Hillary wins Pennsylvania...

#101
#101
JZVOL said:
Based on scientific evidence posted above, not religious views it is asinine to give rights to people who are gay. I'm not saying it should be outlawed by a law, but creating laws for them is a joke.

A 1997 New York Times article reported that a young male homosexual has about a 50 percent chance of getting HIV by middle age. (Sheryl Gay Stolberg, "Gay Culture Weighs Sense and Sexuality," New York Times (Late edition, east coast), November 23, 1997, section 4, p.1)

As of 1998, 54 percent of all AIDS cases in America were homosexual men and according to the Center for Disease Control (CDC) nearly 90 percent of these men acquired HIV through sexual activity with other men. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998, June, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 10 (1)).
Click to expand...

You ever heard of Africa?

Gay men who take preventative measures reduce their risk, just like everyone else.

But, since we are on the topic, should lesbians be allowed to marry since they are a lower risk group?
 
#102
#102
BigPapaVol said:
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.
Click to expand...

I honestly think you are parlaying another discussion into ours:

1) Note the part where I said I am not for restricting anyone's rights. That would include marriage.
2) I never brought up any conversation about AIDS incidences increasing in regards to any policy one way or another.
3) There is finite intellectual capacity and money and other things. I am against improper funding for a disease that is not nearly the plague that it was proposed to be.
4) As to the part in bold...and? This is good? I assume the government runs on money I and others pay...?
 
#103
#103
allvol123 said:
I honestly think you are parlaying another discussion into ours:

1) Note the part where I said I am not for restricting anyone's rights. That would include marriage.
2) I never brought up any conversation about AIDS incidences increasing in regards to any policy one way or another.
3) There is finite intellectual capacity and money and other things. I am against improper funding for a disease that is not nearly the plague that it was proposed to be.
Click to expand...
did I miss something? I thought you twice brought up the healthcare angle.

Regardless, I still think the healthcare side of the argument against gay marriage is weak, at best.

Let's just call it what it is. It's a point driven by the religious right, who believe homosexuality to be an abomination. All of the other arguments are simply window dressing, generated by them to support their worldview.
 
#104
#104
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...
:thumbsup: i simply do not care about gay rights. and for the life of me, haven't figure out why they should matter to anyone, relative to what the goverment really has to worry about. this issue is politics at its best. reduce my taxes, better educate my children, help reduce healthcare costs, clean up the environment, bring jobs home, and do something...anything...about fixing the whole Iraq/middle east situation that doesn't cost more lives, domestic or abroad.

all of these are more important than whether or not Jim and John or Betty and Sue can get married or not.
 
#105
#105
BigPapaVol said:
did I miss something? I thought you twice brought up the healthcare angle.

Regardless, I still think the healthcare side of the argument against gay marriage is weak, at best.

Let's just call it what it is. It's a point driven by the religious right, who believe homosexuality to be an abomination. All of the other arguments are simply window dressing, generated by them to support their worldview.
Click to expand...

I brought up healthcare...not in relation to marriage...just in relation to homosexuality and if it impacts non-homosexuals in any way.

Again...not bringing up healthcare in regards to homosexual marriage.

You call it what you like. I call it people can't rationally discuss homosexuality without one side calling the other side "homophobes". AIDS cost money....homosexuality most certianly is a demographic that unproportionately drives this disease. Do what you want...I don't really care...but it does have an impact. That is undeniable.
 
#106
#106
allvol123 said:
I brought up healthcare...not in relation to marriage...just in relation to homosexuality and if it impacts non-homosexuals in any way.

Again...not bringing up healthcare in regards to homosexual marriage.

You call it what you like. I call it people can't rationally discuss homosexuality without one side calling the other side "homophobes". AIDS cost money....homosexuality most certianly is a demographic that unproportionately drives this disease. Do what you want...I don't really care...but it does have an impact. That is undeniable.
Click to expand...
But the incidence of AIDS is not going to be changed if the US gov't legalizes same sex marriages.

AIDS has no business in the debate about same sex marriages.

If incidence of disease drives how we view the institution of marriage, then maybe we should do away with marriage completely, because I am certain that wives and heart disease have an enormous correlation coefficient.
 
#107
#107
Again...bringing in an argument someone else was making. Not going to go back and read...but don't think I ever discussed the marriage issue in any of this, except when I said I don't believe in restricting anyone's rights.
 
#108
#108
BigPapaVol said:
But the incidence of AIDS is not going to be changed if the US gov't legalizes same sex marriages.

AIDS has no business in the debate about same sex marriages.

If incidence of disease drives how we view the institution of marriage, then maybe we should do away with marriage completely, because I am certain that wives and heart disease have an enormous correlation coefficient.
Click to expand...

well said on all fronts. and you managed to work in "correlation coefficient."
 
#109
#109
myrobbins7 said:
I think what he said in San Fran. came back to bite him with REAL Americans. He can talk his left wing crap out there on the left coast and sooner than later it will come back to ya in everyday America. The longer this race goes on and the more Obama talks, the easier it gets for McCain. Keep talking Obama, keep talking..
Click to expand...


easier? I know of nothing to indicate that anything will be easy for McCain in the general election, let alone "easier."
 
#110
#110
All Vol! said:
easier? I know of nothing to indicate that anything will be easy for McCain in the general election, let alone "easier."
Click to expand...

Right now it is easy for McCain. He gets to sit back and watch these two go at it while he saves money for the election push. That will change later of coarse but this democratic run off is probably the best case scenario for a Rep. candidate running after the Bush presidency.
 
#115
#115
allvol123 said:
I was being saracastic. It is some bill about legislating equal pay for women and extending the period for allowing them to sue a company for unfair pay practices. Whatever. Glad he opposed it. Here it is if you want to read it, an article, not the bill.
McCain opposes equal pay bill in Senate - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...

every study has shown that the average women works less hours that the average man, thus the difference in pay.
 
#116
#116
droski said:
every study has shown that the average women works less hours that the average man, thus the difference in pay.
Click to expand...

Not to mention women rack up more cost for health care of which the company pays a portion in premiums.
 
#117
#117
droski said:
every study has shown that the average women works less hours that the average man, thus the difference in pay.
Click to expand...

I loved how the sued because she made $6500 less than the lowest paid supervisor at the time. Ever consider that you just suck? Nah...that is impossible.
 
#118
#118
allvol123 said:
I loved how the sued because she made $6500 less than the lowest paid supervisor at the time. Ever consider that you just suck? Nah...that is impossible.
Click to expand...

and i'm sure it had nothing to do with the days you take off because johnny had the flu or you had your period.
 
#120
#120
Whoa now boys....just now coming across this thread, and at what a perfect time I see!

First of all, I do not support that bill either. Not because I do not believe women should be paid equally, but because I do not believe salary levels should be legislated. And also, I believe the bill is bad legislation because it will put an unneccessary strain on businesses - small businesses in particular - that would be forced to increase the salaries of women in their company that may be paid less than the men. This bill will kill small business.

But, please tell me you all do not think the bill should not be supported because -- you think -- women are paid less because of higher health care costs...? And you did not say because she had her period?
 
#122
#122
Gr82BATennVol said:
Whoa now boys....just now coming across this thread, and at what a perfect time I see!

First of all, I do not support that bill either. Not because I do not believe women should be paid equally, but because I do not believe salary levels should be legislated. And also, I believe the bill is bad legislation because it will put an unneccessary strain on businesses - small businesses in particular - that would be forced to increase the salaries of women in their company that may be paid less than the men. This bill will kill small business.

But, please tell me you all do not think the bill should not be supported because -- you think -- women are paid less because of higher health care costs...? And you did not say because she had her period?
Click to expand...


Come on now...... women call off for silly stuff all the time.

My peroid is going to start in three days so I need off to eat chocolate and watch Dr. Phil.

You know it is true!
 
#124
#124
OrangeEmpire said:
Come on now...... women call off for silly stuff all the time.

My peroid is going to start in three days so I need off to eat chocolate and watch Dr. Phil.

You know it is true!
Click to expand...

:post-4-1090547912:

I am glad to know some other guys in here have had to work with women.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top