Hillary wins Pennsylvania...

#77
#77
utvolpj said:
Disney is actually considered a model company in this regard that others are using as a benchmark to how they can make it work with their company. They define domestic partners without regard to sex as either legally married or sharing the same domicile for a period of at least 7 years as in common law marriages. Not a terrible model to follow and provides the "commitment" aspect you seek.
Click to expand...

So at some point people could get their pets covered as well?
 
#81
#81
utvolpj said:
maybe but....



How much do you love your dog allvol123?
Click to expand...

So I'd have to show them a puppy? No problemo.

I just find this kind of stuff goofy. Companies are in business to make money. The more involved they get into things that have nothing to do with their core business the more problems I see. Kind of like the Detroit auto companies pay for 45 year olds to retire and giving them lifelong checks and healthcare.
 
#82
#82
allvol123 said:
So at some point people could get their pets covered as well?
Click to expand...

Congratulations allvol you have brought this thread full circle. We started on the Subject of Hillary and now we are back to talking about beasts!:)
 
#83
#83
JZVOL said:
No not at all. Tough to compare the rights of a race or gender to a choice of who you have sex with in your home.

HIV/AIDS

Homosexual activity remains a major source of transmission of the HIV/AIDS virus.
Click to expand...

Genius.

Smoking cigarettes remains a major source of lung cancer. Therefore they shouldn't have legal marriage rights that others do.
 
#84
#84
TennNC said:
Genius.

Smoking cigarettes remains a major source of lung cancer. Therefore they shouldn't have legal marriage rights that others do.
Click to expand...
Following that same logic, since being obese and eating fatty fried foods lead to increased heart disease, fat people shouldn't be allowed to marry either.
 
#86
#86
vader said:
Following that same logic, since being obese and eating fatty fried foods lead to increased heart disease, fat people shouldn't be allowed to marry either.
Click to expand...
and don't even think about Darwin Award participants.
 
#87
#87
vader said:
Following that same logic, since being obese and eating fatty fried foods lead to increased heart disease, fat people shouldn't be allowed to marry either.
Click to expand...

No..they can marry and to throw a cherry on top....we'll make sure all their healthcare is paid for. USA! USA!
 
#89
#89
TennNC said:
Genius.

Smoking cigarettes remains a major source of lung cancer. Therefore they shouldn't have legal marriage rights that others do.
Click to expand...

Yet many of their rights are being taken away by the gov't because it is harmful to the public.

It makes total sense to give people who partake in a lifestyle that is responsible for more than 50% of AIDS cases in the U.S. rights.

Seems to me everyone concerned with how much healthcare is costing would not be in favor of gay rights, because it is so expensive for our country.
 
#90
#90
I just don't understand how people can champion rights for a lifestyle, that based on scientific research, spreads so much disease and illness to the population.
 
#91
#91
JZVOL said:
Yet many of their rights are being taken away by the gov't because it is harmful to the public. but that's because their smoking has been conclusively proven to impact the health of others exposed to the smoking. Hence, smoking in public is going the way of gay sex in public.

It makes total sense to give people who partake in a lifestyle that is responsible for more than 50% of AIDS cases in the U.S. rights. Are you actually implying that denying the right to marry has somehow stemmed the tide of gay sex or that it limits the propagation of AIDS?

Seems to me everyone concerned with how much healthcare is costing would not be in favor of gay rights, because it is so expensive for our country. I'm not in favor of anything regarding gay rights. My ambivalence keeps me from caring one iota either way.
Click to expand...
see above
 
#92
#92
JZVOL said:
I just don't understand how people can champion rights for a lifestyle, that based on scientific research, spreads so much disease and illness to the population.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone's championing the lifestyle as much as we're saying that it's just not our business, so we don't really care.

If folks want to be gay and engage in that lifestyle, more power to them. They fully understand the social ramifications (be they good or bad) and likely know the risks in being promiscuous.
 
#93
#93
BigPapaVol said:
see above
Click to expand...

on your first point. The lifestyle does impact healthcare, as does smoking. There is a finite amount of medical researchers, money, etc...the lifestyle helps to spread a disease. I have no desire to restrict the rights of gays. But the government preventing people from smoking in certain places is in essence trying to discourage smoking.
 
#95
#95
JZVOL said:
I just don't understand how people can champion rights for a lifestyle, that based on scientific research, spreads so much disease and illness to the population.
Click to expand...

i fail to see how it's relavant. generally they are spreading it to eachother.
 
#96
#96
allvol123 said:
on your first point. The lifestyle does impact healthcare, as does smoking. There is a finite amount of medical researchers, money, etc...the lifestyle helps to spread a disease. I have no desire to restrict the rights of gays. But the government preventing people from smoking in certain places is in essence trying to discourage smoking.
Click to expand...
I'd say the gov't intervention in the smoking debate is because the right of the smoker ends where my rights to clean air begin. Consenting adults having intercourse has nothing to do with my rights, unless they're doing it in front of me, in which case the gov't says they can't continue if we're in public.
 
#97
#97
droski said:
i fail to see how it's relavant. generally they are spreading it to eachother.
Click to expand...

Unless they are bisexual and then it enters into the heterosexual realm. Still this falls under the issue of promiscuity, and if you want to avoid aids there are steps that anyone can take regardless of sexual preference.
 
#98
#98
BigPapaVol said:
I'd say the gov't intervention in the smoking debate is because the right of the smoker ends where my rights to clean air begin. Consenting adults having intercourse has nothing to do with my rights, unless they're doing it in front of me, in which case the gov't says they can't continue if we're in public.
Click to expand...

Then we should ban all buildings because the air inside is much worse than the polluted air outdoors. If you are outdoors smoking should be allowed IMO, but indoors people should and need to be respectful of others.
 
#99
#99
BigPapaVol said:
I'd say the gov't intervention in the smoking debate is because the right of the smoker ends where my rights to clean air begin. Consenting adults having intercourse has nothing to do with my rights, unless they're doing it in front of me, in which case the gov't says they can't continue if we're in public.
Click to expand...

I never said to restrict anyone's rights. I said it impacts healthcare and since we're all paying for it and soon could be paying even more for it, it most certainly impacts everyone. I also said I am not for restricting their rights. That said, I don't prefer anyone get special attention due to their lifestyle either. I would like to know where government funded research and healthcare spending on AIDS ranks in relation to other diseases. I would say it is completely out of whack in the wrong direction.
 
#100
#100
allvol123 said:
I never said to restrict anyone's rights. I said it impacts healthcare and since we're all paying for it and soon could be paying even more for it, it most certainly impacts everyone. I also said I am not for restricting their rights. That said, I don't prefer anyone get special attention due to their lifestyle either. I would like to know where government funded research and healthcare spending on AIDS ranks in relation to other diseases. I would say it is completely out of whack in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...
I can't think of any way that gov't ordained homosexual marriage would increase our healthcare costs. In fact, with gov't approved marriage: (1) We might see more monogamous homosexual relationships and, hence, less proliferation of AIDS;(2) Employees would continue bear much of the brunt of monthly healthcare costs in group plans, so adding people to group plans via family rates would happen slightly more, but wouldn't really impact employer provided healthcare; and (3) Homosexual coupling is happening today and is not likely to increase as the result of the government recognizing it. Implying that AIDS incidences would increase just makes no sense. As to the medical tab, it's either picked up by insurance, the individual, the gov't or eaten by the provider today. That will not change going forward.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top