Ya know I am so sick of people using religion as an excuse to shit on people.

You dont want gays getting married because the bible says its wrong, well why dont we disband child services since the bible says its ok to kill your kid for being a smart ass.

How many bible verses mention homosexuality? Less than five if my memory serves - there is more on pork and shell fish and god commandments to slaughter a few thousand people from 30 or so communites to make room for the jews.

I dont see conservitives lining up to deny widows and divorcees marrige - another thing god apparently forbids.

Given you see homosexual behavior in lower animals is it really a strech of the imagination to suppose it would happen in humans as well?

Oh, one more thing, the bible is false. Most sects these days use the king james version or the new modern english translation of the king james version.

Unfortunalty the people who created the king james versin chose to do some editing, not to mention who knows what all the other transcribers and translators did, wheter they made mistakes or chose to do some editing of their own.

And by the way any of you funides ever read the song of soloman? Orgies, gang bangs, lesbianism, all sorts of sex that would never result in child birth. For a god that supposedly hates sex he rewarded the guys he liked with all sorts of sex

If you guys think it's all about fundamentalism, you deserve to have your feelings hurt. And to lose elections, etc....

The Old Testament is filled with fucking. In the New one, they've all got their panties in a big wad.

The Bible doesn't enter into it.

And the simple solution here? Stop treating families like they are something special.

If there's no such thing as a "family insurance plan" then nobody can complain that they are being discriminated against.

These biological dead-ends think they've found a way to side-step reality, and they want the rest of the world to play along. This child is not "their" child. Only one of them has a biological stake in the matter.

brian - It's probably too early for an actuary to make a comment on same-sex couples, but traditional families have been around long enough for some statistics to accumulate. I expect families are special from an insurance point of view. Just as non-smokers get better life insurance deals than smokers, and older women drivers get better car insurance deals than younger men.

Predictably, my son saw high insurance costs as a deliberate plan (by 'them') to prevent him from driving. The idea that different premiums for different classes of people might be based on expected claims was a revelation to him.

Since our new governor just declared that New York is going to recognize gay marriages done where they are legal, I think they should win. NYCLU are pretty good too. So Blue Cross better get to work defending their defenseless position.

So, Brian, stepdads and stepmoms can't put their stepchildren on their insurance policies? Straight couples who adopt shouldn't be able to insure their child? After all, all they're doing is asking the world to play along that that's their kid now. No one should adopt unless they have Daddy Warbucks' money and can pay out of pocket for any contingency?

I agree with you that insurance is largely a scam but if a company wants to sell a family plan and someone who's willing to pay for it for their family wants to buy it, why shouldn't they be able to. They should be able to choose to just as much as you should be able to choose not to insure yourself.

I agree with you that insurance is largely a scam but if a company wants to sell a family plan and someone who's willing to pay for it for their family wants to buy it, why shouldn't they be able to. They should be able to choose to just as much as you should be able to choose not to insure yourself.

At some point, a definition of "family" has to be settled upon. Changing the accepted definition of family every time some splinter group gets a bug up their ass is not conducive to societal stability.

And you'd do well to note this: everything that is done to grant legal legitimacy to homosexual couples is going to be used (hell, IS being used) by polygamists in their drive to be granted the same legitimacy. And if we show that we are willing to take a thousands-year-old definition and toss it out the window in the name of political expediency for a tiny minority of the population, then they have every reason to think that their particular delusions should be granted.

And personally, I find polygamy to be far more dangerous to civilization than homogamy could ever hope to be.

At some point, a definition of "family" has to be settled upon. Changing the accepted definition of family every time some splinter group gets a bug up their ass is not conducive to societal stability.

I agree - these two are married, with a child. Meets the standard definition of family. But a (very large) splinter group has a bug up its ass, mostly because they don't like the way the married couple has sex, so they want to define "family" in a way that excludes this group.

I believe the whole thing must be taken into context. Right now, the only industry who can fairly discriminate anyone in North America is the insurance companies. They can raise or drop their rates because of your marital status, age or medical condition without a warning.

Homosexual marriage is something quite recent. Even if many studies has been done on the subject, the insurance world can still see it as a risk to insure same-sex marriages

This being said, a capitalist economy will deal with the problem by itself. When same-sex marriage will be more common, insurance companies will be more willing to offer products to these new families just to be sure they own the market. It's only a matter of time.

So, yes, I believe in God. And yeah, the bible says homosexuality is wrong. Several times. BUT, it says greed, gluttony, and several other very very common conditions are wrong too, MANY more times than it condemns homosexuality. So, all these fat rich "christians" need to not throw stones, lest they end up in hell next to all the gays they think are going there.

People are born that way, they don't decide to get turned on by their own gender. They should be allowed to get married, and have equal protection under the law (see my post on a previous gay marriage thread for thoughts about the former lack of marriage rights to black people, and it's correlation in gays) and adopt kids or have them, and worry about their souls themselves. They aren't hurting anybody else.

"..but granting of rights should be a secular deal..."

Grrr...

Rights are not "granted" by anyone or anything. Privileges are.

Poor and non-existent discipline in discussing issues regarding rights are the primary reason laws are so screwed up at every level.

Think carefully about this - especially about your own consistency on the issues if you wish governmental action yet again, in this case to intervene with health insurers.

Health insurance, by itself, is not a right. Being treated equally under the law is. That right is not "granted", but guaranteed, and the real job is to show how an injured party actually has that guarantee.

Well said, momof3. I'm Atheist and I sin far less than most Christians and when I see the ones who judge, I think, aren't you being blaphemous in that you are supposed to be leaving that to someone else?

Brian, gay rights does not equal rights for group marriage. That's a whole other fight and those that want to fight for it will have to take it up for themself, win or lose. I'm with you on that. 2 people (same gender or different) have enough complications in a romantic relationship; 3 or more absolutely makes the head spin and I don't even want to think about the kids not knowing who the hell their parents are and being split 6 ways from Sunday in a group marriage. But granting homosexual marriage no more automatically opens the door for group marriage than it does for you to marry your dog.

I don't have any real opinions about gay marriage, but at the very least, there should be a domestic partner clause in insurance companies.

My fiancee's company and many others as of late, have started offering benefits for domestic partnerships. There is a lot of red tape involved, but it's worth it when my fiancee's company has such incredibly awesome insurance coverage. We're not planning to get married for another year, so it is an excellent option since I work as a server and have no insurance.

The state of Arizona has recently approved a domestic partnership registry, while not exactly marriage, gives you most of the rights of a married couple. I think that's a good compromise for now.

And for all those people out there wondering why so many "religious nutters" out there have their panties in a wad about homosexuality when the Bible only mentions it in very few passages...it is because the Bible states that it is an abomination not just a sin. Which is the highest insult to God. That's why they fight it so vehemently.

I'm not trying to heap wrath upon myself, just trying to explain why they fight the way they do. I think it's healthy to understand why people on opposing sides feel the way they do.

And if we show that we are willing to take a thousands-year-old definition and toss it out the window in the name of political expediency for a tiny minority of the population, then they have every reason to think that their particular delusions should be granted - brain

Hate to burst your bubble brian but monogomy is only several centuries old and non arranged marriges are onl a few centuries.

Thousands of years ago polygamy was the definition.

SO now that we have etablished that the definition of marrige changes constantly, what is your REAL problem with the current change?

in reading through the article, and the esteemed commenters... I'm still failing to see where there is any religion in this. BCBS isn't a religious organization, nor are they spnsored by one. Acting stupid? Yup, they're going to lose this because the caselaw is there. Sounds like their affiliates downstate recognize such marriages too, although they may not be the same company, just affiliated. [They arent a monolithic company anymore]

BCBS and others routinely turn down any number of coverages, some with good reason, and others on what seems like a whim.

The bottom line is that this is ONLY news because the affected parties are lesbians. This sort of thing happens to people every day, and they get no news coverage, why should these two? They're taking BCBS to court and more power to them, they will probably win. This isn't a religious issue, and making it one is counter productive.

"The Old Testament is filled with fucking. In the New one, they've all got their panties in a big wad." AA...

yeah, well, no. Sodom and Gomorrah happened in the first book of the Old Testament... Genesis 18 and their story is the basis for an aweful lot of prohibitions in the Bible. You may also note that for most of the Old Testament the tribes were at war a lot, where the NewT isn't much about that. In any event, the stories in the Bible generally have that do right/get reward, do wrong/get punished plotline, that have been seen throughout history, worldwide. From that perspective, it isn't different from any other book out there.

"And personally, I find polygamy to be far more dangerous to civilization than homogamy could ever hope to be."

Amen and thank you, Brian. I'm just finishing up "When Men Become Gods" by Stephen Singular. It's more inclusive than Carolyn Jessop's "Escape" and makes a point that she forgot to cover; there are some freakish parallels between the FLDS and radical Muslims, and not just simply carrying the label of polygamy. Abuses are rampant, the victims are utterly dependent and cut off, what is defended as an expression religious freedom is spreading exponentially and so far underground we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. They don't pay taxes yet collect millions in benefits (food stamps, school funds even though the kids aren't in school) and the people are told by their leaders it's okay, it's "bleeding the beast". They look to the day when they take over this country, eventually the world; gentiles are second class citizens who at the very least deserve your scorn and vitriol. They think that violence is an acceptable means to achieve this end. And yet what it really comes down to is they're a bunch of old guys who are addicted to power and getting their rocks off on young girls while cowardly hiding behind interpretations of religious texts for justification.

Don't get me wrong; I am in fact a woman of faith, but it puts me a little over the top watching fundie nutjobs scare people away from God, not closer.

Well said, Swiss, and good point.

Juliana, point blank what most polygamous relationships actually are. Some will say not always but, frankly, even the most broad-minded one where all parties are consenting adults is going to have not so good undercurrents. And will screw with any kids produced therein heads big time.

C'mon. The popularity of crash pads/hippy communes was short-lived for a reason. That kind of communal living really just does not work out.

But, for some strange reason, they just can't make homosexuality go away. Could it be just that it's more normal than they want to admit?

Lujlp -

The point of civil sanction (hell, religious sanction) of marriage is to set up permanent connections between breeding pairs.

Homosexuals don't tend to breed much anymore, since they don't stay "in the closet" and get married to a nice young girl/boy for the purpose of starting a family. Since the happiness of the individual has trumped the good of the species, homosexuals have become a biological and demographic dead end.

Allowing them to marry each other and then adopt will likely prove out the theory that homosexuality has a genetic basis. Fewer homosexuals contributing genetic material to offspring will result in a minority that presently represents 2-5% of the human population to drop - causing homosexuals to marry themselves out of existence.

Although that's hardly reason to deny them marriage. Marriage was sanctioned not for the purpose of raising children, but to create an incentive to actually BREED children. Since they are, ultimately a demographic dead-end, then why should we heap social benefits upon them?

Anyway, monogamy goes back to the beginning of recorded history. It may have been anomalous to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, but it turns out to be far more efficient in a husbandry society.

T's Grammy:

"I don't even want to think about the kids not knowing who the hell their parents are and being split 6 ways from Sunday in a group marriage"

It's worse than you think in the case of FLDS- Warren Jeffs would punish a man by taking away his wife and children and granting them to another man, effectively imposing a divorce upon them. Everything I've read thus far on the subject reads like a waking nightmare....

The FLDS are a cult not a religion. That being said if anyone is crazy enough to want to have more than one partner and they are old enough to make that decision I really dont care.

And brain plenty of hetero couple are incapable or simply refuse to have children.

And then there are step parents who dont have kids with the new spouse

Why do they qualify for benifits?

Benefits: Apparently they've figured out how to rook the system; since polygamist marriages aren't recognized by the states that they reside in, they apply for food stamps as single mothers. All of them, and their children. So you have a man with 12 wives, each of them with anywhere from one to ten kids, do the math. One woman interviewed for the book had 428 siblings. (p. 124)

Their school funding is even worse. (p. 124-125) Warren Jeffs demanded that all the kids be pulled out of the public school (350 removed, left 16 non-FLDS students remaining) thereby collapsing the local school. They then turned around and bought the school from the state for pennies on the dollar. Even after this fiasco, they applied for and continued to receive government funding. 2002-2003 school year netted them $14.6 million. Later, when people began to leave the FLDS, they told that the money had been used for vacations and private plane charters, not education. This info can be found in Stephen Singular's book When Men Become Gods.

Why do they qualify for benifits?

They oughtn't. In fact, I'd be happy if the child care tax credit went away entirely. It would certainly discourage some people.

And there are a non-trivial number of people who feel the way I do. Which is likely why the group in WA that suggested that any marriage that didn't produce offspring in three years ought to be annulled shut up. In their effort to intimidate the Christians into supporting gay marriage, they probably found out instead of getting what they wanted, they'd have wound up fucking over all their single and childless hetero friends instead.

"Allowing them to marry each other and then adopt will likely prove out the theory that homosexuality has a genetic basis."

This and other elements of the post in which it appears suggests that you need to read up on how heritable traits are passed on.

Many people - possibly the majority - have no idea that for a significant portion of the populace, their gender identity isn't a simple "M" or "F".

We fool ourselves constantly, telling ourselves we're all alike, even as our fingerprints, retinal patterns, etc., are unique. Now, being born a bit different doesn't mean the Bill of Rights doesn't apply.

Rad - if you believe in evolution, you'd have to admit that homosexuality is a useless trait. So if it does have a biological genesis, then it's at best a birth defect. And if it is, in fact genetic, then eventually the markers will be found, and will be tested for in utero. You'll see the biggest political realignment in history when that happens.

And I understand the basis of heritable traits. If neither parent possesses the marker for a trait, there is no way their child can have it. If homosexuality is triggered by a set of recessive genes, then the likelihood of homosexual offspring diminishes greatly with decreased numbers of homosexuals (those who have expressed the traits of the recessive gene) in the breeding pool.

Two Chinese aren't likely to have a red-haired, fair skinned baby.

Rad - if you believe in evolution, you'd have to admit that homosexuality is a useless trait.

Untrue. It makes sense in terms of group selection, something called alloparenting, where homosexuals act in a parental role for children of related relatives -- people whose genes they share.

Amy - there is no way in hell you're gonna make me believe that "alloparenting" is a reason for homosexuality to exist from a genetic standpoint.

Unless you're gonna try to get me to believe that the genetic makeup of the child is influenced by outside SOCIAL forces. And that's just crazy talk. Almost like saying that two Norwegians will have a red-haired daughter to make up for the lack of redheads in the community.

In fact, the concept of "alloparenting" almost explicitly requires that homosexuality be a mental "switch" that gets toggled in response to local social factors.

Make up your mind - are homosexuals born or made?

Because you are unconvinced doesn't mean there's no reason for homosexuality to exist. Furthermore, because it might not make sense to you evolutionarily is no reason to deny homosexuals rights. Red hair, in certain environments, makes no "sense." I burn easily, for example, and live in California.

As for "curing" homosexuality, why is it a problems, except for the existence of the religious fuckers? Regarding families, many heteros can't have biological children, and adopt. A lesbian can have a biological child with the sperm of a man and have her partner adopt the child. We have no shortage of unwanted children in this world.

> Rights are not "granted"
> by anyone or anything.
> Privileges are.

Raddy is one of the few people in blogdom who understands this point. Everybody else thinks rights are something you just toss around like glinting magic pixie dust from a Disney cartoon, because it feels so good and looks so pretty.

In any case, as ever more primitive-muslim types move to the modern west and demand welfare for their multiple wives, they'll deploy every argument heard in support of gay marriage. And those arguments will probably be just as effective (if not rational). Good luck out there!

Because you are unconvinced doesn't mean there's no reason for homosexuality to exist. Furthermore, because it might not make sense to you evolutionarily is no reason to deny homosexuals rights.

If radwaste is correct, there's no reason for ANYTHING to exist. And I'm not simply saying homosexuality makes no evolutionary sense, but for my entire life I've been hearing every excuse in the book for homosexuality except for the one that makes the most sense to me - homosexuals want to be homosexual.

And marriage isn't a right anyhow, it's a privilege, always has been.

As for "curing" homosexuality, why is it a problems, except for the existence of the religious fuckers?

What is the purpose of state-sanctioned marriage?

Does gay marriage have the same value to the state as straight marriage does?

If yes, then we should support it.

If no, then we shouldn't.

Megan McArdle, libertarian economist, thinks about unintended (but predictable!) consequences:
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html

Why do women continue to live after they reach menopause? If they're just breeding stock, shouldn't they either be able to give birth till they're 90, or die at age 50?
Got an answer for that one brian?

Why do women continue to live after they reach menopause? If they're just breeding stock, shouldn't they either be able to give birth till they're 90, or die at age 50? Got an answer for that one brian?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the definition of hysteria.

Chrissy, your question is too stupid to deserve an answer.

Suffice it to say that you have a right to live. You do not have a right to marry. And given that this entire conversation was about marriage, and not life, your stupid little strawman can stand in a field all by his lonesome.

brain until such time as marrige is denyed to people incapable or unwilling to have biological children within a marrige you have no ideological leg to stand on for denying gays marrige.

If the government ever does start denying non producing heteros marrige I'll gladly join your side of the argument, but since they dont there is no reson to stop homos from marrying

ANd as to gays wanting to be gays, that would suggenst that lower life forms know to engage in homosexual activity are choosing to do so.

And it that were the case and lower life forms were capable of making such decisions it would mean they are capable of more, but they arent capable, they dont choose. And most of the gay people I have ever seen who were asked if they could choose would choose to be hetero.

We are all just meat puppets, sure we're capable of pulling a few of our own strings, our mind allows us to overpower some of our biological imperitives. But it is equally true that our biology is capable of overpowering our minds

As we sit here and bandy about what is and what is not, and what might be or what should not be... in terms of what is (or is not) common knowledge based on PC Conformist attitudes...
Please remember the first man to suggest the world was other than flat was jailed as a heretic and tortured.
And also remember that for all the credit and glory hailed upon MLK, the man was a liar and a philanderer (and a plagiarist). Not to mention he was many years late in the desegregation ~ equal opportunity game.
So much for what "we know to be true" based on popular acceptance.
Trivia question: who was the first Allied fighter pilot to shoot down the feared Messerschmidt 262 'Swallow' jet fighter in air to air combat?
G_R

Brian: Although that's hardly reason to deny them marriage. Marriage was sanctioned not for the purpose of raising children, but to create an incentive to actually BREED children. -end-

Uh, no, not really.

And as a point of interest, you are the only person, ever, that I have heard/seen make that claim.

Congratulations?

Brian: If radwaste is correct, there's no reason for ANYTHING to exist. And I'm not simply saying homosexuality makes no evolutionary sense, but for my entire life I've been hearing every excuse in the book for homosexuality except for the one that makes the most sense to me - homosexuals want to be homosexual. -end-

Tell me about the day you decided to be heterosexual, Brian. Since it's obviously a choice, then there must be that one defining moment for you, when you thought to yourself, "hm. Do I want to get a big stiffie for hot dudes, or chicks? Decisions, decisions..." and took the straight route.

Me, I don't recall ever having the urge to merge with gals. I can't come up with any reason gay folk might have had that same experience. It's probably easier for guys to tell ("hey, there, my pants just got tight for Men's Health, but not for Playboy!"), but I can say for sure that I (female) never ever saw some comely lass and wanted to play Tune In Tokyo with her.

As Amy said, more or less, just because you don't understand, doesn't mean others are wrong. Evolutionary biology is complex. It's not your area of specialty, clearly. That's fine. But there *are* perfectly valid reasons that are outside the scope of your knowledge. Accept that and don't look like such a schmuck.

(Aside: I have more sympathy for religious dopes who believe homosexuality is bad because their dress-wearing celibate portal to the imaginary leader says so, than I do for people who try to claim homosexuality is bad because it ain't the norm. I think they're both incorrect, but I have a little pity for the brainwashed.)

Brian: Although that's hardly reason to deny them marriage. Marriage was sanctioned not for the purpose of raising children, but to create an incentive to actually BREED children. -end-

Uh, no, not really.

And as a point of interest, you are the only person, ever, that I have heard/seen make that claim.

Congratulations?

Brian: If radwaste is correct, there's no reason for ANYTHING to exist. And I'm not simply saying homosexuality makes no evolutionary sense, but for my entire life I've been hearing every excuse in the book for homosexuality except for the one that makes the most sense to me - homosexuals want to be homosexual. -end-

Tell me about the day you decided to be heterosexual, Brian. Since it's obviously a choice, then there must be that one defining moment for you, when you thought to yourself, "hm. Do I want to get a big stiffie for hot dudes, or chicks? Decisions, decisions..." and took the straight route.

Me, I don't recall ever having the urge to merge with gals. I can't come up with any reason gay folk might have had that same experience. It's probably easier for guys to tell ("hey, there, my pants just got tight for Men's Health, but not for Playboy!"), but I can say for sure that I (female) never ever saw some comely lass and wanted to play Tune In Tokyo with her.

As Amy said, more or less, just because you don't understand, doesn't mean others are wrong. Evolutionary biology is complex. It's not your area of specialty, clearly. That's fine. But there *are* perfectly valid reasons that are outside the scope of your knowledge. Accept that and don't look like such a schmuck.

(Aside: I have more sympathy for religious dopes who believe homosexuality is bad because their dress-wearing celibate portal to the imaginary leader says so, than I do for people who try to claim homosexuality is bad because it ain't the norm. I think they're both incorrect, but I have a little pity for the brainwashed.)