What would it take for you to vote across party lines?

[Dave Gray]

If they really wanted to prevent pregnancies they would cover male vasectomys also, which they don't.

Because men don't get pregnant.


But please provide a link.  As I understand it, (almost) all insurance companies are more than happy to cover vasectomies.  I think your facts are backwards.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I think most insurance companies do cover vasectomys. 

[badger6]

Because men don't get pregnant.


But please provide a link.  As I understand it, (almost) all insurance companies are more than happy to cover vasectomies.  I think your facts are backwards.

Men don't get pregnant but they are the main component in a woman getting pregnant. I think we are talking about two different things. I'm not concerned with what is covered by insurance by their own free will. Even though something may be covered, it is not covered by a mandate from the federal government. Each insurance company can determine what it will cover and what it will not and base their premiums accordingly. Not all insurance companies cover vasectomies, I know that for a fact. The largest insurance company in the state told my friend and his wife on 3 separate occasions that since it's an elective procedure that it would not be covered. So since it's more effective and cheaper why isn't the government mandating it be covered as an option ?

[Dave Gray]

OK.   So, let's figure this out.  First, we have to work out the facts.

You went from saying that insurance companies don't cover vasectomies.  Now you're backing off to say that not all companies cover vasectomies.  So, we need to figure out what the truth is there.  Do you have knowledge of a major insurance provider that doesn't cover vasectomies that otherwise covers birthing procedures.

As for government's involvement, I don't know about whether employers have to cover vasectomies or not.  Do you?  Because your previous "fact" on vasectomies was wrong.

We need facts correct before we can start building our opinions and criticisms.  ...but I'm funny like that.

[SCFinfan]

Consequences for the fruit of marriage? WTF does that even mean?
Heaven forbid if I want all people to have the same rights. Keep hiding your bigotry behind the bible there, SC.

The fruit of marriage is an old-timey term for children. Knowing there were people who wouldn't know what that meant, I put a colon in and defined it in the sentence. Did you see that?

Now, see, you don't want all people to have the same rights, do you? If a person believes they're born with pedophilia, do you want them to have the rights to marry children? If a (female) person falls in love with their brother do you want them to be able to get married? If a person lives and grows and during their entire life, has a strong sexual attraction to animals, do you want them to be able to marry the animal?

You'll react badly to this and say that gay marriage and all of the above aren't the same thing. Allow me to ask you ahead of time to distinguish them.

Finally, I would ask that you actually try not to just repeat slogans. I don't mention/haven't mentioned the bible at all. I don't need to - the argument against gay marriage and the morality of gay sex is a natural law argument.

What a slap in the face. So basically since you do not agree with someone on these positions they are closed minded, uneducated, slovenly, and have below average intelligence. You cetainly cannot get along with everyone if that is how you feel about them. Slap in the face with one hand and pat them on the back with the other, is that your philosophy?

You read that incredibly poorly. Please re-read it. I'm saying that I would want a democrat to not think that someone who didn't agree w/ their social positions on matters such as abortion, gay marriage, etc, to not think that that person was a bigot, close-minded, and on and on. Because (as this thread indicates - just look at Buddha's
"response") many of them do, (even when you respond kindly) I it makes it tough, at times, to cross party lines.

What are you saying here, exactly?

Are you saying that being in favor of criminalizing abortion, outlawing same-sex marriage, or allowing employers to opt-out of healthcare coverage is "reasonable and rational?"  Or are you saying that opposing those things is unreasonable and irrational?

I'm saying I'm in favor of them (although you overstate - I'm in favor if overturning Roe, and allowing the states to come up w/ intelligent legislative approaches to abortion, including but not necessarily outright criminalization, I'm in favor of an amendment to state constitutions that would restrict marriage to adult, non-consanguine men and women only, and I'm in favor of health insurance companies being able to offer whatever they want, rather than being forced to offer birth control), and that intelligent people of good-will can likewise hold those positions. The main difficulty today, in my opinion, is both parties screaming at the other that they are 1) bigots or 2) economically illiterate. Neither side can appropriately be called these things.

And, to answer, no, I do not believe children should be taught, in science class, that there are other options outside of evolution. Not at the moment. Perhaps some day some genius will, in light of better evidence, conclude that something other than what we term evolution occurred.  However, until that day comes, evolution is the only option. Now, inside evolution, I think children should be taught the options: punctuated equilibrium vs. "consistent speedism," etc. I would like there to be an indication that we do not have a good theory on abiogenesis yet, but, I think children are smart enough to figure that out.

I say the GOP has moved far to the right (at the federal level) because the party is monolithically conservative; there are no more self-proclaimed liberal Republicans, and there are hardly any self-proclaimed moderate Republicans.  In contrast, there are quite a few proudly conservative Democrats, and a large number of self-proclaimed moderates (I daresay the majority).

None of that has anything to do with who won which election.  The fact that the majority of the people who showed up to vote in 2010 preferred much more conservative candidates tells us nothing about a shift in the party itself.

Certainly a fair argument.

And yet, while these people ostensibly want to outlaw same-sex marriage "for the children," they have mysteriously remained silent on the topics of outlawing divorce or single parenthood, both of which are much more "harmful" to children than allowing two gay parents to get married.

The ultimate irony is that you will not see a single conservative politician in this republic stand up for denying homosexuals the right to have children.  So at the end of the day, if homosexuality isn't outlawed (which is not on the table), and homosexual parenthood isn't outlawed (which is also not on the table), the only thing that banning same-sex marriage does "for the children" is to prevent their parents from getting married.

This position is so transparently full of holes that it seems obvious that the real goal is simply to deny rights to homosexuals; i.e. bigotry.

I agree w/ you, they have stayed silent. It is a disgrace. But, because politicians are inconsistent does not mean that the position itself is, correct? Remember, my opposition to gay marriage is based on natural law, not what a random political party does.

Now, had they been consistent, we wouldn't be here. Divorce, aboriton, contraception, gay marriage - they're all extensions, as I said, of the sexual revolution, and of a counter-Christian, counter-natural law ethos. Interestingly, contraception and abortion were not issues pressed upon us by federal or state legislatures, but rather by the court. But I digress. Either way, I don't really see the force behind this objection.

Now, the "for the children" argument. Until recently, you're right, there was only anecdotal support behind it. But what of the Regnerus study? Now, there is published, (soon-to-be) peer reviewed work, which may eventually come to prove the point that children are, in some way, disadvantaged by being raised by homosexual couples.

That said, again, the entirety of the argument is currently based on natural law, which I've stated here before. Until you points out the flaw in that argument, I would say that you haven't met your burden to prove that the position is bigotry.

[Buddhagirl]

SC, they're not the same thing because of a little thing called consent. Children cannot consent to be in a relationship with an adult. Neither can an animal. Brothers and sisters - past the legal age of consent - who cares? A matter of fact it is LEGAL in a few states.

Badger, vasectomies are covered by insurance companies. Always have been. The problem is it's permanent and does not work when you just don't want to get pregnant right now, but maybe in a few years.

With that, I'm out of this convo. I made a promise to myself not to get involved with these kinds of things. I'd rather be out doing thank yapping online. No one here is going to change their mind.

[SCFinfan]

SC, they're not the same thing because of a little thing called consent. Children cannot consent to be in a relationship with an adult. Neither can an animal. Brothers and sisters - past the legal age of consent - who cares? A matter of fact it is LEGAL in a few states.

Badger, vasectomies are covered by insurance companies. Always have been. The problem is it's permanent and does not work when you just don't want to get pregnant right now, but maybe in a few years.

With that, I'm out of this convo. I made a promise to myself not to get involved with these kinds of things. I'd rather be out doing thank yapping online. No one here is going to change their mind.

Completely incorrect. Children are merely divested of the legal right to consent. It is society's judgment that they ought not have it. Why can't it be society's judgment that those of the same sex cannot consent to relations/marriage w/ one another? Animals can likewise grant or deny consent. They just cannot do so verbally. If the animal consents, why should the person be prosecuted? Please explain.

Now, in addition, I would like to hear you do 2 things for me: point out one state in the union that allows blood-related brothers and sisters to commit incest w/o penalty. One. Likewise, I would like to hear you formally state that you consider it bigotry akin to racism to rail against adult consensual incest.

Please, go ahead.

[Spider-Dan]

And, to answer, no, I do not believe children should be taught, in science class, that there are other options outside of evolution.

That wasn't the question.

Do you believe that it is "reasonable and rational" to advocate for the de-emphasis of teaching evolution, in favor of teaching alternate ideas like creationism or intelligent design?

I agree w/ you, they have stayed silent. It is a disgrace. But, because politicians are inconsistent does not mean that the position itself is, correct? Remember, my opposition to gay marriage is based on natural law, not what a random political party does.

You throw out the term "natural law" as if it is an established point of fact.

There is no part of "natural law" that demands that the only purpose of sex (or marriage, for that matter) is procreation.  The fact that human females (and some other female animals, like dolphins) do not go into "heat" (i.e. a clearly identifiable period of reproductive receptiveness) indicates that we have evolved in such a manner that non-reproductive sex is wired into us.

Now, had they been consistent, we wouldn't be here. Divorce, aboriton, contraception, gay marriage - they're all extensions, as I said, of the sexual revolution, and of a counter-Christian, counter-natural law ethos. Interestingly, contraception and abortion were not issues pressed upon us by federal or state legislatures, but rather by the court. But I digress. Either way, I don't really see the force behind this objection.

Do you think that someone who calls for homosexuality to be criminalized could be accurately termed a bigot?  Why or why not?

As I explained later, the gaping holes in the "think of the children!" logic for banning same-sex marriage indicate that such laws are intended primarily to punish homosexuals by denying them basic rights.  Such actions should be fairly classified as bigotry.

Now, the "for the children" argument. Until recently, you're right, there was only anecdotal support behind it. But what of the Regnerus study? Now, there is published, (soon-to-be) peer reviewed work, which may eventually come to prove the point that children are, in some way, disadvantaged by being raised by homosexual couples.

You have two major problems with your argument.

The first is that the study you cite (notwithstanding other studies that conclude the opposite) says nothing about how children with unmarried same-sex parents fare vs. children wiith married same-sex parents, which is the question at hand.

Remember to keep your eyes on the ball: the policy in question is not, "Should same-sex couples be permitted to raise children?",  but rather, "Should same-sex couples (with or without children) be permitted to marry?"  So the question that the Regnerus study is proposing to answer is a Trojan horse; no one is advocating to eliminate same-sex parenthood.

The second major problem with your argument is that a sizable amount of data shows marriage increases the stability and durability of a family, and there is no evidence to support the claim that this increased stability and durability is negated if the parents are of the same sex.  So when the choice is between "unmarried same-sex couple raising a child" and "married same-sex couple raising a child," the latter is better for the child.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

point out one state in the union that allows blood-related brothers and sisters to commit incest w/o penalty.

Rhode Island.

 

[Spider-Dan]

Completely incorrect. Children are merely divested of the legal right to consent. It is society's judgment that they ought not have it. Why can't it be society's judgment that those of the same sex cannot consent to relations/marriage w/ one another?

You're misstating the question at hand.

The real policy question in your scenario is whether the restrictions on age of sexual consent for minors should be repealed.  This is not a question of bigotry towards "pedophile adults," but rather a question as to the age at which society allows a person to make this decision for themselves.  There is nothing objective about the age of 18 as a turning point; the only objective measurement of when a person is ready for sex is the physical ability to reproduce (puberty).  And if someone wants to make the argument that the age of consent should be puberty, have at it; it's certainly a lot closer to historical norms than 18 is.

As for anti-incest laws, I think are an unfair comparison.  They have two purposes:

1) to prevent the health risk to inbred children (which our society would assume responsibility for)
2) to prevent clan-centric civil rights abuses (e.g. a rural patriarch having a compound with multiple generations of inbred offspring)

In a hypothetical world where incestuous coupling was allowed, but required mandatory sterilization first, most of these arguments go away.  However, I think mandatory sterilization laws are much more dangerous than laws banning specific activity, and I can understand why the current policy is preferred.

[badger6]

OK.   So, let's figure this out.  First, we have to work out the facts.

You went from saying that insurance companies don't cover vasectomies.  Now you're backing off to say that not all companies cover vasectomies.  So, we need to figure out what the truth is there.  Do you have knowledge of a major insurance provider that doesn't cover vasectomies that otherwise covers birthing procedures.

As for government's involvement, I don't know about whether employers have to cover vasectomies or not.  Do you?  Because your previous "fact" on vasectomies was wrong.

We need facts correct before we can start building our opinions and criticisms.  ...but I'm funny like that.

I think you know what I meant. You guys like to twist words around here. Specifically, I was talking about Obamacare mandates not insurance company decisions on benefits.  Again, I'm not talking insurance companies decisions to cover birth control or vasectomies. I'm talking about Obamacare covering vasectomies in their mandatory coverage for insurance. The facts are that there are SOME insurance companies that cover vasectomies 100% with nothing out of pocket, Some insurance companies cover vasectomies in certain situations, Some insurance companies don't cover elective procedures, and some insurance companies that do cover vasectomies make you meet your deductible before coverage begins. So if a vasectomy costs $500-$1000 as listed here, http://www.vasectomy.com/articledetail.asp?siteid=V&ArticleId=10. And a per the information here, http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/11/17/survey-average-health-insurance-deductible-is-now-1200/, the average deductible is $1200. So depending on how much of your deductible you have met you may get coverage or you may have to pay for the whole procedure.

So if you read what I said.

Not all insurance companies cover vasectomies, I know that for a fact.

Now read the quote below. Located at the same link, http://www.vasectomy.com/articledetail.asp?siteid=V&ArticleId=10. I highlighted some words for you, since as you say, you're funny like that.

"Affordability options to help you cover vasectomy costs

   1.  Contact your medical insurance company and discuss your health insurance coverage, as most insurance programs include vasectomy. In such cases, the majority of the associated vasectomy costs will be paid through the insurance. The out-of-pocket cost to you could be only a small co-pay or deductible amount."

So it seems to me that my "fact" on vasectomies was factually accurate. You implying that 100% of all vasectomies is 100% covered by 100% of all insurance companies is the one that is wrong.

Another fact is that before the gubment mandated"female" birth control went into effect. SOME insurance companies made a choice to cover female contraceptives, SOME made a choice offer coverage for certain medical conditions, and SOME made a choice not to offer coverage at all.

So the fact is that before Obamacare, female birth control may or may not have been covered by insurance companies depending on the company and situation. Conversely, vasectomies also may or may not have been covered by insurance companies depending on the company and situation.

Now that you know that I'm specifically referring to what Obamacare "covers" in their mandate. Not what may or may not have been "covered" by specific insurance companies before Obamacare was passed. I will ask my questions again.

Why was Obamacare written only to include "no cost" female birth control, which is less effective and costs the insurance company more over time ? Why not include a mandate that includes vasectomies at "no cost" as an alternative if the patient makes that choice if it fits their situation ? Do you think some women might feel a benefit of not having to take or remember to take a potentially dangerous pill everyday. Why choose to discriminate against either gender if you want equality ?

Seems to me that everyone here that cries for equality only wants pick and choose equality on their terms. Hypocrisy at its finest !!!

[SCFinfan]

Do you believe that it is "reasonable and rational" to advocate for the de-emphasis of teaching evolution, in favor of teaching alternate ideas like creationism or intelligent design?

If that is the question, then, no, I do not think that reasonable nor rational.

You throw out the term "natural law" as if it is an established point of fact.

There is no part of "natural law" that demands that the only purpose of sex (or marriage, for that matter) is procreation.  The fact that human females (and some other female animals, like dolphins) do not go into "heat" (i.e. a clearly identifiable period of reproductive receptiveness) indicates that we have evolved in such a manner that non-reproductive sex is wired into us.

I would suggest to you that if you're denying natural law exists (I don't think you are, but, to be cautious I will respond) then we have nothing to discuss, as, unless we are all under pains, and likewise have the capability to comprehend right from wrong naturally, we cannot really even begin to discuss this as though it were a thing to be argued.

Now, proceeding on, the natural law argument would be as follows: since the biological purpose of sex is generation, that, correspondingly, unless the sex you involve yourself in is in some way of a generative nature, then it is immoral.

Now, your response is that the hardwired, non-procreative periods of a woman's cycle indicate that non-generative sex is ok. I think we have a difficulty here, as I believe you've pressed your point too far. Let me explain:

What the non-procreative period of a woman's cycle would prove, at best, is that, otherwise generative sex which doesn't result is pregnancy and generation is not immoral. But no farther. It would not prove that sex which is intentionally executed in a way which is categorically non-procreative is moral. I think that's fairly clear, non-nitpicky distinction.

Thus, the generative requirement still stands, and the non-procreative parts of a woman's cycle does not invalidate this, or leave an exception so wide that homosexuals can fit in. Now, do you have a bone to pick w/ this? I would love to discuss this further with you.

Do you think that someone who calls for homosexuality to be criminalized could be accurately termed a bigot?  Why or why not?

As I explained later, the gaping holes in the "think of the children!" logic for banning same-sex marriage indicate that such laws are intended primarily to punish homosexuals by denying them basic rights.  Such actions should be fairly classified as bigotry.

Depends. If one called for such a criminalization based solely on the belief that homosexuals were icky, or some other such flimsy justification, then, yeah, I'd say so. If they did so based on the natural law argument, no, I don't think so. It's a valid argument.

I agree the "think of the children" argument doesn't seem to motivate too many people in certain contexts. Obviously, the "think of the children" argument motivates you in the context that, were gays allowed to marry, their families may be more stable, and therefore provide for the children they raise in a more preferential way. However, obviously, the "think of the children" arguments from the right do not motivate you. That's fine, but, what I'd say is that these aren't gaping holes in arguments: rather, they are just emotional hooks for the electorate. Politics is different from philosophy, as we all know, and frankly, do you honestly think that most of the electorate can cogently speak about natural law? No. Wouldn't it fly over many people's heads? Possibly. So, candidates of all stripes shoot for what they think will work best. That's not inconsistency (on a political level) it's politics.

You have two major problems with your argument.

The first is that the study you cite (notwithstanding other studies that conclude the opposite) says nothing about how children with unmarried same-sex parents fare vs. children wiith married same-sex parents, which is the question at hand.

Remember to keep your eyes on the ball: the policy in question is not, "Should same-sex couples be permitted to raise children?",  but rather, "Should same-sex couples (with or without children) be permitted to marry?"  So the question that the Regnerus study is proposing to answer is a Trojan horse; no one is advocating to eliminate same-sex parenthood.

The second major problem with your argument is that a sizable amount of data shows marriage increases the stability and durability of a family, and there is no evidence to support the claim that this increased stability and durability is negated if the parents are of the same sex.  So when the choice is between "unmarried same-sex couple raising a child" and "married same-sex couple raising a child," the latter is better for the child.

Actually, I think I was responding to your original argument that people scream that gay marriage hurts children. Anyway, whatever, let's get to your objections.

As to Obj 1:
I doubt the study had enough data to measure the difference between those children raised by married vs. unmarried same-sex families. Here's the issue: gay marriage has only been a reality in the US for 9 years. I believe the study restricted itself to those families in the US. I may be wrong. Anyway: because of the recent nature of gay marriage in this country, it would mean that there's only going to be a few people who were raised by parents of homosexuals who are married to one another. I don't know that there's enough of a sample size.

Even then, what does "married" mean: does it mean currently married, or does it mean married and then divorced. For example, a person who was born in 2003, in MA, shortly after Goodrich, and raised exclusively by homosexuals, who were married for the first 5 years of their life, and then divorced for the last 4, and then raised by only one of the two - are they raised by married, or unmarried homosexuals? I... well, how would you define it? I don't know. And so, while I'd admit your objections basis, I don't think it has the force you think it does.

Obj 2:
I would simply ask that you provide some data to show that the presumption is no longer negated when children are raised by married same-sex couples. I doubt that there is data to show the presumption carries, but, I will state that I could be proven wrong.

Rhode Island.

Point conceded. However, I would suggest that you look more closely - consanguine unions, while not criminally punished, are an impediment to marriage. I would ask you and Buddha: why aren't you screaming about this, rather than homosexual marriage, or at least as loudly about this, if you are not just ask bigoted as you claim me to be.

You're misstating the question at hand.

The real policy question in your scenario is whether the restrictions on age of sexual consent for minors should be repealed.  This is not a question of bigotry towards "pedophile adults," but rather a question as to the age at which society allows a person to make this decision for themselves.  There is nothing objective about the age of 18 as a turning point; the only objective measurement of when a person is ready for sex is the physical ability to reproduce (puberty).  And if someone wants to make the argument that the age of consent should be puberty, have at it; it's certainly a lot closer to historical norms than 18 is.

Now, how is it that you claim the real policy here is not just a sham cover for bigotry? You certainly do as regards laws against homosexuals, even when a cogent reply is given. People who are pro-pedophile, and, assumably, the pedophiles themselves would simply reply that these "real polic[ies]" are bigotry against their natural sexual inclinations towards children, even if the timing of it is keyed to the onset of puberty, rather than a bright-line rule for 18-yos. I think you're just really picking and choosing as to what you believe here, rather than giving an argument as to why one is bigotry and the other is not.

As for anti-incest laws, I think are an unfair comparison.  They have two purposes:

1) to prevent the health risk to inbred children (which our society would assume responsibility for)
2) to prevent clan-centric civil rights abuses (e.g. a rural patriarch having a compound with multiple generations of inbred offspring)

In a hypothetical world where incestuous coupling was allowed, but required mandatory sterilization first, most of these arguments go away.  However, I think mandatory sterilization laws are much more dangerous than laws banning specific activity, and I can understand why the current policy is preferred.

Well, laws against homosexuals likewise have purposes. That doesn't seem to convince you of their non-bigotedness. For example, one could justify laws against homosexuals on the basis of:

1) prevent the denigration of public morality
2) to cease the spreading of disease

Again, I think what we have here is a picking-and-choosing approach. Why do some background policies/justifications convince you and others do not? I don't believe you've really stated. After all, couldn't a pro-incest individual state the following:

As to 1) the state doesn't prevent the coupling of other unions which will produce genetically compromised offspring. Why are we singled out?
As to 2) no proof that this occurs, and/or not applicable to the situation in which an individual incest practitioner finds themself.

Also, just for some additional reading: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

[masterfins]

Back to the original topic; $10

[Dave Gray]

So it seems to me that my "fact" on vasectomies was factually accurate. You implying that 100% of all vasectomies is 100% covered by 100% of all insurance companies is the one that is wrong.

It was not accurate.  You're revising history.  The statement you're quoting from yourself is your 2nd statement, after you'd already been called out.

And I didn't imply 100% of vasectomies were covered.  I said:

As I understand it, (almost) all insurance companies are more than happy to cover vasectomies.

Besides, that's not the issue.  We're not talking about co-pays and such.


At this point, not trying to be obtuse, I don't even understand your point.  The info you quoted supports my stance, not yours.  Please, again -- what is your overall point you're trying to make?

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Point conceded. However, I would suggest that you look more closely - consanguine unions, while not criminally punished, are an impediment to marriage. I would ask you and Buddha: why aren't you screaming about this, rather than homosexual marriage, or at least as loudly about this, if you are not just ask bigoted as you claim me to be.

I because:

1)  I recognize the difference.  And support gay marriage not incest.

2) I am not screaming about gay marriage, while I support it, it is very low on my priority list.  I have and will continue to vote for canidates who agree with me on other issues and oppose gay marriage.