Assuming G/L marriage becomes law of the land


bytor2112
 Share

Recommended Posts

Assuming g/l marriage eventually becomes the law of the land:

- If three married couples, two female, two guys and one old school (hetero) want to adopt a child and all three couples are equal with regards to income, loving, etc. Who gets the kid and why?

-Homosexual relations is considered high risk behavior. Should questions regarding say these activities be excluded for blood donors? Why or why not?

- Should openly g/l couples be charged more for health insurance and/or life insurance coverage given their high risk behavior> Why or why not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Assuming g/l marriage eventually becomes the law of the land:

- If three married couples, two female, two guys and one old school (hetero) want to adopt a child and all three couples are equal with regards to income, loving, etc. Who gets the kid and why?

-Homosexual relations is considered high risk behavior. Should questions regarding say these activities be excluded for blood donors? Why or why not?

- Should openly g/l couples be charged more for health insurance and/or life insurance coverage given their high risk behavior> Why or why not?

just addressing points 2 and 3. Monogamous same sex relationships are no more high risk than monogamous heterosexual relationships. Lesbian relationships are the lowest risk. There would be no reason to charge more for health or life insurance. Hopefully the blood donation restrictions will be re-evaluated at some point and loosened.

I have no idea on the adoption question. How are decisions made when 3 equally qualified hetero couples want to adopt?

Edited by cofchristcousin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming g/l marriage eventually becomes the law of the land:

- If three married couples, two female, two guys and one old school (hetero) want to adopt a child and all three couples are equal with regards to income, loving, etc. Who gets the kid and why?

-Homosexual relations is considered high risk behavior. Should questions regarding say these activities be excluded for blood donors? Why or why not?

- Should openly g/l couples be charged more for health insurance and/or life insurance coverage given their high risk behavior> Why or why not?

I'll take a shot at this.

1- Whoever applied first should get the child. First come first served. ( Although, my personal preference will always be the hetero couple)

2- Aren't those questions already asked for blood donation? I've never donated due to medical issues so I don't know. Seems like a no brainer. Yes, ask!!

3-Probably not. If they did, then every possible high risk activity would have to be identified and asked about. ( Do you store lime soda colored cleaning solutions in unlocked cupboards with kids in the house? Do you ever drive 3 hours home too late at night after eating too much at your mother-in-law's house? Do you consume triple fudge brownie ice cream more than once a week? ) It would get too tedious. But my prefernce would be Yes- charge more. Especially if there have been many same sex partners before.

Edited by carlimac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

- If three married couples, two female, two guys and one old school (hetero) want to adopt a child and all three couples are equal with regards to income, loving, etc. Who gets the kid and why?

The first one who applied should get the kid. I don't think that it should factor in to the decision, but those decisions are so subjective in the first place that I think it is unrealistic to think that the person's personal biases could be left completely aside no matter how hard they tried.

-Homosexual relations is considered high risk behavior. Should questions regarding say these activities be excluded for blood donors? Why or why not?

Just like with heterosexual relations, it is relatively safe with the same partner, but promiscuous activities are the part with high risk. STDs are relatively easy to test blood for, as long as their blood is clean, I don't see why it should matter. I've never actually donated blood, but if they have a place on the form to indicate that you are sexually active with multiple partners, I don't think it needs to be specified if they are the same sex.

Also, I'm no expert, but I can see how male/male relations would have a higher STD transfer rate than male/female, however it also seems to me that female/female relations would have a much lower STD transfer rate than even male/female. If this were statistically proven, would you then conclude we should only allow lesbians to donate blood?

- Should openly g/l couples be charged more for health insurance and/or life insurance coverage given their high risk behavior> Why or why not?

Insurance companies already can and do change your quote/coverage on just about every seemingly insignificant factor imaginable, whether "fair" to you or not, I don't see why this would be any different. If they see a statistical correlation unfavorable to them, there will be a question on their forms for it and they will charge you more, that's just how they work as a business out to make more money for its share holders.

Edited by DigitalShadow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

just addressing points 2 and 3. Monogamous same sex relationships are no more high risk than monogamous heterosexual relationships. Lesbian relationships are the lowest risk. There would be no reason to charge more for health or life insurance. Hopefully the blood donation restrictions will be re-evaluated at some point and loosened.

I have no idea on the adoption question. How are decisions made when 3 equally qualified hetero couples want to adopt?

No reason? Are you certain that they are no more high risk? What about past experiences?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Insurance companies already can and do change your quote/coverage on just about every seemingly insignificant factor imaginable, whether "fair" to you or not, I don't see why this would be any different. If they see a statistical correlation unfavorable to them, there will be a question on their forms for it and they will charge you more, that's just how they work as a business out to make more money for their share holders.

If homosexuality is considered normal and natural....or that some are born that way....why would it be riskier if that is how nature wired them? Wouldn't this be a form of discrimination against g/l couples?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If homosexuality is considered normal and natural....or that some are born that way....why would it be riskier if that is how nature wired them? Wouldn't this be a form of discrimination against g/l couples?

I get charged more for car insurance because I'm a young male. It's perfectly normal and natural that I am a male, yet it is also apparently more risky for me to drive. Is that discrimination based on gender or just good business sense based on statistical analysis?

There are plenty of "natural" genetic factors that people are born with which can increase or decrease risk of a number of things, just ask any geneticist. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get charged more for car insurance because I'm a young male. It's perfectly normal and natural that I am a male, yet it is also apparently more risky for me to drive. Is that discrimination based on gender or just good business sense based on statistical analysis?

There are plenty of "natural" genetic factors that people are born with which can increase or decrease risk of a number of things, just ask any geneticist. I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

I know what you mean about young and male and driving....I have a 16 year old son, but one day it will likely be less as he ages and has a good track record. They have more accidents. But, wouldn't higher rates for gay couples be discriminatory....just because they are gay? Isn't that strongly suggesting that something is wrong or dangerous with that behavior?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming g/l marriage eventually becomes the law of the land:

- If three married couples, two female, two guys and one old school (hetero) want to adopt a child and all three couples are equal with regards to income, loving, etc. Who gets the kid and why?

Allowing gay marriage doesn't necessarily mandate putting gay couples on an equal footing with straight couples, if the state can make the case that kids are likely to do better with both a mother and a father figure.

That said, I think any remaining scientific "evidence" tending towards that conclusion will be rewritten in the next decade or two to conform with the new politically correct view; and I think the result will be the first-come, first-served practice others have mentioned.

-Homosexual relations is considered high risk behavior. Should questions regarding say these activities be excluded for blood donors? Why or why not?

- Should openly g/l couples be charged more for health insurance and/or life insurance coverage given their high risk behavior> Why or why not?

Promiscuity, whether gay or straight, is also high-risk behavior. As a matter of law, I think insurance companies should be allowed to screen for that (that's the libertarian in me) if they think doing so is in their best interest. But I'm not sure there's really a good reason for a health insurer to actually do that.

From a practical standpoint, though: obviously, there's no way in high Hades that an insurer would get away with doing that. Regarding blood donations--maybe. AIDS still scares a lot of people, and PC concerns kind of take a back seat when you think your life is on the line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No reason? Are you certain that they are no more high risk? What about past experiences?

Homosexuality and promiscuity are not mutually inclusive. There are millions of heterosexual people out there who are very promiscuous, why do you seem to suggest that the gay couple only may have this issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homosexuality and promiscuity are not mutually inclusive. There are millions of heterosexual people out there who are very promiscuous, why do you seem to suggest that the gay couple only may have this issue?

The very nature of gay male relations is considered high risk behavior, whereas hetero relations are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what you mean about young and male and driving....I have a 16 year old son, but one day it will likely be less as he ages and has a good track record. They have more accidents. But, wouldn't higher rates for gay couples be discriminatory....just because they are gay? Isn't that strongly suggesting that something is wrong or dangerous with that behavior?

Shouldn't higher rates for males be discriminatory just because they are male? Does the fact that males have higher accident rates strongly suggest there is something wrong or dangerous about being male?

Let me try another analogy. I happen to seriously like pizza. I could probably eat it every day for just about every meal, but I also know that all that artery clogging cheese and grease puts me at a higher risk for heart disease. By your logic, does it then follow that craving pizza is unnatural and dangerous behavior and that I must have consciously chosen to like pizza at some point in my life, and there's no way I could have been "born that way?" I don't remember every sitting down and consciously deciding what foods I should like, yet I have strong food preferences and for all intents and purposes, I was born that way. Whether it's genetic, environmental or a combination is difficult to say, but it's certainly not something I "chose" in any sense of the word. Similarly, I would be saddened but understanding if there was section on my insurance form for food preferences (and it wouldn't surprise me if there already is one).

In short, I really don't see how slightly higher risk factors indicate the rightness or how "natural" a particular behavior is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn't higher rates for males be discriminatory just because they are male? Does the fact that males have higher accident rates strongly suggest there is something wrong or dangerous about being male?

It is discriminatory of course...but legal. I am just asking if g/l couples should be discriminated against do to they nature of these relationships...legally..as younger male drivers are....legally. Or should that be considered off limits? Not sure where I stand on the issue personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The very nature of gay male relations is considered high risk behavior, whereas hetero relations are not.

Are you proposing that two healthy, STD free individuals of the same sex having relations is inherently more dangerous than two healthy STD free individuals of the opposite sex? If so, I would like to know where you're getting this info and what mechanism causes this "risk." Do you think they would just spontaneously combust or be smitten by God or something of that nature?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you proposing that two healthy, STD free individuals of the same sex having relations is inherently more dangerous than two healthy STD free individuals of the opposite sex? If so, I would like to know where you're getting this info and what mechanism causes this "risk." Do you think they would just spontaneously combust or be smitten by God or something of that nature?

No...I am stating that currently, that it is considered high risk behavior. Not trying to indict anyone if that's the way they roll. Since the FDA excludes homosexual males from blood donations....because of the high risk behavior....will insurance companies be legally allowed to exclude or rate because of the behavior?

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is discriminatory of course...but legal. I am just asking if g/l couples should be discriminated against do to they nature of these relationships...legally..as younger male drivers are....legally. Or should that be considered off limits? Not sure where I stand on the issue personally.

I personally don't think that g/l couples should be discriminated against in any way that race or sex is protected from discrimination, but insurance companies are of a somewhat unique nature and their whole business is discriminating. They are basically placing bets that you won't get sick or get in an accident and using statistical data to stack the odds enough in their favor enough to make a profit.

I'm really not sure how far they should be able to go and what factors they should be able to take in to account, but that is a separate argument unrelated to same sex couples in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally don't think that g/l couples should be discriminated against in any way that race or sex is protected from discrimination, but insurance companies are of a somewhat unique nature and their whole business is discriminating. They are basically placing bets that you won't get sick or get in an accident and using statistical data to stack the odds enough in their favor enough to make a profit.

I'm really not sure how far they should be able to go and what factors they should be able to take in to account, but that is a separate argument unrelated to same sex couples in my opinion.

ahhh...but it will be. If Mr and Mrs. Smith get charged one rate and Mr and Mr Smith get charged another simply because it is Mr and Mr and not Mr and Mrs.........it will become an issue.

Same with adoption. If Mr and Mrs get picked over Mrs and Mrs , all else being equal....it will be an issue.

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahhh...but it will be. If Mr and Mrs. Smith get charged one rate and Mr and Mr Smith get charged another simply because it is Mr and Mr and not Mr and Mrs.........it will become an issue.

It wouldn't surprise me if they already do that and no one notices because from a customer's perspective asking for a quote is already like asking a random number generator to give you the next number. In fact it also wouldn't surprise me if as part of their application process they have a bot crawl your facebook page to quasi-legally obtain personal information not volunteered which could include your sexual orientation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When it comes to blood donations I do know that they tend to no longer ask for blood from the family anymore because the pressure to donate can lead family members with problems that would keep them from donating to donate. It has been awhile since I last donated so I can't remember what they ask, however if the question is already there then I don't think they will stop asking. Besides I think they check the blood they get for diseases before sending it on to be given to people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course it is....but what's your point? I am referring to the act itself....not how promiscuous the people involved were/are. The act is considered high risk behavior.

But just because someone is gay doesn't mean they do "the act".

I wouldn't feel comfortable charging someone a higher insurance rate just because they happen to be attracted to members of their own gender. And I know I wouldn't feel comfortable paying insurance agents to try to figure out whether my customers (gay or straight) are celibate or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...why would it be riskier if that is how nature wired them?

Good point. God must have had something in mind for creating them that way.

I too share that concern about homosexuality and promiscuity. Why can't they just get married and settle down like many others, I mean, have they ever thought about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But just because someone is gay doesn't mean they do "the act".

I wouldn't feel comfortable charging someone a higher insurance rate just because they happen to be attracted to members of their own gender. And I know I wouldn't feel comfortable paying insurance agents to try to figure out whether my customers (gay or straight) are celibate or not.

I have a hard time believing a g/l couple living together and wanting to get married are celibate. If they are attracted to each other as g/l claim they are...seems like it would be headed that way- I mean toward being NOT celibate. If they aren't attracted to each other, what's the point of being together in the first place.

Good friends of the same gender can live together but they they wouldn't try to get married. That would be just nonsense. ( But I suppose it's happened. Friends with benefits- as in govt./financial benefits but not "BENEFITS") :rolleyes: Strange world we live in.

Edited by carlimac
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share