Truth, Justice, and the American Way

Marriage
In reply to a friend’s thoughts on “gay marriage”, I composed a short reply: Marriage stands for a certain moral-legal relationship between a man and…

I don’t completely agree–>http://www.absolutereason.com

Ditto.

I was with you up to paragraph 4.

The marriage contract is just a contract, as you said, with complex legal ramifications.

But it hardly stands to reason that a marriage contract for all couples would inhibit discrimination. If that’s your cause, it would be more reasonable to simply allow employers to ask the gender of one’s spouse. This quote of yours is at least partially true:

Their goal is to use government coercion to impose a certain non-discriminatory social view on the public.

The goal is the uniform application of the law to the citizenry. Allowing citizens of the same sex to enter into marriage contracts is hardly are moral sanction especially in light of proper government which does not concern itself with morality but simply with the protection of individual rights, which requires the uniform application of the law in order to be accomplished.

Further, statistical correlation between disease and homosexuality is not causation. Pointing out the correlation is unworthy of this post.

Gay Marriage Rears its Head Among the Reasoned
Found this new site: Rational Mind. I’ll be checking it out. You can also check out a post he has on gay marriage. I agree with most of it except this paragraph and any conclusions resulting from the ideas posited therein:There is a problem however. Th…

“Further, statistical correlation between disease and homosexuality is not causation.”
It may not be, but to a life insurance company, that distinction is irrelevant. It’s well known that married men live several years longer than bachelors, and that gay men (married or not) have much shorter life expectancies. Whatever the reasons, insurance companies would be wise to jack up interest rates for them — and the government has no business intefering.

“If that’s your cause, it would be more reasonable to simply allow employers to ask the gender of one’s spouse”

They certainly could, but what about existing contracts and policies — where “marriage” is mentioned, it should be assume that it refers strictly to traditional marriages. Hence the need for a distinction.

Since gay men can’t be married until very recently and only in some states, you can’t claim that they don’t live as long as straight, married men. Do insurance companies charge single men more than married men in general?

That’s their right to do so. And I’ll also conceed that gay men are rightfully considered a high-risk group. You were very good to point out that being gay isn’t necessarily bad for your health. But it’s appears as a nonsequitur in your post. That’s why I asked.

And if someone assumed that when another claims to be married that the mystery spouse is of the opposite sex in light of the fact that it very well may not be, that would be terribly foolish of them wouldn’t it?

I personally don’t mind a distinct term in legal contexts, but the distinction isn’t really necessary.

Those who push for gay marriage are explicit about not wanting people to discriminate based on sexual orientation. I (am biased, of course) see their point. Many Civil rights activists don’t want people discriminating against people on the basis of race.

I agree that it isn’t the job of the government to tell people what they can and cannot discriminate against, but I don’t understand why you do want people discriminating against individuals on the basis of sexual orientation?

hmm… Did I misunderstand?

Also, I would be interested to know what any one of the valid reasons is to disciminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation.

And finally, I don’t know if you’ve seen, but I’ve been debating with your friend Keenan about homosexuality recently. It hasn’t gone over very well, but I am earnestly interested in trying this subject and finding the proper answers.

I’ve written two posts recently on the topic on my own site. Your feedback is also very welcome.

Hey, I just found an interesting statement by Walter Williams that supports your insurance company sample:

“Here’s my question: How come life insurance companies don’t advertise lower life insurance premiums for heterosexuals? After all, life insurance companies do ask applicants about other forms of behavior that have an impact on life expectancy, such as: Are you a pilot? Do you abuse alcohol and drugs? And do you have DUI arrests? Why not also: Are you a homosexual? I think I know the answer. Life insurance companies would be charged with lifestyle discrimination. But isn’t it also lifestyle discrimination to charge higher premiums to smokers, airplane pilots, drug and alcohol abusers, and drunk drivers? None of these lifestyles has the devastating impact on life expectancy that homosexuality does. The only answer I can come up with is that some forms of discrimination are politically acceptable, while others aren’t.”

Found here: http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3438

“But isn’t it also lifestyle discrimination to charge higher premiums to smokers, airplane pilots, drug and alcohol abusers, and drunk drivers? None of these lifestyles has the devastating impact on life expectancy that homosexuality does. The only answer I can come up with is that some forms of discrimination are politically acceptable, while others aren’t.”

no…. Smoking, Alcohol abuse and drunk driving all have direct impacts on health.(Liver damage, lung damage) Homosexuality in and of itself does not. The possible exception to this would be the increased liability of a receiver of anal or oral sex because of the thinness of anal membranes, and the reception of sperm into the body carries higher risk.

Isn’t it nice how you can RATIONALIZE discrimination. Now go back to your tattered copy of “Atlas Shrugged” and reread the love scene between Rearden and D’Anconia.