing to do with gay rights to get married. You are killing me.
January 16, 2009
1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
Elkman...
I didn't say it mentioned gay marriage. I said teh Supreme Court said it was a basic human right, which you just posted for me. "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man..." You called it a priviledge in your 1pm post.
January 16, 2009
1:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
gregu710 writes:
"What rights or priviledges are you referring to? No, homosexuals do not have the priviledge of being married. That priviledge is given to one man and one woman. The problem is that the gay community cannot and will not accept it."
Yeah, and the black community could not and did not accept being forced to drink from separate water fountains or riding on the back of the bus, so what's the point? And the priviledge, or right, is that of a committed gay couple to have the same benefits that a committed hetero couple has. Several people here have made assertions about extending rights to 2 gay guys living together or to 2 friends and other such nonsense. That is just a misleading argument as well, because once in a civil union, the same obligations apply as to a marriage regarding divorce as far as what i have read. We aren't talking about two people involved in a one night stand suddenly asking for the same rights as straight people, but two people who are promising to uphold vows and respect the obligations of marriage just as we "normal" hetero people do, and then once doing so, being allowed and granted the same rights and priviledges as straight couples. Sorry, I see no harm in that. If we were talking about extending these priviledges to roommates and other such red herring nonsense, I would wholeheartedly agree. But I personally don't have a moral issue with gay marriage any more than I do any other marriage. The meaning of marriage is committing to a lifelong partnership first and foremost, and supporting, loving and caring about that partner for the rest of your life in a monogamous relationship, it was not about procreating, or about getting better benefits, at least that's the way I was brought up by my parents, as was my wife. As I mentioned, many, many people, my brothers included, get married and never intend on having kids (both hetero as am I). Perhaps they should be banned from marriage as well, since they refuse to procreate.
January 16, 2009
1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
JB
Are you not reading what the decision stated? "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications"
You are not reading the entire statement, but pulling one segment out to try and prove your point. You are pulling it out of context. If any rational person reads the statement, they would see the full meaning. It has to do with "racial marriages".
January 16, 2009
1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
gregu710 writes:
"By the way, you cannot be counseled unless you ask for it. How many gay people go to the psychologist and ask to be treated? The answer is that the gay person does not feel that they need treated and would rather live the lifestyle of homosexuality."
So, you are telling me that of the tens of thousands of gay people in counseling throughout the world, none of them says to the psychologist, "doctor, I feel so confused about my feelings, please help me figure this out. I don't want people to hate me because of my feelings, etc..." If that were the case, and gay people were just happy go lucky to get to the next gay orgy, how do you explain suicide rates among gay teens? I mean, why feel so trapped and confused that you feel pushed to kill yourself because you don't want people to know you're gay, when you could just go talk to a counselor and get "cured" instead. Rapists and pedophiles don't "want" counseling either, yet we make them, yet even though the supposed majority of the population thinks homosexuality is highly immoral, we don't have a public outcry or movement to force these "deviants" into counseling as we do other deviants?
January 16, 2009
1:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
gregu710 writes:
"If any rational person reads the statement, they would see the full meaning. It has to do with "racial marriages"
And so far, at least a few State Supreme Courts have carried that right over into gay marriages. As I mentioned, agree or not, I suspect that the trend will lead to the point where the Supreme Court of the US also rules on this (I would suspect about the same time as the first constitutionally defined marriage amendment goes on the books and an attempt to enforce it occurs)
January 16, 2009
1:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
gregu710
"We aren't talking about two people involved in a one night stand suddenly asking for the same rights as straight people, but two people who are promising to uphold vows and respect the obligations of marriage just as we "normal" hetero people do, and then once doing so, being allowed and granted the same rights and priviledges as straight couples"
Various studies show that domestic violence is approximately 3 times higher among homosexual partnerships than heterosexual marriages. A large proportion of murders, assaults, other crimes and various harms to children occur along with, or as a consequence of, domestic violence. (Source: Journal of the Family Research Institute, August 2008.)
Life-long monogamy is nearly non-existent among those in a homosexual lifestyle, including those who profess to be "married." Promiscuity is rampant. Many contacts are between strangers with 70% of gays estimating that they had sex only once with over half of their partners. Various studies indicate that gays average somewhere between 10 and 110 different sex partners per year. A 1981 study found that only 2% of homosexuals could be classified as monogamous or even semi-monogamous (having 10 or fewer lifetime sexual partners.)
Gay researchers McWhirter and Mattison studied 156 gay male couples whose relationship lasted from 1 to 37 years. They found that all the couples whose relationships lasted more than 5 years incorporated some provision for outside sexual activity. There was not a single long-term monogamous couple.
Gay marriage has been legal in the Netherlands long enough to gather data on it. A 2003 study found the average duration of "steady" male partnerships to range from .75 to 2.25 years. These "steady" relationships had an average of 8 casual partners in addition to the significant other each year.
January 16, 2009
2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
JB writes:
OMG!! Elkman seriously, you did not just cite the Family Research Institute. If that is where you get your perceptions, I am not surprised you are against gay rights.
Just a bit of infor on the FRI. They are classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, have only 2 (discredited) scientists and there studies have all been shown grossly innaccurate and embellished by the mainstream medical community.
Anyhow, back to work. Have a great weekend all.
January 16, 2009
2:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
gregu710
You are wavering, my friend. The decision, put forth as proof of your cause, is not valid. I imagine anyone reading the decision would read the entire verbage. The states that have carried that right over into gay marriages have taken great liberty in what was written.
January 16, 2009
2:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
JB
Yes, amoung other sources. Just because you personally are against them, does not make them wrong. If you want further proof about homosexuality, try consulting your local Bible.
January 16, 2009
2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
gregu710 writes:
Not wavering Elkman. And regaring the "research" you quote (and I am aghast that you'd quote the FRI!), the Norwegian government did a long-term study of gay unions and found increased hetero marriages as well, as well as very strong foundations and positive outcomes for gay couples. So far, over 16 countries worldwide have laws allowing gay marriage or gay civil unions and more are on the books to move that way. Like I said, the Pandoras Box is open, the chances of slamming the lid shut are about nil and decreasing with each year. So, question, when a Candian gay married couple moves here for some reason, is their marriage disolved upon crossing the border? Have a good weekend all...
January 16, 2009
2:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
gregu710 writes:
What if you are not Christian Elkman, would you still be forced to abide by the Bible? I'm sure that will go over VERY WELL with many Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists, not to mention agnostics and atheists. You are on VERY slippery ground friend.
January 16, 2009
2:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
gregu710
Show me where the Muslims, Jews, Hindus, or Buddhists accept homosexuality as normal and believe that men should marry men and women should marry women. I think is it you starting to slide down the slope.
January 16, 2009
2:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
lol...we always get back to the same place on this issue.
no matter how you "feel" about homosexuality, your emotions are in no way justification for discrimination against your fellow americans, regardless of gender, sexual orientation or race.
bigotry is NEVER justified.
January 16, 2009
2:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Homosexuality is a really puzzling issue. You've got the Reverend Haggard types who rail against it and then end up being caught doing it, but that's not so much different from anything else the Rev. would call sin is it? I mean, he would not deny that he along with everyone else is tempted by sin.
But for many if not most of us, on homosexuality, there is no temptation. There never was, never will be. Other things that I think of as sin, I feel like I have at least been tempted to do at some point. So it's hard for me to regard homosexuality as a sin to be resisted - the other sins should be so easy!
January 16, 2009
2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
jay
Sorry, but the emotional thing goes both ways.
By the way, I am not emotional about this subject. I have a set of values and morals that I try to live by. It is not based on emotion, but common sence and a knowledge that there is "right" and "wrong".
January 16, 2009
2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
of course you are elkman.
your emotions about homosexuals are all you have to justify your discriminatory position on this issue.
let's not pretend otherwise.
January 16, 2009
3:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
jay
You need to learn the difference between discrimination and opinion. You are ALWAYS the first to yell racism and discrimination. I seriously doubt if you know the definition of either. It you did, you would be smarter about using them. Discrimination is a practice or an act. Opinion is based on facts and values. Get over yourself and argue something logically, without falling back on the same old used up "discrimination" and "racism" crap. You are the poser.
January 16, 2009
3:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
well...elkman...we always get back to the same place.
either your beliefs and positions qualify as the textbook definition of discirmination and bigotry or they don't.
it has nothing to do with anyone but yourself.
take some personal responsibility for yourself and your beliefs.
January 16, 2009
3:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
jay
Only you think so. That makes one. I take full responsibility for myself and beliefs. If you still do not have the understanding of "discrimination" and "opinion", you are completely, totally, and willfully ignorant. That means that you are incapable of learning. That is the reason we always get back to the same place. You have no choice of where to go, when you cannot learn.
January 16, 2009
3:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
it has nothing to do with what i "think", elkman.
either your behavior and beliefs fit the definition of discrimination or bigotry as stated above or they don't.
either you support equal rights for all americans regardless of gender, sexual orientation and race or you don't.
again...take some personal responsibility for yourself.
January 16, 2009
3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
Seems like I recall somebody posting the textbook definition of bigotry a day or two ago, and it seems like the definition didn't suit the arguments of a certain arrogant, self-righteous, myopic liberal commenter on this site.
But of course, that hasn't stopped our friend from using the word to condemn others who disagree with him.
January 16, 2009
3:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
jay
No, my beliefs do not fit the definition of discrimination. Why? Let me explain it for the 100th time. Because they are beliefs. Discrimination is an ACT.
No, I do not support gay marriage. That is not discrimination, but my opinion and my belief. You are mixing apples and tomatoes together. Gay marriage and equal rights are two separate things. I do not deny equal rights to gay people. But, I deny marriage between gays. Since when is "marriage" a right? It is a legal ceremony between a man and a woman.
January 16, 2009
3:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
sorry, davies, as always, being intolerant of bigotry does not make one a bigot.
nice try, but that fallacious position doesn't work now any better than the last time you tried it.
again, folks, this has nothing to do with me.
January 16, 2009
4 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
And before anyone jumps all over me. when I said "Since when is marriage a right"....I was just being sarcastic. Loving v Virginia already answered the question. However, they were very deliberate in what they said. The operative words in the decision are "man and woman". And that was from the Supreme Court.
January 16, 2009
4:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
davies writes:
jay, take a step back from yourself for a minute. Just try to be a neutral observer. Here is a synopsis of one of your typical conversations:
jay: "Any form of discrimination against homosexuals is bigotry and is immoral and wrong, plain and simple."
anti-jay: "Homosexuality is sinful behavior and is immoral and wrong, plain and simple."
See how that looks jay? Neither one of you has any reason to converse with the other, because you're both plain and simple. You have convictions that you are right, but so does he! At least elkman has the self-awareness to acknowledge that there are different opinions, and that he is only expressing his.
You on the other hand jay, have to be the Statute of frickin' Liberty, holding your torch of Undeniable Truth forth for all to bow down to. You are so convinced that your truth is the only truth, but you despise others who are just like you, and feel the same way about THEIR truth.
Even Obama does not support gay marriage. Why? I doubt if it is his personal opinion; it's because he understands that too many reasonable Americans are still adamantly opposed to it. He is a man of Honor, you are a man of Pride.
January 16, 2009
5:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
again, kids, either your behavior fits the definition of discrimination/bigotry or it doesn't.
if you don't support equal rights for all americans regardless of sex, sexual orientation or race then you must take some responsibility for your beliefs and/or behavior.
again...it has nothing to do with the rest of us. my position is based on textbook definitions, your positions are based on emotion.
no offense...but i'll take the textbooks over "feelings" any time, davies.
January 16, 2009
5:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
gregu710 writes:
Elkman, since you asked. Hinduism doesn't specifically speak against homosexuality, the Karma Sutra says it is considered a sexual art, and there is evidence of homosexual activities in many ancient carvings and statues (this is also true of ancient Roman, Greek,
Here's a clip from Religionfacts.com:
"In Hinduism many of the divinities are androgynous and some change gender to participate in homoerotic behavior. In the popular Hindu epic Mahabharata, a transgender character named Sikhandin plays a pivotal role (5.191-5).
In modern India transgendered men known as Hijras have sex with men. They religiously identify as a separate third sex, with many undergoing ritual castration. In Hindu thought a man who penetrates a Hijra is not defined as gay. And in the Kama Sutra sex acts involving homosexuality are regarded in some castes permissible while not in other castes."
Nor, is there any condemnation, outlawing, or negative connotations regarding homosexuality in Buddhism.
But back to the original point, what if one is agnostic or atheist, or even a moderate Protestant, where the church no longer condemns such activities. Should the Episcopal Church, whose Bishop in New Hampshire is openly gay, go back and read the Bible too. That Church has apparently (as have others) found a way to accept homosexuals, and even welcome them. Is it your positiion that you know the will of God better than they do, and that they should ignore their beliefs and follow the beliefs of another sect of Christianity, even if it means being untrue to their own faith?
January 16, 2009
5:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
gregu710 writes:
"elkman writes:
However, they were very deliberate in what they said. The operative words in the decision are "man and woman". And that was from the Supreme Court"
Sorry, Elkman, I just took the time to scan through the entire brief and NOWHERE in it does it say that marriage is between a man and a woman. If you have proof otherwise, please provide it. There was one reference to Viriginia law stating that if a man and a woman of different races left the state to evade the law, they would be punished upon return, but that is the wording of the Virginia law, NOT the US Supreme Court. In fact, all that the Supreme Court DOES say is that "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," and it repeatedly refers to marriages between "persons", never ONCE does it say "man and wife" or any other such thing. Now, I will grant you, that in the late 60's this was not a pressing societal issue as it has become now, because quite frankly, most people who were gay during that time were very much pressured to stay in the closet, or to seek psychiatric help, or went to prison under sod-omy laws if they so much as uttered the word "gay" in public.