And Gay Marriage Has Actually Hurt Humanity In What Way(s)??

I think that homosexual people being allowed to marry has improved the lives of MANY people overall.

Can anyone please relate what they believe to be a problem with homosexual people being married?

 

I think that the government endorsement of a relationship aspect is separable from the tax discrimination aspect. I don't think your relationship status should matter at all when it comes to tax. If at all, do deductions based on members of the household.

On the government endorsement of relationships side of things, I think that they have no business being involved. Get out of my life, geez. Get rid of all state regulation of marriage. It makes no sense. If you want to get special rings and join in holy Klingon marriage, go right ahead. Call it what you like.

[hr][/hr]

The Christians should be the most opposed to all this regulation - get government out of the sacrament!

 

So, you see no problems with homosexuals marrying one another?

 

How is that any of my business? They can do what they like.

How can signing a voluntary contract and having a party be a problem? I see absolutely no problem.

 

Those opposing Gay Marriage are simply and wrongly attempting to impose their own morality on everyone else.

Just as with the Abortion issue it is absolutely none of their business, pretending otherwise is egotistical and indicates an overdeveloped sense of importance.

 

I'm sure it has for the gay couples that have been allowed....

but economics 1:01 saying that same-sex partners getting one full price rate, and one "spouse rate" for insurance when prior, they had to pay for 2 single coverages, means that difference is made up by preexisting policy holders.... ie - me

so while you may not care that it affects me, it does affect me in my pocket book

- - - Updated - - -

has NOTHING to do with my morality.... only one can judge your lifestyle right or wrong morally, and that isn't me. I base my objections on Economics 1:01 that I explained above

it is my business when people feel I should pay for it

 

Did you also complain when opposite sex couples got married?

And, I was unaware that you paid for abortions unless your partner asked you to.

 

So- how long before us gay people demanded our rights were you fighting to get government out of marriage?

BTW- you don't have to get a marriage license. It's completely optional. Go to church and have a ceremony. The government will leave you completely alone.

I think what you really don't like is same sex couples being treated equally under the law.

 

Then I should not have to pay for heterosexuals' spouses either. When you take them off health insurance too, we'll talk.

 

no, but since 'lower insurance premiums' is not a constitutionally protected right.... I am under no obligation to be "fair"


like I said, I'm not arguing that point, you don't have to like my reason... but it is valid and it has nothing to do with morality from religion.

people are arguing that women should have govt assistance (ie - on the taxpayer dime.... my dime) if they are raped and need an abortion. Why? I'm sorry you got raped, sorry you don't want the kid. I don't blame you at all, but the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for your unwanted child, no matter what the reason, anymore than the taxpayer being forced to pay for your HIV medications if you get HIV as a result of rape.

 

Well if that is what economics says- you should be able to monetize the additional amount that is costing you- right?

It sounds to me like your issue is with how corporate insurance works, not with 'gay marriage'.

 

Fascinating.

Should that woman who is raped have police respond to that rape on your dime? Should EMT's respond to save her life if she is injured during the rape on your dime?

I mean I do kind of get this purist Libertarian schtick- you shouldn't have to pay for anything except what you personally need from government- and to hell with anyone else.

I disagree.

Not really on topic- since "Gay Marriage" just means treating same gender couples legally the same as existing opposite gender couples, but it is fascinating insight into what really motivates Conservatives.

 

I could grant you that.... no problem.... but that still doesn't obligate me to care. All I was asked is how does it affect me.... this is how... it may be indirectly, but it still affects me.

maybe instead of being quick to call people homophobes (which hasn't been done in this thread yet... YET.....) maybe people should actually see why people are against gay marriage and target fixing THOSE problems.... not try and badger people into submission or silence.


the standard tactic is to attack religion and call the opposition bigots..... neither one applies to me or my argument

 

I see, so based on the unconfirmed rise in insurance costs (rather weak), and the people arguing for something unlikely to happen, you have made decisions and formed opinion. Many people try to use actual data and reality to form opinion, as it tends to be more accurate.

 

So indirectly that you really can't even measure whether it does. And if it does, it affects you only in the same way that any other marriage affects you.

Well that is what the OP is asking isn't it?

The only response you gave was more a hypothetical than a real answer- you think it could possibly cost some people(those who belong to group insurance plans who offer discounted spousal rates), but in only in the same manner that EVERY married couple would affect you.

And no one has done either here. You are raising that issue.

 

But we both know you're not against same sex marriage because your premiums go up(which they don't). We both know you simply don't like homosexuals. At least be honest about that.

 

it's simple supply and demand that any highschool education Economics course can show.... it's simple extrapolation from studying. Do you want me to site Isaac Newtons stats whenever I claim an apple will hit you on the head if you sit under the apple tree when it falls, or can you extrapolate on your own.


again, I know you don't agree with my reasons, and can margainalize exactly how much I "lose" by it and say the amount SHOULDN'T matter to me... but it does affect me. I run no risk of losing my HC over a premium increase of $xx.xx a month... but that's not to say someone else can eat that cost....

but your inability to fix the real problem, still does not justify you passing your costs down to me because I'm an easier target

simple fact is.... gay males are a riskier group to insure.... study after study from the CDC has backed that gay men are at higher risks for HIV/AIDS.

for insurers... risk = money

 

getting close to the "if you don't like us... you must be a bigot" defense.


just because you say it doesn't go up, does not mean it doesn't. the best that has ever been show is it doesn't go up "that much" but "that much" being affordable to people that have to pay it is subjective on yours and my part. I can afford it.... I could also afford $10/gal gas.... doesn't mean I should be forced to pay $10/gal to subsidize something for just you....

 

But your premiums aren't going up.

- - - Updated - - -

No, they are not going up. If you wish to pretend they do, then post your EoB for your policy and cite exactly where your premiums went up because a gay couple got married.

 

start a thread about how heterosexual marraiges affect me, and we'll be in agreement... but that's not what this thread is about...



[/quote]Well that is what the OP is asking isn't it?[/quote]

and I'm answering it.... here's why I don't support giving another group a handout....

again, not what this thread is about. the childish tactic of "why can't I have a toy, Billy's mom bought him a toy, I want a toy too" argument doesn't apply when you're dipping into my pocketbook. address that problem, which I agree with you, and we can talk

that's what I pointed out. Noone in this thread has done that ..... but, it's just a matter of time before this thread goes that way....

- - - Updated - - -

thats because I live in FL. At this point, because of the state I live in doesn't allow gay marraige... I am running a 'prevent defense'

just because it's not CURRENTLY affected, doesn't mean I have to wait until it does to argue economics 1:01

 

It is an unsupported assumption. As someone who actually studied Economics up to the graduate level, I can say that there is little that is actually simple 'supply and demand' and health insurance premiums are certainly not one of them.

At this point your objection to gay marriage relies upon your unsubstantiated fear that it may make your health insurance more expensive.

Different issue of course. Gay males are insured regardless of whether or not there is gay marriage.

If I were to assume like you do, I would assume that a gay man who gets married is less likely to get HIV/AIDS and therefore gay marriage would ultimately reduce your health insurance costs. But that would be an unsubstantiated assumption, and I wouldn't want to make that claim.

 

Actually it is part of what this thread is about.

You stated your objection to gay marriage is your unsubstantiated assumption that 'gay marriage' will increase your health care premiums.

That assumption actually would be testable- I mean if you wanted to operate on facts rather than assumptions.

Just fine out how much of your current healthcare premium is for spousal supports.

If none of it is, then your argument is completely empty.

 

But same sex marriages don't increase your insurance premiums. There is already a rate for spousal coverage in your state. Same sex marriages don't affect that.

 

edit coming, I see what you asked....

 

Legal in your state or not is irrelevant. There is already premiums set by your states department of insurance for spousal coverage. Same sex marriages being legal in your state do not affect that. So, like I've said three times now, your premiums are not affected by same sex marriage.

Just admit you don't like homosexuals because your economics 101 argument is invalid.