We’re having some sort of technical problem with the “same sex” thread, you can’t read any of the replies after the one on the end of the first page, so I’ve alerted the techs, closed the thread, and started this new one. Please carry on from where the thread can be read.
(Not copying the last one over because I don’t know what element of that thread’s gone bad and I don’t want to contaminate the new thread.)
your humble TubaDiva
Administrator
The Straight Dope
From the first thread: [[Since lesbians are pretty much AIDS-free, and since the Supreme Court ruled just a few weeks ago that insurance companies could cap HIV and AIDS lifetime benefits at lower amounts than for other diseases, this is really not the reason.]]
This was an appalling ruling, by the way, that many are fighting to overturn.
Jill, do you recall the participants in the one hilarious exchange related to the entire AIDS tragedy, when some pompous Pharisee came off with the line about AIDS being God’s condemnation on the gay community for their sinful sex lives, and the AIDS activist who rejoined that since Lesbians have a very low incidence of HIV, by his premise God must be very much in favor of Lesbian sex?
there’s no cap on how much money insurers can take from you before they have to stop. think about it. you have insurance for 20 years and you never get sick. at some point, shouldn’t they put a cap on your payments until you use some of the money you’ve given them???
As Ned Flanders said, insurance is a form of gambling. I’ll bet MetLife $1500 that my health will cost me $10000 this year. The sicker you are to begin with (smoker, HIV etc.) the closer the insurance company gets to even money (higher premiums).
I think everyone seems to be talking out their collective butts. Does anyone have any actual census figures? I’m sure the 2000 census will give us a much better idea of the kinds of families there are in the country.
One of the best essays I ever read on Christian acceptance of homosexuality was a senior PhD research thesis that pointed out that, ok, let’s agree that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong. The Bible also says that women are property, slavery is okay, you must marry within the 12 tribes of Isreal, all the way through to a woman having her period must sacrifice two doves to the high priest. Bottom line? Jesus preached love.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Just one question. If some Cecil column touches a major nerve and racks up a hundred posts or so, does it at any point get promoted to “Great Debates?”
Don’t know what SDMB policy is, but if you’re referring to this particular topic, there is a “domestic partners” folder on the GD board, although it might not have had any posts on it lately, so you might have to go to the second page of topics to find it.
Esprix
Next time I want your opinion I’ll beat it out of you.
Cecil did have census figures (or I think that they were census figures), but Otto said that the number was “obviously” false. I wasn’t claiming that I know how many same-sex households there are; I was just saying that I don’t consider Cecil’s number to be farfetched.
Please don’t misquote me. What I said in response to Cecil’s figures was:
To which Cecil replied that his figures were derived from census figures. I stated that I doubted not the accuracy of Cecil’s reportage but, among other things, the willingness of same-sex couples raising children to report this to the federal government. Children are routinely taken away from gay and lesbian parents and there are no federal civil rights protections for gay and lesbian people. Were I a gay parent I would think long and hard about reporting that fact. I did not say that the number were “obviously” anything.
In my mind, “simple math dictates that” = “obviously”. I guess that our minds do not work the same way. I suppose I should stick to people’s original wording.
I don’t generally move threads that begin as discussions of Cecil’s columns. And I never woulda moved that pesky 360 degrees thread… David woulda killed me. He would have had to read the whole damn thing, for one thing.
Jill
quote
Still, how many children have to be deprived of legally married parents before it’s an injustice, and since marriage is not limited to mixed-sex couples based on their ability to procreate, what do children really have to do with the discussion anyway?
end quote
I would just like to remind you that there are plenty of children who’s parents are not legally married. Many of which never were married and never will be. You are very right though. What do children really have to do with the discussion anyway seeing as how men/women who can’t produce children are still allowed to marry.
