Wacky: Would you really want the premium of that catastrophic insurance you'll hopefully never use to go from $4000 to $4200 overnight? That's only a 5% increase, but for what? You don't get any more coverage, yet now you have to pay more.
Hey, I have four children, we pay child support for the older two, and we pay enough health insurance and property taxes to make your head swim.
As far as my health insurance premiums going up if Gays get marriage rights, I say "Bring it on!"
Because to say anything less is to say that they don't deserve the very same things that I deserve.
If not gayness, what other thing might I use to say that other people don't deserve everything I think that I deserve? Skin color? Disability?
We live in a workable financial system. Every American deserves to be part of that system.
Otherwise, gay people are still stuck (as they are right now) paying for ME, when I don't have to pay for THEM. That's wrong. They have been pulling their own weight, and also some of mine. They pay property taxes so that my children can go to school. Their health insurance premiums help defray the cost when my little girl falls off of the slide and needs stitches.
This is America, they are Americans, and for me, that's the end of the story. Equality under the law.
Otherwise, why have an America?
My people haven't been here since 1630, and fought with honor in every American war since then, for me to besmirch their honor by trying to get selfish with what they fought for.
Im not boasting nothing but the truth is I and more than two children, have NEVER had insurance. I paid out of the pocket and still do . it is a motive to do the right thing and think about the type of care and quality of care my family got.
How many times do people go to the childrens dr. for a shot or soemthing and the baby comes home and gets sick from being in that infested room ? sorry but true I have to tell ya .
I at many many times qualified for welfare assistance but refused and prayed alot for wisdom and health and protection . We had the normal accidents children do but my children grew up knowing they are responsible for their safety and not to careless cause if mom has to pay for stitches or some stupidness they caused the money will be tighter and less for their wants .
I believe in personal responsibility for our health and have truly taught my children this and IM glad. As i age if I live into being sick I will go for the retirment aid all people get at 65 but nothing additional I frankly do not believe in the idea of allowing an insurance group to be responsible for our health and certainly never the US govt and its dictates on how things should be handled.
anti-depressants , aids meds , high blood pressure for being fat and lazy , drugs for behaviours in children etc, neglectfull parents etc. drain these avenues of help from the tax payers enough I want no part of it !!! Let me say this when you say "self-pay " they either shut down or move to a righteous level and after all these years I know in whom I can trust to get the job done without to much extra bull crap thrown in. I educate myself as well about problems I trust only the best!
Every year my health insurance, and that's even a stretch of the term, goes up $400!!! I get the next bill in July...we shall see.
Sometimes I am on the edge of just chucking the whole health insurance thing. I really don't need it...never did, and with god's mercy and grace...never will.
It's always that soft whisper people like to whisper in my ear..."but, what if???"
What ifs never seem to happen to me.
If my health insurance goes up again by $400, and that is likely the case, I won't be renewing it again this year.
I just don't make the money...and, hey, the money I have to spend, well...I need a life. Sitting at home because you don't have money to go out because you're paying for health insurance that you don't use is getting very very old.
mj said: anti-depressants , aids meds , high blood pressure for being fat and lazy
==============================================
Wowzers, your statement just backed progress up about 20 years. No wonder people don't get help for medical needs because of the stigma. I take meds for blood pressure, but am neither fat nor lazy. People that need anti depressants can FINALLY go to the doctor and get meds because *%#&$*# society doesn't stare at them and criticize; it's OK to get help.
Until statements like yours.
Sigh
(What in the WORLD does this have to do with this thread anyway?)
mj...you are exactly who the system is there to help!!!! why? because you WILL NOT take advantage of the system...and that's the whole point of that system...to help people in NEED...not people who are using the system to exploit it.
niKa: Try separating the social-rights issue from the fiscal issue. Ask yourself why the government gives any sort of break to married people at all? Is it a justifiable expenditure of the nation's limited tax income?
What will be the next oppressed minority to seek its rights?
Pedophiles (both hetero- and homosexually based) are working the world of academia just like the left and the gays have done.
First its talk, then papers, then protests, then groups, then sympathethic collegees, then judges and then the masses are convinced this too is a legitimate lifestyle.
I am one who is saddened by the state of marriage today. The cross of Choice is becoming the true banner of our culture.
We sacrifice our children on it daily with abuse, abortion, divorce (how many gays were married once, but couldn't keep that commitment?), adultery, rape, drugs and indoctrination (MTV.)
Marriage for money, trophy wives and unmet needs are symptoms of a me-first culture.
There's also pornography — which has destroyed the lives of men, women and children.
But legalizing gay marriages?
They have the same problems as heterosexuals, but magnified because of their fallen moral state. The data shows their relationships are generally more unstable and prone to destructive tendencies than heterosexuals.
But I am opposed to straight people living together, because the empirical evidence shows that those relationships are unstable and the divorce rate for them is off the charts.
But we live in a fallen world that rejects truth, honor, and moral fitness.
We see the hypocrisy of the world when Democrats speak at churches (separation of church and state anyone?), but pastors can't tell their flock who to vote for.
The Boy Scouts can exclude homosexuals, but when they do, the same courts which ruled for them, say others can withhold funding over those beliefs.
Churches are being targeted to accept gays as members and employees.
If we were truly free, people could decide to whom they could rent. Why should someone be forced to take in people whose lifestyle they disagree with?
I'll believe the gays are moral when they denounce NAMBLA and the other perverse groups who attend their parades.
Gay radicals want adults and children to legally have sexual relations.
The whole point of their agenda is to remove guilt and barriers to expressing their chosen form of sexuality.
Why do they have bathouses?
Why do they gather in parks, rest areas and men's rooms for sex. (This is not bigotry, there are whole Web sites devoted to the glorification of impersonal sex.)
I know I know Wacky but I was asked one time about who I had sex with I stood up and said I can not can not allow my dignity to be ripped away by a butch of govt workers with little or no education who mostly hate their job but cant find anything eles.
I walked out and I will never go back no food stamps ever and I have lost jobs etc. I just refused to go there by personal choice and Im still glad. Call be stubborn call me pridefull whatever . I can surely tell ya a cost is to be paid working two and three jobs to try to pay the rent the kids suffer BUT I believe more when they grow up thinking they are entitled without merit or hopeless without a "system" to support them.
I have a education in human service I see the long term effects of these programs even in a temporary situations and it is not good. What I eat I earn what I live in ( I love my little cottage house ) I pay for I take ownership of my life and that of my children . supplements and aid take that away from people and allow them or force them to think they are less than capable people and less than the rest of society .(even if they feel entitled)
but this thread is about being a conservative gay or somethingor other sorry for the derail.
It's clear that def wants a world where you can discriminate any way you want provided it is about sexual orientation.
I have denounced NAMBLA on many different occasions but have never had any credit for it, it seems to fall upon deaf ears.
I get bombarded with much more stuff about impersonal heterosexual sex. Heterosexual men go to bars to pick up chicks who are parading around naked or semi naked, inviting them to stuff their panties with cash.
Many people live together for years, both gay and straight but don't want to get married or are not allowed to get married.
Yes always pick the extreme examples and try to apply them to a whole class of people - trouble is that doesn't wash because it creates a straw man.
In an open and accepting society people would not have to be hidden or ghettoised, forced into clandestine arrangements etc.
well... having been single most of my life and only in the last five years joined the ranks of the enslaved, I feel I can comment further...
As a single person, owning a home and working, I paid a lot of taxes that had nothing to do with me... I didn't have anyone in school, I didn't take 'advantage' of the different social amenities, etc. I considered it part of living in society, not a punishment for being single.
As a married person, owning a home and working, we still pay a lot of taxes for things we don't use, about all that has changed is that the kids go to school. I consider it a part of living in society.
Maybe I've missed the whole point of the "Gay Marriage" thing... as Zix pointed out, they don't need marriage for a lot of the 'benefits'... EXCEPT they are not allowed survivorship benefits, they are not allowed to be in on the medical decisions,
all of the "spousal" stuff we take for granted... and for the life of me, I can't figure out why it means so much to some of you to keep that from them...
Def, please see my post on the first page dealing with your "issues"
It's hard to make that change, When life and love turns strange. And old.
To give a love, you gotta live a love. To live a love, you gotta be "part of". When will I see you again?
Tom: I have always supported allowing any person to designate their own beneficiary and assign medical power of attorney. While there is the potential for abuse (Rev. Telly Vangelist convincing Grandma to deed everything to his ministry in her will, then getting her to grant him medical decision power, then telling her pulling the plug will get her to Heaven faster...) family does not always share your wishes. Better you can name someone you trust instead of who the gene pool stuck you with.
But I refuse to condone extending marriage tax breaks to gay couples. Look at how broken our current entitlements are--why are older people who can afford their own health care (i.e., the rich) still eligible for tax-subsidized Medicare at 65?
There is not an iota of return to society, neither tangible nor intangible, to be gained by extending marriage benefits to homosexuals. If they should adopt, they get the standard deduction for the child, plus they can file as Head of Household, which gives them the joint-married tax rate anyway.
All Catholic nuns are "married" to Jesus Christ. Should they get the marriage benefit? :)--> Why shouldn't they? It's their chosen lifestyle under their religious freedom, so...?
I've always gotten in trouble for sticking my neck out and offending people, so I guess this is nothing new but may surprise a good many people.
Gay rights is a human rights issue. I may not agree with their lifestyle and choices, but I don't agree with a lot of choices and lifestyles of a hell of a lot of straight people I have come into contact with. But they should not be denied their civil rights as a human being.
Every human being in the United States of America deserves the same rights as the next person. I am particularly concerned about such civil rights for gays.
In the following scenario, is this fair and just?
A gay couple has been in a loving relationship of a good many years... say, most of their adult lives. One of the men has been isolated from his family and they have not spoken in decades. He suddenly falls deathly ill and is on life support and there is no directive for DNR.
Who is more likely to know this man's wishes? His lover whom he has lived with day in and day out for most of his adult life? Or the family he hasn't seen or even spoken to in decades?
Who gets to make the decisions regarding his treatment?
The legal next of kin, who have neither spoken to him in years nor have any ideas regarding his wishes. People who may or may not act in his best interest, or honor his wishes.
Is that just?
NO.
Makes a good argument for a living will, but the facts are, too many people don't have one.
This couple has the right to have their union recognized for more reasons than I can count. This is just one of them. To deny that right is to infringe on their rights as human beings
In my life, for the sake of my own conscience, I am compelled to come down on the side of human rights. Always.
"Tear out our hearts---and they will fatally wound you." Hans Scholl
No, it isn't. In order to exercise that right, those two straight individuals would be FORCED to marry. It doesn't matter if they CAN or not. If they don't want to, for whatever personal reason they might have, they do not get the benefit of automatic medical power of attorney.
Hence, it comes down to universal choice to designate beneficiaries and decision making, probably via some extension of common-law marriage precedent.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
28
35
18
Popular Days
Mar 9
46
Mar 12
30
Mar 10
29
Mar 11
19
Top Posters In This Topic
Catcup 13 posts
Zixar 28 posts
Trefor Heywood 35 posts
dmiller 18 posts
Popular Days
Mar 9 2004
46 posts
Mar 12 2004
30 posts
Mar 10 2004
29 posts
Mar 11 2004
19 posts
Zixar
Wacky: Would you really want the premium of that catastrophic insurance you'll hopefully never use to go from $4000 to $4200 overnight? That's only a 5% increase, but for what? You don't get any more coverage, yet now you have to pay more.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Wacky Funster
no
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Bingo.
:(--> And if they don't hit you singles with an increase, all the hetero marrieds will have to take a cut, just for them. Probably both.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
notinKansasanymore
Hey, I have four children, we pay child support for the older two, and we pay enough health insurance and property taxes to make your head swim.
As far as my health insurance premiums going up if Gays get marriage rights, I say "Bring it on!"
Because to say anything less is to say that they don't deserve the very same things that I deserve.
If not gayness, what other thing might I use to say that other people don't deserve everything I think that I deserve? Skin color? Disability?
We live in a workable financial system. Every American deserves to be part of that system.
Otherwise, gay people are still stuck (as they are right now) paying for ME, when I don't have to pay for THEM. That's wrong. They have been pulling their own weight, and also some of mine. They pay property taxes so that my children can go to school. Their health insurance premiums help defray the cost when my little girl falls off of the slide and needs stitches.
This is America, they are Americans, and for me, that's the end of the story. Equality under the law.
Otherwise, why have an America?
My people haven't been here since 1630, and fought with honor in every American war since then, for me to besmirch their honor by trying to get selfish with what they fought for.
"Live just, and fear not."
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
Maybe this is my problem as well.
Im not boasting nothing but the truth is I and more than two children, have NEVER had insurance. I paid out of the pocket and still do . it is a motive to do the right thing and think about the type of care and quality of care my family got.
How many times do people go to the childrens dr. for a shot or soemthing and the baby comes home and gets sick from being in that infested room ? sorry but true I have to tell ya .
I at many many times qualified for welfare assistance but refused and prayed alot for wisdom and health and protection . We had the normal accidents children do but my children grew up knowing they are responsible for their safety and not to careless cause if mom has to pay for stitches or some stupidness they caused the money will be tighter and less for their wants .
I believe in personal responsibility for our health and have truly taught my children this and IM glad. As i age if I live into being sick I will go for the retirment aid all people get at 65 but nothing additional I frankly do not believe in the idea of allowing an insurance group to be responsible for our health and certainly never the US govt and its dictates on how things should be handled.
anti-depressants , aids meds , high blood pressure for being fat and lazy , drugs for behaviours in children etc, neglectfull parents etc. drain these avenues of help from the tax payers enough I want no part of it !!! Let me say this when you say "self-pay " they either shut down or move to a righteous level and after all these years I know in whom I can trust to get the job done without to much extra bull crap thrown in. I educate myself as well about problems I trust only the best!
it is empowering .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wacky Funster
We'll see, Zix...
Every year my health insurance, and that's even a stretch of the term, goes up $400!!! I get the next bill in July...we shall see.
Sometimes I am on the edge of just chucking the whole health insurance thing. I really don't need it...never did, and with god's mercy and grace...never will.
It's always that soft whisper people like to whisper in my ear..."but, what if???"
What ifs never seem to happen to me.
If my health insurance goes up again by $400, and that is likely the case, I won't be renewing it again this year.
I just don't make the money...and, hey, the money I have to spend, well...I need a life. Sitting at home because you don't have money to go out because you're paying for health insurance that you don't use is getting very very old.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wacky Funster
Now...what was the topic here?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
mj said: anti-depressants , aids meds , high blood pressure for being fat and lazy
==============================================
Wowzers, your statement just backed progress up about 20 years. No wonder people don't get help for medical needs because of the stigma. I take meds for blood pressure, but am neither fat nor lazy. People that need anti depressants can FINALLY go to the doctor and get meds because *%#&$*# society doesn't stare at them and criticize; it's OK to get help.
Until statements like yours.
Sigh
(What in the WORLD does this have to do with this thread anyway?)
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Wacky Funster
mj...you are exactly who the system is there to help!!!! why? because you WILL NOT take advantage of the system...and that's the whole point of that system...to help people in NEED...not people who are using the system to exploit it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
niKa: Try separating the social-rights issue from the fiscal issue. Ask yourself why the government gives any sort of break to married people at all? Is it a justifiable expenditure of the nation's limited tax income?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
def59
Dmiller's arguments are valid.
What will be the next oppressed minority to seek its rights?
Pedophiles (both hetero- and homosexually based) are working the world of academia just like the left and the gays have done.
First its talk, then papers, then protests, then groups, then sympathethic collegees, then judges and then the masses are convinced this too is a legitimate lifestyle.
I am one who is saddened by the state of marriage today. The cross of Choice is becoming the true banner of our culture.
We sacrifice our children on it daily with abuse, abortion, divorce (how many gays were married once, but couldn't keep that commitment?), adultery, rape, drugs and indoctrination (MTV.)
Marriage for money, trophy wives and unmet needs are symptoms of a me-first culture.
There's also pornography — which has destroyed the lives of men, women and children.
But legalizing gay marriages?
They have the same problems as heterosexuals, but magnified because of their fallen moral state. The data shows their relationships are generally more unstable and prone to destructive tendencies than heterosexuals.
But I am opposed to straight people living together, because the empirical evidence shows that those relationships are unstable and the divorce rate for them is off the charts.
But we live in a fallen world that rejects truth, honor, and moral fitness.
We see the hypocrisy of the world when Democrats speak at churches (separation of church and state anyone?), but pastors can't tell their flock who to vote for.
The Boy Scouts can exclude homosexuals, but when they do, the same courts which ruled for them, say others can withhold funding over those beliefs.
Churches are being targeted to accept gays as members and employees.
If we were truly free, people could decide to whom they could rent. Why should someone be forced to take in people whose lifestyle they disagree with?
I'll believe the gays are moral when they denounce NAMBLA and the other perverse groups who attend their parades.
Gay radicals want adults and children to legally have sexual relations.
The whole point of their agenda is to remove guilt and barriers to expressing their chosen form of sexuality.
Why do they have bathouses?
Why do they gather in parks, rest areas and men's rooms for sex. (This is not bigotry, there are whole Web sites devoted to the glorification of impersonal sex.)
But I have ranted too long.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Def59 -- Thank You. I was starting to feel all alone out here. Keep ranting!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
I know I know Wacky but I was asked one time about who I had sex with I stood up and said I can not can not allow my dignity to be ripped away by a butch of govt workers with little or no education who mostly hate their job but cant find anything eles.
I walked out and I will never go back no food stamps ever and I have lost jobs etc. I just refused to go there by personal choice and Im still glad. Call be stubborn call me pridefull whatever . I can surely tell ya a cost is to be paid working two and three jobs to try to pay the rent the kids suffer BUT I believe more when they grow up thinking they are entitled without merit or hopeless without a "system" to support them.
I have a education in human service I see the long term effects of these programs even in a temporary situations and it is not good. What I eat I earn what I live in ( I love my little cottage house ) I pay for I take ownership of my life and that of my children . supplements and aid take that away from people and allow them or force them to think they are less than capable people and less than the rest of society .(even if they feel entitled)
but this thread is about being a conservative gay or somethingor other sorry for the derail.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
It's clear that def wants a world where you can discriminate any way you want provided it is about sexual orientation.
I have denounced NAMBLA on many different occasions but have never had any credit for it, it seems to fall upon deaf ears.
I get bombarded with much more stuff about impersonal heterosexual sex. Heterosexual men go to bars to pick up chicks who are parading around naked or semi naked, inviting them to stuff their panties with cash.
Many people live together for years, both gay and straight but don't want to get married or are not allowed to get married.
Yes always pick the extreme examples and try to apply them to a whole class of people - trouble is that doesn't wash because it creates a straw man.
In an open and accepting society people would not have to be hidden or ghettoised, forced into clandestine arrangements etc.
Hell they could even lead conservative lives!
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
well... having been single most of my life and only in the last five years joined the ranks of the enslaved, I feel I can comment further...
As a single person, owning a home and working, I paid a lot of taxes that had nothing to do with me... I didn't have anyone in school, I didn't take 'advantage' of the different social amenities, etc. I considered it part of living in society, not a punishment for being single.
As a married person, owning a home and working, we still pay a lot of taxes for things we don't use, about all that has changed is that the kids go to school. I consider it a part of living in society.
Maybe I've missed the whole point of the "Gay Marriage" thing... as Zix pointed out, they don't need marriage for a lot of the 'benefits'... EXCEPT they are not allowed survivorship benefits, they are not allowed to be in on the medical decisions,
all of the "spousal" stuff we take for granted... and for the life of me, I can't figure out why it means so much to some of you to keep that from them...
Def, please see my post on the first page dealing with your "issues"
It's hard to make that change, When life and love turns strange. And old.
To give a love, you gotta live a love. To live a love, you gotta be "part of". When will I see you again?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Tom: I have always supported allowing any person to designate their own beneficiary and assign medical power of attorney. While there is the potential for abuse (Rev. Telly Vangelist convincing Grandma to deed everything to his ministry in her will, then getting her to grant him medical decision power, then telling her pulling the plug will get her to Heaven faster...) family does not always share your wishes. Better you can name someone you trust instead of who the gene pool stuck you with.
But I refuse to condone extending marriage tax breaks to gay couples. Look at how broken our current entitlements are--why are older people who can afford their own health care (i.e., the rich) still eligible for tax-subsidized Medicare at 65?
There is not an iota of return to society, neither tangible nor intangible, to be gained by extending marriage benefits to homosexuals. If they should adopt, they get the standard deduction for the child, plus they can file as Head of Household, which gives them the joint-married tax rate anyway.
All Catholic nuns are "married" to Jesus Christ. Should they get the marriage benefit?
:)--> Why shouldn't they? It's their chosen lifestyle under their religious freedom, so...?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
well then Zixar... let's get to the "flat tax" and let homosexuals have their civil unions...!
It's the tax structure that's the problem, not the homosexuals! right???
It's hard to make that change, When life and love turns strange. And old.
To give a love, you gotta live a love. To live a love, you gotta be "part of". When will I see you again?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Tom: It's worth a try.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
I've always gotten in trouble for sticking my neck out and offending people, so I guess this is nothing new but may surprise a good many people.
Gay rights is a human rights issue. I may not agree with their lifestyle and choices, but I don't agree with a lot of choices and lifestyles of a hell of a lot of straight people I have come into contact with. But they should not be denied their civil rights as a human being.
Every human being in the United States of America deserves the same rights as the next person. I am particularly concerned about such civil rights for gays.
In the following scenario, is this fair and just?
A gay couple has been in a loving relationship of a good many years... say, most of their adult lives. One of the men has been isolated from his family and they have not spoken in decades. He suddenly falls deathly ill and is on life support and there is no directive for DNR.
Who is more likely to know this man's wishes? His lover whom he has lived with day in and day out for most of his adult life? Or the family he hasn't seen or even spoken to in decades?
Who gets to make the decisions regarding his treatment?
The legal next of kin, who have neither spoken to him in years nor have any ideas regarding his wishes. People who may or may not act in his best interest, or honor his wishes.
Is that just?
NO.
Makes a good argument for a living will, but the facts are, too many people don't have one.
This couple has the right to have their union recognized for more reasons than I can count. This is just one of them. To deny that right is to infringe on their rights as human beings
In my life, for the sake of my own conscience, I am compelled to come down on the side of human rights. Always.
"Tear out our hearts---and they will fatally wound you." Hans Scholl
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
catcup: That question is not a "gay" issue per se. Your example is exactly the same if the couple are unmarried heterosexuals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
BUT... the unmarried heterosexual couple had the OPTION, and therefore the RIGHT to marry and make such a scenario a non-issue.
Thus far, the same-sex couple does NOT have the option, and therefore, I agree, it is a CIVIL rights issue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
No, it isn't. In order to exercise that right, those two straight individuals would be FORCED to marry. It doesn't matter if they CAN or not. If they don't want to, for whatever personal reason they might have, they do not get the benefit of automatic medical power of attorney.
Hence, it comes down to universal choice to designate beneficiaries and decision making, probably via some extension of common-law marriage precedent.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
whatever
-->
you are obviously RIGHT on any issue on which you take a position.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Well, that didn't take long.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.