Keep up the Great work Dwyer!

[vraiblonde]

ANd what about Sodom and Gomorrah?? What is sodomy exactly?? In the biblical sense? Why did GOd destroy the city? Turn people to pillars or salt? Saying he or the bible doesn't mention it is just an omission of fact for your own satisfaction.

She said "Jesus", not "God". All the anti-homosexuality stuff is in the OT. Jesus doesn't mention it, that I'm aware of.

And just a reminder:

Matthew 7
1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me cast out the mote out of thine eye; and lo, the beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

If you, as a Christian, have been living according to the Word, then you will be rewarded. It doesn't say anything about forcing others to live by the Word. In fact, the Bible is fairly specific that you're supposed to mind your business and worry about your own self, and let God worry about everyone else.

 

[This_person]

As for the gay marriage ban....I've written my state senator any number of times (Roy Dyson, co-sponsor of the bill, single man.....never married ) and havent recieved one reply. I can understand how straight people might think gay marriage would devalue the meaning of the word "marriage". Ive asked him how do gay couples get around issues such as health insurance benefits (when the word "spouse" is needed to include a partner in the plan and how retirement benefits wouldnt be transferrable to a partner as they would a "spouse".
The silence is deafening!

You're making my point about stability enforcement. If one type of relationship is recognized for these types of things, then we would need to recognize so many other types, and the stability would be limited. If my coworker buddy wants to shack up with two women, and my company needs to provide them insurance, then my company's insurance rates would naturally go up. Either I get less benefits, or I have to pick up a higher amount of the difference. Let's stick to a dictionary definition of marriage, provide for that stable setup, and call it a day.

 

[Kyle]

... In fact, the Bible is fairly specific that you're supposed to mind your business and worry about your own self, and let God worry about everyone else.

Sounds like a Libertarian.

 

[Merlin99]

You're making my point about stability enforcement. If one type of relationship is recognized for these types of things, then we would need to recognize so many other types, and the stability would be limited. If my coworker buddy wants to shack up with two women, and my company needs to provide them insurance, then my company's insurance rates would naturally go up. Either I get less benefits, or I have to pick up a higher amount of the difference. Let's stick to a dictionary definition of marriage, provide for that stable setup, and call it a day.

As I understand your point, no child should be covered by your employers insurance because naturally your rates would go up? Seem like an all about me attitude.

 

[This_person]

As I understand your point, no child should be covered by your employers insurance because naturally your rates would go up? Seem like an all about me attitude.

An illegitimate child out of wedlock? Maybe you're right - or, rather, that parent should pay a premium price. A child born of a dictionary definition of marriage? Nope, that would be that stable setup I'm talking about. It's not "all about me", it's "all about the stable society." I could see where that could be confusing, because when there's a society that tries to accept everyone regardless of who or what they are there's no stability, so people don't understand real community moral standards. We live in a society where our entertainment industry tries to teach us that if we don't accept all people equally with open arms, we're bad people. We're being force fed a culture of people living together "in sin" (as it used to be called), having children out of wedlock and getting divorced as easy as pie, multiple partners being the norm, presidents who can't figure out if oral SEX is sex, people breaking into our country being treated similarly or better to people who follow the rules, etc. In that culture, it's hard to figure out the difference between "all about me", and "don't screw me" as an attitude. I hope I've helped clarify this for you.

 

[Geek]

An illegitimate child out of wedlock? Maybe you're right - or, rather, that parent should pay a premium price. A child born of a dictionary definition of marriage? Nope, that would be that stable setup I'm talking about. It's not "all about me", it's "all about the stable society." I could see where that could be confusing, because when there's a society that tries to accept everyone regardless of who or what they are there's no stability, so people don't understand real community moral standards. We live in a society where our entertainment industry tries to teach us that if we don't accept all people equally with open arms, we're bad people. We're being force fed a culture of people living together "in sin" (as it used to be called), having children out of wedlock and getting divorced as easy as pie, multiple partners being the norm, presidents who can't figure out if oral SEX is sex, people breaking into our country being treated similarly or better to people who follow the rules, etc. In that culture, it's hard to figure out the difference between "all about me", and "don't screw me" as an attitude. I hope I've helped clarify this for you.

One of the reasons America was founded was to prevent mob mentality morality. Freedom of religon. And the entertainment industry isn't teaching you that. Jesus was. The entertainment industry is trying to take your money. I hope I've helped clarify this for you

 

[Ken King]

If my coworker buddy wants to shack up with two women, and my company needs to provide them insurance, then my company's insurance rates would naturally go up. Either I get less benefits, or I have to pick up a higher amount of the difference.

How? Insurance rates are for "self-only" or "with family", as such wouldn't your scenario simply fall under the with family rate and not impact your rates at all?

 

[This_person]

One of the reasons America was founded was to prevent mob mentality morality. Freedom of religon. And the entertainment industry isn't teaching you that. Jesus was. The entertainment industry is trying to take your money. I hope I've helped clarify this for you

I agree with freedom of religion - one of the biggies of our Constitution. I shouldn't tell you what you should do, and you shouldn't tell me. When movies, TV, and even the "news"media try and push that I should "accept", vice tolerate, certain people or lifestyles I have to disagree. And, remember, freedom OF religion is not freedom FROM religion. Not only do you have the right (even obligation) to tell me I'm wrong, I have the right to think and act the way I do with the same expectation of tolerance (not acceptance). I agree that Jesus taught me that I shouldn't judge ("let he without sin cast the first stone", etc.), and that people should think for themselves without governement interference ("render unto Cesar what is Cesar's..."), but I don't think that's what the entertainment industry is trying to do (take my money, well heck yes they are). I think "mob mentality morality" isn't really the same thing as community moral standards. The concept is, I'll grant you, a pretty complicated and deep one. I think the difference is the same as book burning vs not buying certain books. You might find it hard to believe based on what I've written here, but I think book burning is pretty damned stupid. Leave in the library what was decided by the (community paid, community enforced) librarians as to what should be there. If a book is never checked out because the vast majority of the community finds it distasteful, that's equally okay. If a store wants to stock Oui magazine, let 'em! Then, a community with real standards just won't buy the filth. Pretty soon, the local community store won't stock it anymore, and the library won't stock distasteful books. Other communities will. Let the filth move to those communities. Similarly, it's a proven standard that marriage and family and some religious belief and practice are good for the community at large. I'm not saying which belief, because the fact is it really doesn't matter much (most teach the same basic moralities). It matters a lot to the person practicing, but not to the community stability at large. As a society, as a government, we should try to encourage those standards, for all of our benefit. Nothing specific mind you, just the big picture. And, not stop others from being what they are, just encourage the higher standards (higher in the respect that they are good for a community).

Think cigarettes. We tax them higher than most other things because it encourages people not to smoke. We don't stop people from smoking. But, we know (for decades now) that cigarettes are harmful to a community - in health standards, medical costs for all (second hand smoke, hospital costs for those requiring government paid medical care, etc), increased fires which raises everyone's insurance and risks even those who don't smoke, etc. The list goes on and on for how smoking is bad. But, we don't stop people from smoking. We encourage people not to by taxation and rules limiting the desire to start, helping people stop, and generally making it less fun to do.

Marriage is clearly a bigger picture, more complicated matter than smoking. Certainly there are people who are married who do not raise the community standard (see: Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich). And, certainly there are homosexual relationships that DO raise the community moral standard (see: Ellen Degeneres). But, laws can't be written for the exceptions, they must be written for the statistical norm.

Helpful?

 

[This_person]

How? Insurance rates are for "self-only" or "with family", as such wouldn't your scenario simply fall under the with family rate and not impact your rates at all?

You're thinking small picture. The rates of insurance are based on how many people they cover and what risk those people are. This year, this rate applies based on "self-only" or "with family". Next year, the rates vary for a company, thus what the company will cover. Don't think that they're gonna limit their profit margin to cover a higher insurance cost. All employees get less coverage, or your portion of the rates goes up, however your company works.

 

[Ken King]

You're thinking small picture. The rates of insurance are based on how many people they cover and what risk those people are. This year, this rate applies based on "self-only" or "with family". Next year, the rates vary for a company, thus what the company will cover. Don't think that they're gonna limit their profit margin to cover a higher insurance cost. All employees get less coverage, or your portion of the rates goes up, however your company works.

And you're thinking a small picture also, each time an employee has a child it doesn't result in a change in the insurance rates, with family rates are the same whether you have only a spouse or if you have a spouse and 15 children.

 

[Tonio]

a bill that would add an amendment to the state constitution banning the teaching of same-sex relationships in public schools.

That wording of the article is vague to me. It sounds like the bill's proponents believe that schools are teaching students to convert to homosexuality, as opposed to simply teaching that homosexuality exists. In any case, I believe the latter does NOT have the effect of encouraging kids or anyone else to become gay. While I respect that some parents believe that homosexuality is immoral, it is not the job of public schools to render a moral judgment on homosexuality.

 

[This_person]

And you're thinking a small picture also, each time an employee has a child it doesn't result in a change in the insurance rates, with family rates are the same whether you have only a spouse or if you have a spouse and 15 children.

If you believe the insurance company charges the same thing to an employer whether they have 2 people they're covering, or 17, then I'll just say okay I must be wrong and move on. Heck, I'll bet you're right. I'll bet that if I have one car or seven, it won't change my rates 'cuz I can only drive one car at a time, right? And, if a company hires 3,000 new employees, their overall rates don't change, just the individual's rate of self or with family. Why do I hear so much about small business rates vs big business rates then. They must be fooling me, trying to get my sympathies.

 

[aps45819]

That wording of the article is vague to me. It sounds like the bill's proponents believe that schools are teaching students to convert to homosexuality, as opposed to simply teaching that homosexuality exists. In any case, I believe the latter does NOT have the effect of encouraging kids or anyone else to become gay. While I respect that some parents believe that homosexuality is immoral, it is not the job of public schools to render a moral judgment on homosexuality.

Why would the schools be teaching recreational sex? I was under the impression that the sex-ed classes were to inform the kids about the reproductive process.
Homosexuality is NOT a reproductive process.

 

[Ken King]

If you believe the insurance company charges the same thing to an employer whether they have 2 people they're covering, or 17, then I'll just say okay I must be wrong and move on. Heck, I'll bet you're right. I'll bet that if I have one car or seven, it won't change my rates 'cuz I can only drive one car at a time, right? And, if a company hires 3,000 new employees, their overall rates don't change, just the individual's rate of self or with family. Why do I hear so much about small business rates vs big business rates then. They must be fooling me, trying to get my sympathies.

You're comparing apples and oranges (auto versus health insurance). There might be a company or two that have rates for "self", "self and spouse only", and "family", but I challenge you to show me one that breaks it down to a per child difference.

 

[Tonio]

Why would the schools be teaching recreational sex? I was under the impression that the sex-ed classes were to inform the kids about the reproductive process.
Homosexuality is NOT a reproductive process.

My understanding of high-school sex ed was that it was intended to explain the various sexual facts and issues and controversies. Simply focusing on the reproductive process would be too narrow, in my view. It leaves out things like the emotional aspects of entering puberty, STDs, and peer pressure.

 

[This_person]

You're comparing apples and oranges (auto versus health insurance). There might be a company or two that have rates for "self", "self and spouse only", and "family", but I challenge you to show me one that breaks it down to a per child difference.

In the words of Barney Frank, I can read it to you, but I can't understand it for you. I'm not talking the cost to you today. I'm talking the cost to the company as a whole year after year - then what they can provide the employee and maintain their profit margin. If a company has 100 employees who have no children nor spouses, or if a company has 100 employees and they all have 27 children, there will be a different rate to the company. Now, the company breaks that rate down, and passes the cost on to the employee based on what per centage of their profit they'll allow into employee benefits. Some simply pay a certain amount of money, some change the actual coverage they'll package to the employee based on the cost. You pay based on that breakdown.

Let's say you work in an office with 20 other people. They have a statistical norm of marriages, children, etc. Now, let's say that your company decides to provide coverage for extended families - the employee's parents, siblings, hair dresser, whatever. Do you think the same rate applies now? No. It will go up, because the insurance company is paying for more people. That's why you have to tell them who your dependants are and prove they are your dependants. Now, take that to the issue at hand. Let's say that your work in that same office with the same statistical norm breakdown of people. Suddenly the company covers same-sex unions, and thus must cover all non-marriage partners. A statistically significant larger number of people will be covered, thus the rates to the company will go up. Thus, they'll either cut some benefits to the employee to maintain their profit margin, or they'll pass the higher cost onto the employee.

 

[This_person]

My understanding of high-school sex ed was that it was intended to explain the various sexual facts and issues and controversies. Simply focusing on the reproductive process would be too narrow, in my view. It leaves out things like the emotional aspects of entering puberty, STDs, and peer pressure.

Wouldn't those issues be best left to the parents? When getting to how to handle emotional aspects of anything, peer pressure, etc., it's my personal belief that those issues should not be blanket taught by the school. The science of human reproduction, the science of puberty and thus what to expect - well sure. But, how (or even whether) to handle STD's and the emotional feels of puberty sound like parental issues. If the schools covered all aspects of the controversies associated with sex, that'd take a full school year going full time on nothing else. I think what most people assume is that the school would only teach one side of a controversy - thus enforcing only one idea that may not be the same as the parents (teaching to accept something their parents would like to teach them to only tolerate). Schools should teach facts, not weigh in on controversies, in my opinion.

 

[Geek]

That wording of the article is vague to me. It sounds like the bill's proponents believe that schools are teaching students to convert to homosexuality, as opposed to simply teaching that homosexuality exists. In any case, I believe the latter does NOT have the effect of encouraging kids or anyone else to become gay. While I respect that some parents believe that homosexuality is immoral, it is not the job of public schools to render a moral judgment on homosexuality.

Well said (I am a Tonio fan)

 

[Tonio]

Wouldn't those issues be best left to the parents?

It's an unfortunate reality that teachers often have to confront those issues when teaching sex ed, even when they make an effort to stick to the reproductive mechanics. It's often difficult to separate the factual from the emotional in the area of sex, especially for teenagers. And some teens feel more comfortable talking about those issues with their teachers than with their parents, which is another unfortunate reality.

I think what most people assume is that the school would only teach one side of a controversy

Why would they? Some high schools teach courses on comparative religions, and the objective is not to favor any one religion. Surely teachers can handle sexual controversies with the same type of neutrality.

 

[Ken King]

In the words of Barney Frank, I can read it to you, but I can't understand it for you. I'm not talking the cost to you today. I'm talking the cost to the company as a whole year after year - then what they can provide the employee and maintain their profit margin. If a company has 100 employees who have no children nor spouses, or if a company has 100 employees and they all have 27 children, there will be a different rate to the company. Now, the company breaks that rate down, and passes the cost on to the employee based on what per centage of their profit they'll allow into employee benefits. Some simply pay a certain amount of money, some change the actual coverage they'll package to the employee based on the cost. You pay based on that breakdown.

Let's say you work in an office with 20 other people. They have a statistical norm of marriages, children, etc. Now, let's say that your company decides to provide coverage for extended families - the employee's parents, siblings, hair dresser, whatever. Do you think the same rate applies now? No. It will go up, because the insurance company is paying for more people. That's why you have to tell them who your dependants are and prove they are your dependants. Now, take that to the issue at hand. Let's say that your work in that same office with the same statistical norm breakdown of people. Suddenly the company covers same-sex unions, and thus must cover all non-marriage partners. A statistically significant larger number of people will be covered, thus the rates to the company will go up. Thus, they'll either cut some benefits to the employee to maintain their profit margin, or they'll pass the higher cost onto the employee.

Okay, so you can't find an insurance company that charges differently per child, thought so. Also if a company covers same-sex unions along with standard marriages what makes you think that they would have to cover non-married partners? Blowing smoke a hobby or a profession for you?