Gay Rights

[Biggles]

Thanks Rat Face

I think I have it sussed now.

[Biggles]

Mr Fugley

I see your problem. You have an unnatural tendancy to like Ford cars. This conflicts with your Unipart desires which, as everyone knows, are best suited to Rovers.

You need to realign your spare parts.

Hope that helps

[Rat Faced]

For all those that think homosexuality is a psyciatric disorder, mentioning no names.....

Please pay attention to the paragraphs before entering into the sexual dysfunctional behviours listed...

The current medical view.....

You'll note what i was saying re: Sexuality being fluid linx, in the text before going into the sexual dysfunctional disorders...


I knew id read it somewhere.....

[Billy_Dean]

If they make homosexuality legal, the next thing you know, it will be compulsary!

That's my opinion anyway.

[ilw]

In that case I'm gonna transfer all my stocks and shares to lube companies.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Billy_Dean@3 October 2003 - 09:33
If they make homosexuality legal, the next thing you know, it will be compulsary!

That's my opinion anyway.

The extremist rhetoric accompanying the homosexual lobby would have you think so, certainly.

Reality seldom reflects that, though.

Why is it that "movement" spokespersons only speak in extreme, militant terms?

How is it, for example, the "Reverend" Al Sharpton, whose first foray into the public arena (the Tawana Brawley hoax/fiasco) should have been sufficient to discredit him forever, is now considered to be "a leading black "spokesman", and, indeed, is running for the office of president of the United States?

How do things get so f**ked up?

[internet.news]

Gays are only just humans, - for me only character of people is important although I love it if someone looks nice - so let them do, if they are glad if they can
marry, why the fucking hell not?

thanks anyway, david.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by internet.news@4 October 2003 - 20:13
Gays are only just humans, - for me only character of people is important although I love it if someone looks nice - so let them do, if they are glad if they can
marry, why the fucking hell not?

thanks anyway, david.

Is it necessary that a same-sex union be termed a "marriage"?

Until now, the term "marriage" has signified the legal recognition of a union between a man and woman, ostensibly and traditionally for purposes (though not always) of starting and raising a family.

Why do they deem it necessary to co-opt the term "marriage"?

Are they somehow precluded or legally estopped from coining or adopting/adapting another term?

I sense they prefer the term "marriage", as to use the term to refer to a homosexual union would presumptively accord (legally) health benefits (such as exist) to the previously uninsured partner in the relationship, and to settle for another reference would not have this effect; the "benefits" battle would have yet to be addressed and won.

I will preface this next by noting that I have, and have had, many homosexual friends, acquaintances, and co-workers in my life.

I have not, do not, nor will I ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.

However:

In discussing this topic with them, they are very open about their felt need to share health benefits as a motivating factor in seeking legal sanction, in specific, the use of the term "marriage" to define their union.

Now-
The health-insurance industry owes it's continued viability to the actuarialists and their beloved tables.

Due to AIDS and HIV, homosexuals are very poor risks from an actuarial point-of-view; though, to the extent I have heard this point addressed in the media, an assignation of "high-risk" to a homosexual would be a red-flag discrimination case to any attorney.

As any judgementalism towards "life-style" choices is strictly taboo these days, it could be assumed that any attempt to assess the premium typical of an actuarial risk would likewise be taboo.

I had a heart attack in 2002. I am unable even to purchase health insurance; it's not even that I can't afford it-it is literally not available, due to my history (never mind the fact I am probably healthier than the next ten people).

I don't have a lobby, though.

[clocker]

Originally posted by j2k4@4 October 2003 - 19:24


I had a heart attack in 2002. I am unable even to purchase health insurance; it's not even that I can't afford it-it is literally not available, due to my history (never mind the fact I am probably healthier than the next ten people).

I don't have a lobby, though.

Have you considered becoming gay?
You might be able to class action your way into some coverage.
The down side would be not being able to shop at Farm & Fleet anymore...

[hobbes]

Originally posted by j2k4+5 October 2003 - 03:24--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 &#064; 5 October 2003 - 03:24)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-internet.news@4 October 2003 - 20:13
Gays are only just humans, - for me only character of people is important although I love it if someone looks nice - so let them do, if they are glad if they can
marry, why the fucking hell not?

thanks anyway, david.

Is it necessary that a same-sex union be termed a "marriage"?

Until now, the term "marriage" has signified the legal recognition of a union between a man and woman, ostensibly and traditionally for purposes (though not always) of starting and raising a family.

Why do they deem it necessary to co-opt the term "marriage"?

Are they somehow precluded or legally estopped from coining or adopting/adapting another term?

I sense they prefer the term "marriage", as to use the term to refer to a homosexual union would presumptively accord (legally) health benefits (such as exist) to the previously uninsured partner in the relationship, and to settle for another reference would not have this effect; the "benefits" battle would have yet to be addressed and won.

I will preface this next by noting that I have, and have had, many homosexual friends, acquaintances, and co-workers in my life.

I have not, do not, nor will I ever discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.

However:

In discussing this topic with them, they are very open about their felt need to share health benefits as a motivating factor in seeking legal sanction, in specific, the use of the term "marriage" to define their union.

Now-
The health-insurance industry owes it&#39;s continued viability to the actuarialists and their beloved tables.

Due to AIDS and HIV, homosexuals are very poor risks from an actuarial point-of-view; though, to the extent I have heard this point addressed in the media, an assignation of "high-risk" to a homosexual would be a red-flag discrimination case to any attorney.

As any judgementalism towards "life-style" choices is strictly taboo these days, it could be assumed that any attempt to assess the premium typical of an actuarial risk would likewise be taboo.

I had a heart attack in 2002. I am unable even to purchase health insurance; it&#39;s not even that I can&#39;t afford it-it is literally not available, due to my history (never mind the fact I am probably healthier than the next ten people).

I don&#39;t have a lobby, though.[/b][/quote]
As much as I have an opinion on the subject, I find it trivial in comparison to my hope that your health continues to be well.

Take care J2 and may we continue to agree, disagree, and discuss ad infinitum.