Same Sex Civil Unions Part II

[Show Me the Wire]

To anyone in favor of same sex unions:

I must ask this question regarding same sex civil unions: Why would any sane population want their government to encourage an activity that is endangering the public health and safety.

If logical and sane people wish to regulate second-hand cigarette smoke as harmful to public health and safety and as being costly to health care, how can sane and logical people encourage activity that spreads an infectious and deadly disease among the participants and the whole population?

Aids is an infectious disease which usually results in death. Medical care for Aids patients, like certain forms of cancer associated with cigarette smoking is costly to society.

There is direct medical evidence homosexual activity is responsible for transmission of this deadly disease among the homosexual participants and direct medical evidence this deadly disease has spread via second-hand to non-homosexual participants.

Knowing same sex activity can result in the proliferation of a deadly disease no sane logical person would want his or her government to encourage same sex activity by legitimizing same sex civil unions.

A sane logical person would want his or her government to avoid fostering a costly, in lives and money, public health and safety issue. Responsible government should not create and sanctify a safe-haven, same sex civil union, for incubation of a deadly disease.

To those who may want to bash me as a religious zealot please note, my opinion is based on provable medical evidence and the government’s vested interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens. I do not judge the participants as immoral nor ask for the government to make certain sexual acts illegal. My sole rationale is the government should not encourage activities that impact the public’s health and safety.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
To anyone in favor of same sex unions:

I must ask this question regarding same sex civil unions: Why would any sane population want their government to encourage an activity that is endangering the public health and safety.

If logical and sane people wish to regulate second-hand cigarette smoke as harmful to public health and safety and as being costly to health care, how can sane and logical people encourage activity that spreads an infectious and deadly disease among the participants and the whole population?

Aids is an infectious disease which usually results in death. Medical care for Aids patients, like certain forms of cancer associated with cigarette smoking is costly to society.

There is direct medical evidence homosexual activity is responsible for transmission of this deadly disease among the homosexual participants and direct medical evidence this deadly disease has spread via second-hand to non-homosexual participants.

Knowing same sex activity can result in the proliferation of a deadly disease no sane logical person would want his or her government to encourage same sex activity by legitimizing same sex civil unions.

A sane logical person would want his or her government to avoid fostering a costly, in lives and money, public health and safety issue. Responsible government should not create and sanctify a safe-haven, same sex civil union, for incubation of a deadly disease.

To those who may want to bash me as a religious zealot please note, my opinion is based on provable medical evidence and the government’s vested interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens. I do not judge the participants as immoral nor ask for the government to make certain sexual acts illegal. My sole rationale is the government should not encourage activities that impact the public’s health and safety.

So if we come up with a cure for AIDS then it'll be ok?

[sq764]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
To anyone in favor of same sex unions:

I must ask this question regarding same sex civil unions: Why would any sane population want their government to encourage an activity that is endangering the public health and safety.

If logical and sane people wish to regulate second-hand cigarette smoke as harmful to public health and safety and as being costly to health care, how can sane and logical people encourage activity that spreads an infectious and deadly disease among the participants and the whole population?

Aids is an infectious disease which usually results in death. Medical care for Aids patients, like certain forms of cancer associated with cigarette smoking is costly to society.

There is direct medical evidence homosexual activity is responsible for transmission of this deadly disease among the homosexual participants and direct medical evidence this deadly disease has spread via second-hand to non-homosexual participants.

Knowing same sex activity can result in the proliferation of a deadly disease no sane logical person would want his or her government to encourage same sex activity by legitimizing same sex civil unions.

A sane logical person would want his or her government to avoid fostering a costly, in lives and money, public health and safety issue. Responsible government should not create and sanctify a safe-haven, same sex civil union, for incubation of a deadly disease.

To those who may want to bash me as a religious zealot please note, my opinion is based on provable medical evidence and the government’s vested interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens. I do not judge the participants as immoral nor ask for the government to make certain sexual acts illegal. My sole rationale is the government should not encourage activities that impact the public’s health and safety.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

So they need to enforce the law of anyone with aids having heterosexual sex too..

[Show Me the Wire]

Game Theory:

The answer to your question is not if this than this type of answer. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people should act in society’s best interest. Before government encourages any activity it should determine the benefit to society of that encouraged activity.

If a cure for Aids is found that would certainly be one barrier overcome in the test if homosexual sexual activity is detrimental to the public safety and health of the public. However, curing a disease is not the litmus test. The government before advocating same sex civil unions, as with any legislation of this type, should make a strong showing how same sex civil unions will benefit society in total and not just a segment of the population.

But as of now there is no cure for Aids meaning there is a demonstrable medical issue of public health and safety involving legally recognized same sex civil unions.

And SQ, my friend where does your statement come from? I am not advocating regulating any sexual behavior. I expressly stated the government should not make certain sexual acts illegal. There is no call for regulation on homosexual activity between consenting adults in my argument.

At this time, my rationale is based solely on the impropriety of the government creating a safe-haven, a legal relationship that encourages activity directly related to the spread of a deadly disease, which is in direct conflict with the duty of government to protect the public health and safety.

To conclude the government does not have the right to legislate sexual acts between consenting adults in private, but the government must protect the public health and safety. Therefore the government should not pass legislation regulating sexual acts between consenting adults, nor pass legislation that endangers the public health and safety by encouraging sexual acts that fuel the spread of a deadly disease.

SQ, I wager there is more supporting medical evidence showing third party or even fifth party infection from Aids than second hand cigarette smoke. Surely if our government feels second hand smoke is a health issue a persuasive argument can be made homosexual sexual activity poses a higher health risk to the public and therefore the government should not encourage this type of sexual union.

But wait, some of, you say there are more smokers in the population than participants in homosexual activity. I can argue by encouraging same sex civil unions homosexual sexual activity may increase. It would be natural for younger people to believe same sex activity is acceptable since the government recognizes same sex civil unions and as a result this alternative lifestyle would become more main stream. The more participants, under are current medical state, the larger the health hazard to the public.

The bottom line is the government must demonstrate the benefit to society in total before allowing same sex civil unions and at this time there is no benefit to society in total.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[sq764]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
Game Theory:

SQ, I wager there is more supporting medical evidence showing third party or even fifth party infection from Aids than second hand cigarette smoke. Surely if our government feels second hand smoke is a health issue a persuasive argument can be made homosexual sexual activity poses a higher health risk to the public and therefore the government should not encourage this type of sexual union.


Perception is reality

Well, the one flaw in your comparison is that if I am at a restaurant, there are not gay people raping me while I eat my salmon.. They cannot infect me by just being there. In the case of smoking, you are getting the 2nd hand smoke no matter where you sit in the restaurant...

I think creating a smoke free environment by law is intended to protect unwilling participants (non-smokers that are exposed to 2nd hand smoke), not to protect smokers.. I think the same would apply for banning homosexual activity..

[sq764]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
Game Theory:

The answer to your question is not if this than this type of answer. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people should act in society’s best interest. Before government encourages any activity it should determine the benefit to society of that encouraged activity.

If a cure for Aids is found that would certainly be one barrier overcome in the test if homosexual sexual activity is detrimental to the public safety and health of the public. However, curing a disease is not the litmus test. The government before advocating same sex civil unions, as with any legislation of this type, should make a strong showing how same sex civil unions will benefit society in total and not just a segment of the population.

But as of now there is no cure for Aids meaning there is a demonstrable medical issue of public health and safety involving legally recognized same sex civil unions.

And SQ, my friend where does your statement come from? I am not advocating regulating any sexual behavior. I expressly stated the government should not make certain sexual acts illegal. There is no call for regulation on homosexual activity between consenting adults in my argument.

At this time, my rationale is based solely on the impropriety of the government creating a safe-haven, a legal relationship that encourages activity directly related to the spread of a deadly disease, which is in direct conflict with the duty of government to protect the public health and safety.

To conclude the government does not have the right to legislate sexual acts between consenting adults in private, but the government must protect the public health and safety. Therefore the government should not pass legislation regulating sexual acts between consenting adults, nor pass legislation that endangers the public health and safety by encouraging sexual acts that fuel the spread of a deadly disease.

SQ, I wager there is more supporting medical evidence showing third party or even fifth party infection from Aids than second hand cigarette smoke. Surely if our government feels second hand smoke is a health issue a persuasive argument can be made homosexual sexual activity poses a higher health risk to the public and therefore the government should not encourage this type of sexual union.

But wait, some of, you say there are more smokers in the population than participants in homosexual activity. I can argue by encouraging same sex civil unions homosexual sexual activity may increase. It would be natural for younger people to believe same sex activity is acceptable since the government recognizes same sex civil unions and as a result this alternative lifestyle would become more main stream. The more participants, under are current medical state, the larger the health hazard to the public.

The bottom line is the government must demonstrate the benefit to society in total before allowing same sex civil unions and at this time there is no benefit to society in total.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

I am neutral on the same sex unions, but i must ask, what is the benefit to society of opposite sex marriages?

[chickenhead]

The main problem I see with your logic is that Aids is not the domain of only homosexuals. Ask the Russians. Ask the Africans.
You think stable relationships as would be encouraged under civil unions would help to spread the disease?

To the contrary, I think the opoosite argument could be made, that encouraging stable monogamous relationships among homosexuals WOULD be in the public health interests, as it would likely help stem the spread of Aids within that demographic, much as the institution of marriage helps to stem the spread of STD within heterosexual populations.

Not arguing my own views here, just your logic.

[Show Me the Wire]

Chickenhead:

Good point, Aids is not the domain of Homosexual worl wide. I am not talking about world wide, I am talking about the reality in the U.S. and the Gay population is the most at risk here. The U.S. government is charged with protecting the public health and safety of its citizens within its borders, not the population of the whole world.

Do you have any direct facts that show same sex civil unions will encourage stability in an admittedly unstable lifestyle? If so then a feasible argument can be made of a benefit to society of same sex civil unions.

However, I think that point is wishfull thinking on the part of proponents, as studies usually conclude promiscuity is a major staple of the alternative lifestyle.

My logic is that the government must demonstrate a measurable benefit to society in total before encouraging same sex civil unions. What is flawed with that logic?

SQ:

Do you really have to ask that question regarding the benfits to society of opposite sex marriages? If you do not know the answer to that one, I can't explain it to you.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[chickenhead]

perhaps I shouldn't have said logic, I take issue with your premise.

Is promiscuity not a major staple of all "non-married" peoples? Even priests, unfortunately?

You certainly brought up the right word, promiscuity, when it comes to STDs, promiscuity is the enemy.

So maybe a better way to fashion your question would be, what can the government do to reduce promiscuity in homosexuals, in the interests of public health?

Other than education, which I don't think is necessary (homosexuals are certainly much more educated on the details of Aids than the general population), I think the only (lawful) thing you have left is obvious, the government can encourage stable monogamous relationships.

How well will that work? Don't know, we have never tried. But I don't think civil unions would increase promiscuity, if anything it would decrease it, so I likewise think it passes your public health test with flying colors.

[GameTheory]

Lesbians are the *least* at risk for AIDS, even less so than hetros. Maybe the govt. should have same-sex civil unions for women only...

[Show Me the Wire]

Chickenhead:

All excellent points. Where we disagree is in the opinions. You believe, an opinion, same sex civil unions will reduce promiscuity, but you admit you do not know how same sex civil unions will work and I applaud you for that admission.

It is difficult to touch all the salient points in this limited environment, but basically an opinion from you or me is not enough to allow same sex civil unions without demonstrative factual evidence that same sex civil unions will benefit society in total. At this time, I am not inclined to accept you opinion about stability in same sex civil unions.

As with all changes in law the burden is on the people who want to change it, to show how the public will benefit. Currently there is not enough facts to justify the entity of same sex civil unions, besides purely economic ones to the particpating individuals. The big benefit would be health care extended to the non-covered partner.

To me at this time proponets of same sex civil unions have not made a demonstrative showing of a benefit to society in total. And opponets can make a detriment to society argument under are current factual situation regardng Aids and the homosexual community.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

[sq764]

Originally posted by Show Me the Wire
Chickenhead:

All excellent points. Where we disagree is in the opinions. You believe, an opinion, same sex civil unions will reduce promiscuity, but you admit you do not know how same sex civil unions will work and I applaud you for that admission.

It is difficult to touch all the salient points in this limited environment, but basically an opinion from you or me is not enough to allow same sex civil unions without demonstrative factual evidence that same sex civil unions will benefit society in total. At this time, I am not inclined to accept you opinion about stability in same sex civil unions.

As with all changes in law the burden is on the people who want to change it, to show how the public will benefit. Currently there is not enough facts to justify the entity of same sex civil unions, besides purely economic ones to the particpating individuals. The big benefit would be health care extended to the non-covered partner.

To me at this time proponets of same sex civil unions have not made a demonstrative showing of a benefit to society in total. And opponets can make a detriment to society argument under are current factual situation regardng Aids and the homosexual community.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

You again say you have to prove how the public will benefit..

1) Why do you have to prove this

2) How does the public benefit from heterosexual marriages?

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by GameTheory
Lesbians are the *least* at risk for AIDS, even less so than hetros. Maybe the govt. should have same-sex civil unions for women only...

YES!!!! I can envision a great benefit to the male population, especially if the participants are physically attractive with a web site.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally posted by sq764
You again say you have to prove how the public will benefit..

1) Why do you have to prove this

2) How does the public benefit from heterosexual marriages?

1. Why not, what standard do you recommend for social engineering?

2. See my previous response.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

perception is reality

[Tom]

Why should a same sex couple enjoy tax benifits denied to single people? Blatantly unfair.

[sq764]

Originally posted by Tom
Why should a same sex couple enjoy tax benifits denied to single people? Blatantly unfair.

Why should some people get welfare when they choose not to work? All the while, while my taxes fund them?

Lots of unfair things in life.

[chickenhead]

SMTW,

I am in agreement with you in many ways, I likewise believe the burden is on the challenging party to, if not scientifically prove, to at least *convince* the majority of a law's benefit to society as a whole.

That is unless they can prove in a court that it is unconstitutional for them to not be allowed the protections and benefits of that law.

Personally, I am undecided as to what I think should be done, and more so on how it should be done....i.e. should they have to convince us only, or is it a constitutional issue? To this point I have not believed it is a constitutional issue, but I am no expert in this kind of thing.

Regardless of anyone's beliefs it is an interesting issue, and one we will be dealing with for a long time.

[Fred]

Gays should be allowed to marry-Why shouldn't they have to suffer like the rest of us.


Freddy

[highnote]

Originally posted by Tom
Why should a same sex couple enjoy tax benifits denied to single people? Blatantly unfair.

I ask also why married couples get tax benefits single people don't? When I was single it seemed unfair. Now that I'm married, I enjoy the benefit, but feel bad that single people can't get a break.

I understand that western values are part of the equation. Our country wants to reward married couples and maybe give them a break because the might start families. But something about the tax benefit seems unfair to single people.

[PaceAdvantage]

In the business world, Corporations enjoy tax and liability benefits that Sole Proprietorships do not....perhaps this is an appropriate analogy?

[highnote]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
In the business world, Corporations enjoy tax and liability benefits that Sole Proprietorships do not....perhaps this is an appropriate analogy?

It might be. Although, some types of corporations are burdened with double-taxation. I don't know remember the specifics, but I know that is one of the disadvantages of either a Subchapter C or S corp.

One thing I know for sure is that corporate taxes in the state of CT are not fair. My company is an LLC. The LLC doesn't pay tax. Instead I pay individual income tax. However, about 2 years ago the state of Connecticut instituted a "Business Entity Tax". They sent out notices in January of and told us that the tax was retroactive. So if you were incorporated in 2000 you had to pay the tax for all 2000 even though they didn't notify you of the new tax until 2001. The tax is $250 per year. On top of that there is a surtax of 20% on the "Business Entity Tax". So we have to pay an additional $50.

To top it off, my little company pays the same Business Entity Tax as GE -- $300 per year. They probably make a billion times as much money as my company -- LITERALLY -- and yet I have to pay the same amount as them.

Some would argue that look at all the tax they generate for the state. Fine. But you know the who the biggest employer in the state of Connecticut is -- Foxwoods Casino.

What does all this mean or have to do with PA's post? I don't know. Probably nothing.

I guess the point is, life is not always fair -- and the tax code does not treat all people or entities equally.

.

[Tom]

I don't begrudge married couples for getting tax breaks per se, but it gets old real quick. I think the basic idea was to give people a break to encourage starting a family. But when you factor in the ridiculous school tax system, it really gets unfair. I do not have children and have to pay through the nose for schooll taxes, of which the majority of the money doesn't go to education at all. Football, soccer, band, all that stuff is not education. Education is learning how to read, write, think, not block lineman or play music. And not holding classes year round is a waste of facilities.
Your kids wants to play soccer? Fine. YOU pay for it. not me. Your little b*st*rd will be out on welfare with me paying for himsoon enough.
NOW we want to give tax breaks to lesbians and other assorted variations? No way jose. No gay marriage, no civil unions.

[highnote]

I am against tax breaks for married couples and civil unions.

I suppose you could make an argument for giving tax breaks to people with kids. Because those kids will grow up to be the ones who run society's institutions later on. If a couple is willing to sacrifice much of their life in order to raise a productive member of society then perhaps a tax break is warranted.

On the other hand, having a child is a choice. And if you want one, why should everyone else subsidize it. Why don't we subsidze the family dog? Ummm. wait. Maybe we do?

Who pays for dog food and vet bills for the pets of U.S. presidents?