Civil Union?

Civil Union?

Postby 4tees » Mon Apr 17, 2006 6:25 am

A straightforward question that few answered on the old forum. Would you accept equal legal recognition of same sex couples in a committed relationship if it were called a civil union rather than a marriage?
Don't be a sheeple
User avatar
4tees
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: 3250 ft in Beautiful WNC

Postby Yellow_Dog » Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:48 pm

Well you are not going to eliminate it, so why not grant them some basic legal standing that effects only their lives, such as the right of one partner to have a say in the healthcare of their partner..

A civil union is fine with me. It has nothing to do with their morality, or our view of it as moral or not. It would not threaten any heterosexual couple in a standard union, yet it would grant a legal standing to the gay couple for primarily legal issues. However you may view their choices, does it really effect you in anyway? We are not talking about those that flaunt their sexuality, which they do for it's "shock" value, as most of these are normal people with the one exception of their sexuality.
Yellow_Dog
 
Posts: 804
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:51 pm
Location: Economic wasteland of Bush's follies

Postby 4tees » Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:28 pm

Higher health care premiums for all of us is just one example...


How would civil unions for same sex couples increase health care premiums?
Don't be a sheeple
User avatar
4tees
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: 3250 ft in Beautiful WNC

Postby MaryTR52 » Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:31 pm

Are you saying that because of AIDS, Rambo? Yes, it is a devastating disease, but no more so than cancer. Do you have any statistics that state that AIDS in particular is causing a significant rise in health care costs?
The unexamined life is not worth living ~ Socrates
User avatar
MaryTR52
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 11:25 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

Postby admin » Mon Apr 17, 2006 3:47 pm

I don't think it should be a governmental matter at all. If you want someone else to have a say in your healthcare matters, or anything else, that's soley between you, and that person. Anything else violates your right to contract.

mtnrambo, I'm interested in seeing the numbers on this. On a per capita basis, what's the difference in money spent treating STDs in straights vs. gays? Is this greater or less than the difference in childbirth costs?
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:10 pm
Location: North Georgia Mountains

Postby MurphyMobile » Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:02 pm

admin-
On a per capita basis, what's the difference in money spent treating STDs in straights vs. gays? Is this greater or less than the difference in childbirth costs?


Childbirth costs are a one time cost.

When it comes to treating anyone for STDs, AIDS, - the expenses
does not change between heterosexuals vs homosexuals.
Unforutnately, the employees at hospitals, clinics and elsewhere, is what
probably would make the cost rise.

Working at a local hospital, I was annoyed that an ICU nurse, could not
stand for other healthcare workers to be friendly with someone with AIDs.

MM
Image
User avatar
MurphyMobile
 
Posts: 1196
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Asheville, NC

Postby admin » Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:14 pm

MurphyMobile, to clarify, I was talking about the averages. Obviously AIDs doesn't care about the sexual orientation of who it infects, but mtnrambo appears to be implying that there's a difference in infection rates between these two groups. I think it's reasonable to asume that straights have a higher fertility rate than gays.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:10 pm
Location: North Georgia Mountains

Postby 4tees » Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:28 pm

Even if there is a difference in AIDS rates between homosexuals and heterosexuals; it would seem that legal, committed, same sex relationships would decrease the spread of AIDS and therefore reduce health care costs?
Don't be a sheeple
User avatar
4tees
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: 3250 ft in Beautiful WNC

Postby admin » Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:35 pm

I agree.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 5:10 pm
Location: North Georgia Mountains

Postby MurphyMobile » Mon Apr 17, 2006 4:38 pm

The OPERATIVE word is COMMITTED RELATIONSHIP. Since neither
straigts or gays can guarentee that, it would be difficult to measure
the health care costs.

As MrayTR52 pointed out the big CANCER is expensive. And when
various companies or health care insurers find out, they will go all out
to "drop" that person.

I have had friends die that stayed with an organization 20+ years. But
when the insurance company can no longer afford them, they are dropped-and when the organization can no longer afford them - bye bye to them. (the person that died at 44 was a registered respiratory therapist) He did his best and the company was a hospital (which I used to work for). Kind of makes me sick to think I worked for them or any
hospital/clinic/drs office.

MM
Image
User avatar
MurphyMobile
 
Posts: 1196
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:30 pm
Location: Asheville, NC

Postby etowah » Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:32 pm

mtnrambo wrote:No matter how you slice it, HIV, AIDS, whatever... IS nature's way of weeding them out...

Why should I have to pay to prolong their lives ?

My 1st ex is a pediatrician... She says those that can pay for health care, PAY... those that can't, DON'T...

I'm not saying that gays don't have health coverage...

If you were an insurance company, would you want to insure a gay ? HELL NO...


Actually Mtn Rambo, the risk profile that insurance companies use to
evaluate applicants for health, life and disability insurance, have nothing
to do with the sexual preference of the applicant. The most important
factors are:

1. General Health-easily discerned through exam and med records
2. Height and weight
3. tobacco use
4, driving record
5. credit and criminal history.
6. history of drug use, if applicable
He who keeps on dropping the ball doesn't
want to be in the game.
etowah
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Florida

Postby etowah » Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:39 pm

4tees wrote:Even if there is a difference in AIDS rates between homosexuals and heterosexuals; it would seem that legal, committed, same sex relationships would decrease the spread of AIDS and therefore reduce health care costs?


Yes, and a civil union type arrangement, with the same legal advantages,
disadvantages and potential for continuing obligation after severance of
that relationship. would go a long way to reduce health care costs, and
greatly reduce casual alliances just to get health insurance.

For that matter, heterosexual couples who want group health insurance
through the employer of one of the couple should be married to be
eligible.
He who keeps on dropping the ball doesn't
want to be in the game.
etowah
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Florida

Postby etowah » Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:46 pm

mtnrambo wrote:No matter how you slice it, HIV, AIDS, whatever... IS nature's way of weeding them out.....



By that logic, gonorhea and syphillis are nature's way of weeding
out heterosexual behavior. :roll: :roll:
He who keeps on dropping the ball doesn't
want to be in the game.
etowah
 
Posts: 1132
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 9:15 pm
Location: Florida

Postby 4tees » Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:46 pm

Yes, and a civil union type arrangement, with the same legal advantages,
disadvantages and potential for continuing obligation after severance of
that relationship. would go a long way to reduce health care costs, and
greatly reduce casual alliances just to get health insurance.

For that matter, heterosexual couples who want group health insurance
through the employer of one of the couple should be married to be
eligible.


For some reason the named quote doesnt seem to work properly :?:

Yep, Etowah and I are in agreement on this one :)
Don't be a sheeple
User avatar
4tees
 
Posts: 841
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:17 pm
Location: 3250 ft in Beautiful WNC

Postby WeBe » Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:29 am

mtrambo argument of AIDS being natures way of controlling homosexuals is well answered with "Syphillis and gonorrea are natures way of weeding out hetersexuals." And lung cancer is natures way of weeding out smokers. We could go on and on about natures ways of controlling population. Bear attacks are natures way of controlling the hiking population. You could draw a link to anything you want.
It isnt the mistakes we make that count. It is what we do to fix them that matter.
User avatar
WeBe
 
Posts: 283
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:24 am
Location: Too far east of Asheville for my liking

Next

Return to Religion, Science and Morality

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron