 | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Absent regulation preventing them from doing so, yes. However, in the world today insurance companies are heavily regulated as to who they can or can't cover and how they go about determining risk factors or premiums. So, no. Unfortunately. (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) And that's all a matter for the individual insurance companies to work out with their customers, right? Chris (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) I knew that. What I don't know is why. Why are you opposed to those in particular? (...) I can absolutely respect yor right to believe that and even to belong to an organization that believes that, such as a church. I would rather see marriage (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Does it? Why must marriage be a special case of contract? (...) I think that if polygamy became popular the insurance companies would have ways of covering their budgets worked out way before it mattered. It is frankly startling to me that (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
I don't see a problem with this either, except.... Some insurance companies essentially provide a "Bulk Discount" for dependents - the more you have, the less you pay per dependent. I think this is wrong. You are encouraging multiple dependents in (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
Given that explanation, I think we both agree that discussion of "inherent rights" must assume that it is a social/legal construct. And that discussions of these general topics might be better served focussing on "inherent preferences." At least (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) I did. Notice -->Bruce<-- chose a secondary definition, not the primary one. The cheek:-) (...) THIS IS PRECIOUSLY MY POINT!!! (I'm screaming, but not at you). This is what our kids are being taught! It's REVISIONIST and WRONG! (...) Then I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
I've written here before that I think it would be more valuable to reframe the entire notion of rights as responsibilities. I think the absolutism of rights is easy to get tripped up on. (At least for me.) (...) One common stance is that an entity (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Hopefully you mean "best possible within economic reason." Also, I'd like to see how the "stable relationship":"good start" metrics are compiled (you're reporting actual findings, right...not just opinion or impression?). Further, since I know (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks wrote: As long as no one is being harmed, they should go for it. The (...) I just knew there was someone out there who thought exactly the same as I did... well put, Chris! Pedro (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:HzIHou.1yEv@lugnet.com... (...) example. (...) they (...) you (...) wives (...) could take (...) able (...) Insurance companies have always had to deal with an unbounded number of dependants - (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Don't you? I mean, the way US laws are written, I believe there are rights provided to married couples that wouldn't be to anyone under something like 'civil unions'. Speaking of which, is that what you're advocating? If so, how would a 'civil (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) This is a very nice summation, overall. (...) A good distinction to bear in mind. I don't think I have the ammunition to prove my case scientifically, so I should probably say I'm aiming for the philosophical angle. To clarify: By "inherent (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:HzICys.15Iv@lugnet.com... (...) as if (...) The (...) same (...) I've definitely had some trouble with the origin of rights. They feel inherent, yet it also seems generally accepted (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) My feeling is that it is the responsibility of government to ensure our children are provided with the best possible opportunities in childhood. It just so happens that children who are cared for by parents who are in a stable relationship (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) The problem here is the conflation of legal notion with absolute reality. Rights are the legal/political expression of an aesthetic that nearly everyone (involved in the discussion) supports. While I wrote before that I was siding with John, (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) I can accept your formulation more readily because it doesn't appeal to deus ex machina, but I'm not comfortable with the notion of "inherency." How is inherency identified/verified, and who gets to decide what is inherent? Hmm. Now that I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) But it does demonstrate irrefutably that those rights are not inalienable, contrary to the assertion of the founding fathers. Inalienable rights that can be taken away aren't very inalienable. And in all practical ways, rights that are utterly (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) When you are oppressed you retain your rights. There are only two ways to be rid of rights: to surrender them (dangerously easy to do by mistake), and to have them taken from you through due process as established by the US Constitution. I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Back to the Real Wasteland of the mind
|
|
(...) Where's that from? I think I might have one, but I can't remember where I got it. Dave! (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
John, I want to go back and apologize for saying that one thing or another that you wrote sounds dumb. It was a stupid way for me to communicate. (...) OK, I'll approach this seriously. To claim that our society is "founded" upon any thing(s) (by (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) But you also seem to believe that the majority should be able to make anything illegal if it offends their sensibilities. Right? (...) Why? John, you have asserted time and again that I can't know what the result of making the changes that I (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) I'm not sure why you're missing my point. I'm OK with any sort of union between any number of people (or, if in future other species are uplifted or discovered such that they can give informed consent) or other species as long as everyone (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) So, John, do you oppose all change in definition? Chris (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Wait a minute...you said to go look it up. Did you mean in the Bible? I assumed you meant in the dictionary. (...) What?!? Encarta is the most widely used tool for elementary-school research in the United States. I thought you wanted us to (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Indeed. (...) Not my cup of tea. (...) Hmm... Not my cup of tea either (I think my daughter has more sense than that) (...) Not my cup of tea either (my mom had issues, and we never had a very handsome dog) If you can get informed consent from (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 9/11 Panel: No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda
|
|
(...) Steve Bell gets it right again: (URL) (...) (URL) Blair on WMD>: "Saddam retained complete strategic intent to develop those weapons". Scott A (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Speaking of changing definitions-- I wonder how old that definition is! (...) Okay, can't you see how wrong and biased that is! Astonishing! (Evil indeed;-) (...) You green-eyed bigot! :-) Why do you draw the limit at 2??? How do you feel (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) I have no problem ending such inequities WRT to married couples verses gays. You don't have to redefine marriage to correct those wrongs! (...) I agree. (...) You assume incorrectly! The government is a terrible arbiter of right and wrong! (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Merriam-Webster: marriage: (2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage Foul ball (counts as Strike one). You are using the term "marriage" to mean "traditional marriage", (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
I have to admit, being a Massachusetts-ite, this subject line piqued my interest. Pardon while I crash the party... (...) Doesn't it though? I think Larry quoted the rights quite accurately. But you can get more specific than that if you're (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) A reason to give one pause in its own right! :-) JOHN (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) What is your point? Don't be such a coward. Define it! (...) You mean by changing definition. JOHN (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Nicely put. And it also nice to find myself on the same team as Larry (at least occaisionally :-). Richard Still baldly going... (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) A definition. NOT The definition. This point seems lost on you. Which is why you lose the debate. By definition. (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) You are deliberately misinterpreting the Bill of Rights. Of course that Amendment had nothing to do with the concept of marriage. (...) The definition of marriage is the union of one man and one women. NO gay person is excluded from entering (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) Oh my god, Larry. That was beautiful. Perhaps the single best post I've read in OTD ever. -lenny (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
|
(...) Sure, IRL, but I was speaking theoretically, as I believe were the FF. Merely because someone is able to oppress me and take away my rights doesn't justify it. (...) That is precisely why I claim they are divinely-endowed, so that no one has (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Back to the Real Wasteland of the mind
|
|
(...) No bet unless you're offering mighty attractive odds (say "lottery" odds of 1:1M or better... say, my single 1x1 red brick with eye printed on it against your entire collection). Clinton's blamable for bin Laden still being out there, he had (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Gay Marriage
|
|
(...) I'll cite the Bill of Rights to the US Constitution. You even know the amendment... it's the one that discusses the right of citizens to associate (or not) as they choose. Then I'll cite contract law in general. People can enter into (or not (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
