Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

DO YOU TAKE THIS GOAT TO BE YOUR LAWFULLY WEDDED ......
dfu | 11-2003 | dfu

Posted on 11/29/2003 8:23:34 PM PST by doug from upland

Those in the radical homosexual movement are outraged when we ask --- If a man can marry another man, why can't he marry a goat?

Is the suggestion of marrying a goat outrageous? Perhaps. But who brought us to this discussion?

For most of modern human history, it has been recognized that marriage is between one man and one woman. They have children, and they carry on the species. A mom and dad raising children is generally the best nurturing environment for them.

Homosexuals want to be accepted as equals, not just in human kindness, but in all aspects of life. They want us to believe that same-sex relationships are just as beautiful as sex between a man and a woman. They are not. A man and woman are built differently for a reason. The parts fit as they do for a reason.

Most people, even those who almost become physically ill with the mental picture of sexual activity between two men or two women, are nevertheless somewhat tolerant. If gays stay out of their faces and don't have public lewd parades in front of their children, they believe in live and let live. Do what you want, but do it so we don't have to see it or hear about it.

Now that homesexual behavior is tolerated by most people, the next step is to create an equivalency. They want the government to recognize same-sex marriage as being just as normal and healthy as a marriage between one man and one woman. The next step is, of course, the equal right to adopt children. Our society is doomed when two men who want to adopt a child are treated as equivalent to a man and woman.

If such status is given, we can legitimately ask --- What next? Can a man marry two women or three women or four women? If not, why not? Can a man marry his goat or cow or donkey? If not, why not?

It is not we who have traditional values who have changed the definition of marriage. The radical homosexual activists have done that. Oh, you can't have marriage with a different species. Why not? The definition of marriage has already been redefined. We are on that slippery slope.

If homosexual marriage gains recognition as equivalent to a normal marriage, why do they have the right to then limit the definition? If the man-goat lobby becomes active and funded, why should their rights be denied?

A man who loves his goat will certainly want his goat to be able to visit him in the hospital. He will want his goat to have health benefits by his company's insurance plan. And why can't his goat go into Von's with him to choose tempting dinner entrees? Why can't the goat join her spouse at Claim Jumper and get a shot at the salad bar?

Oh, I know what is next. The goat can't give consent. Right? Who gets to decide that such consent matters? Remember, the definition of marriage has already been changed. Why can't it be further modified?

Homosexuals, just lead your life. You have the right to purchase property together. You can leave real and personal property in your will to your partner. I believe you can also direct your doctor to allow visitors in the hospital that you have identified.

But I guess that isn't good enough. Radical homosexuals want more than decent treatment. They want us to acknowledge that their love is equivalent to that of love between a man and a woman. Sorry, but it is not. I accept that most homosexuals, particularly males, are born the way they are. It is not their fault or their choice. Something has gone wrong which prevents them from being able to be attracted to the opposite sex. At times, it must be incredibly difficult for them. Who would choose that path in life?

If the definition really does change and homosexual marriages are performed and recognized by the state, it will be time for a lawsuit filed on behalf of those who want to marry multiple partners and those who want to marry their barnyard friends. Those who object will be given a warning -- don't be a goataphobe.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: baaaaaaa; bowwow; hehaw; homosexualagenda; homosexualvice; marriage; meow; moooooooo; oink; perversion; perverts; quack; samesex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

1 posted on 11/29/2003 8:23:35 PM PST by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Hillary is living proof that someone had sex with a buffalo.
2 posted on 11/29/2003 8:27:26 PM PST by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland; JoeSixPack1

Joe told me to relate that he loves ewe.

<|:)~

3 posted on 11/29/2003 8:31:29 PM PST by martin_fierro (_____oooo_(____)_oooo_____)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Could not have said it better myself. Be prepared to be bombarded (Attacked) by those that say that your arguments are ridiculous. If they succeed in silencing, or marginalizing your argument, then after the dust clears, and Homosexual marrige is offically accepted, then I guarantee you that the fringe element will push, just as you describe, for the very type of perverted unions stated in your post.
4 posted on 11/29/2003 8:31:45 PM PST by OldFashionedAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
The author is okay until he gets to the part about most homosexuals being born that way and they didn't choose to be how they were. We all make choices. Maybe some have a hard time with attractions - but what married man or woman hasn't had an attraction to someone other than their spouse? And how many fought that attraction, or ignored it, and didn't ruin their marriage with adultery?

Most experts who are not shills for the gay lobby say that early childhood difficulty of one kind or another - bad or absent parent(s), early sex abuse - cause same sex attraction disorder. And many have left the homosexual "lifestyle" - either living in celibacy or even becoming attracted to the opposite sex.

5 posted on 11/29/2003 8:34:24 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Maybe AlGore will be able to marry a tree.
6 posted on 11/29/2003 8:36:20 PM PST by mtg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
Oh - just checked - YOU'RE the author!!

Why limit marriage to men and goats? What about sheep, they're people too!

(One woman, one dog - two women, one dog - two men, one dog and a horse - three men, two women, and a roto-rooter, etc)
7 posted on 11/29/2003 8:37:04 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
We can respectfully disagree on whether gays are born that way. I do think, however, that the evidence really backs up my position.
8 posted on 11/29/2003 8:41:47 PM PST by doug from upland (Hillary didn't hire Pelicano.......my butt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Not sure what Ayatollah Khomeini would make of this. See, it would be a dilemma because even though this reveared scholar of Islam was not fond of homosexuality, he apparently thought sex with animals was fine.
9 posted on 11/29/2003 8:43:46 PM PST by USF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
this thread was a long time coming. If homosexuality, which was considered an abborition a mere decade ago, is just an altwernitive sexual lifestyle today. WELL USE YOUR IMAGINATION pedifelia beastiality probably things I don't know about are just over the horizon. The left never stops they always have to push the "envelope" of acceptability. Now that it is ok to be gay, better hide your sons and daughters, cause thats where the "envelope" goes next.
10 posted on 11/29/2003 8:44:27 PM PST by temijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mtg
"Maybe AlGore will be able to marry a tree."

I don't think Tipper will approve.

But hey? In this age of no-fault divorce, who cares what Tipper thinks?


11 posted on 11/29/2003 8:45:36 PM PST by jocon307 (The Dems don't get it, the American people do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jocon307
Does someone have to say it? Algore. Tree. He'll have a woodie.
12 posted on 11/29/2003 8:47:28 PM PST by doug from upland (Hillary didn't hire Pelicano.......my butt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland; wardaddy; sit-rep; CARepubGal
To hell with marrying my goat ! The real question is can I adopt my rottweillers and claim em as tax deductions ?
13 posted on 11/29/2003 8:48:43 PM PST by Squantos (Support Mental Health !........or........ I'LL KILL YOU !!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Squantos
LOLOL! The food bills for the Rotts alone would make the tax breaks after adoption vital. Now Cat adoptions are another story (Cats = the other Rott Food group: Sampson the Rott) ;-)
14 posted on 11/29/2003 8:56:06 PM PST by CARepubGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
At MOST, at the very MOST, one can show that the vulnerability has a biological component. That doesn't make it WRONG to oppose temptations to that vulnerability, or doom such opposition to zero effect, any more than in the case of inherited alcoholic tendencies and dealing with "the bottle." To buy into the "born that way" mantra as an excuse for letting it go, is to cheer for the demons.
15 posted on 11/29/2003 9:04:33 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (An unashamed Godsquadder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Are you actually defending the position that gays are born that way. I don't think, at this point the debate can be won on facts. There's a lot of opinions out there but very few "facts".
16 posted on 11/29/2003 9:04:37 PM PST by temijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Well said, we all face temptation, it's how we deal with it that is a part of who we are. Some temptations I give in to and others I fight on a daily basis. This is everymans war, how you fight it, or choose not to is one of the few free choices you have left, but make no mistake about it is a choice.
17 posted on 11/29/2003 9:10:57 PM PST by temijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
All this insanity is really just an attack on religion, particularly Christianity. The State is flexing its moral-less muscles over religion, in a thinly veiled expression of superiority.

When you boil Communism down to its core, it is nothing more or less than institutionalized atheism; a government system that abolishes or subjugates religion to secular authority. Then the strong rule, and those who are not strong are subjugated to the few. This is where we are heading if people continue to do nothing about these relentless attacks on Christianity. It is becoming a juggernaut and one day will be unstoppable if Christians remain complacent.

18 posted on 11/29/2003 9:17:16 PM PST by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: temijin
I feel that I was born heterosexual and certainly never made a conscious choice to become heterosexual- that is just what I always have been.
I don't see why it should be any different for most homosexuals.
Furthermore, I've always thought the "born or choice" debate to be a pointless one

19 posted on 11/29/2003 9:22:10 PM PST by WackyKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: WackyKat
Quite possible that most just "went with the flow" of their feelings. That doesn't render it to be a wrong thing to oppose when the feelings flow hellward.
20 posted on 11/29/2003 9:29:19 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (An unashamed Godsquadder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
I think you said some of the things that Scalia thought, but dared not say so bluntly. If you could find an e-mail address, I think he might appreciate this. Who knows, maybe he has seen it lurking. ;-)

(I have no idea if he does.)

21 posted on 11/29/2003 9:30:34 PM PST by StriperSniper (The "mainstream" media is a left bank oxbow lake.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Those in the radical homosexual movement are outraged when we ask --- If a man can marry another man, why can't he marry a goat?
Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would be annoyed with that. First, it's not a serious question, or at any rate, not one a serious person would ask.

But the answer is: animals are incapable of forming intent and giving consent to enter a contractual type of relationship such as marriage. It does matter. In order to have rights (such as the right to contract), you must be able to make and keep agreements. Goats and other animals are incapable of so doing.

Your hysterical blither notwithstanding, the definition of "humanity" would have to be broadened considerably before "goat" would be included in the category. To bring this crap up only muddies the waters in an already-FUBAR situation.

If you want to fight gay marriage, here's a thought: try thinking of, you know, intelligent reasons it shouldn't be legal. There are at least a few. Otherwise, you're just one more set of gums flapping in the wind.

Snidely

22 posted on 11/29/2003 9:34:38 PM PST by Snidely Whiplash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: temijin
years ago it was criminal and punished jail time

then it was reduced to an infraction and fine.

then it was decriminalized with no punishment for private acts

now they seek public endorsement under color of law

How long before they demand it become mandatory?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
..(/s)
23 posted on 11/29/2003 9:35:44 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Snidely Whiplash
polygamists are excited at the prospects.

There are also those in the homosexual circles who want the age of consent legalized.

It would make all sorts of horror stories legal.
24 posted on 11/29/2003 9:37:37 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: USF
how about the founder of islam marrying a five year old?
25 posted on 11/29/2003 9:39:05 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Doug, I do think the barnyard animal bit goes a bit too far to be considered in serious conversation. I think the point you're making can be better illustrated by citing marriage between father and daughter, mother and son, sister and brother, first cousins and etc.
Like marriage between a man and a woman, these taboos have been handed down over the course of human history. While these may be mentioned in the bible, I think the wisdom behind these simple rules predate the bible. Common sense and learned acceptable human behavior in choosing a mate had to exist and be practiced by the same unknown people who first domesticated dogs, sheep, and cows. Ancient societies understood inter-breeding and didn't make up silly rules that each and every society followed in turn because they made no sense.
I agree that the current push towards gay marriage and acceptance is being forced upon a society that is almost willing to go along just to end a debate they'd rather not think about.
I can see a place for state recognition of a legal union for gays, but I can't see it being called marriage.
26 posted on 11/29/2003 9:40:36 PM PST by WhoisAlanGreenspan?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
The legalization of polygamy wouldn't bother me- I've never heard a really convincing argument against it.
27 posted on 11/29/2003 9:41:33 PM PST by WackyKat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: WhoisAlanGreenspan?
Well say what you want, laugh all you want, but we used to live next door to a man who kept his goat for sex in his basement in California. This tale is not as far fetched as the writer intended it to be, and I am not laughing. Homosexuals are bringing us all down low. We have let them go too far.
28 posted on 11/29/2003 9:47:40 PM PST by tessalu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Snidely Whiplash
well one good reason off the top of my head would be orginizations like nambla. When we accecpt an alternative sexual lifestyle it's only a matter of time before we must accecpt the next alternative lifestyle, pedifelia, beastiality, I'm niave I don't know about anything worse, but please leave me ignorant.
29 posted on 11/29/2003 9:48:35 PM PST by temijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: vetvetdoug
Hillary is living proof that someone had sex with a buffalo. I was going to tell you that I thought you meant a Jackass but then I looked at your profile and I knew that you were right. LOL! Buffalo it is! :)
30 posted on 11/29/2003 9:51:19 PM PST by NRA2BFree (Criminals Liars Insolent Nemesis Traitors Opportunists Neurotic Seditious = Clintons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
When A Man Loves A Chicken
by Bob Rivers



When a man loves a chicken
He can't keep his mind on nothin' else,
He stay in the barn for the good thing he's found.
If he is henpecked he can't see it; she can't do no wrong.
Road Island Red is his best friend, he can't put her down.

When a man wants a chicken, spends his very last dime
Buying her fresh corn down at the grain and feed.
He'll build a nest for her comfort, and sleep out in the coop
If she said that's the way it's got to be.

Well, this man loves his chicken,
She lays him all the eggs she has.
Tell the farmer there's nothin' going on.
Believe me, she's cluckin' just 'cause she's mine.

When a man loves a chicken, people think that it is wrong.
He shouldn't stick his beak in where it don't belong.
Yes, when a man loves a chicken I know exactly how he feels.
Hey baby, baby, baby I'm your cock-a-doodle-doo.

When a man loves a chicken
I know exactly how he feels.
He'll shack up in the hen house with the good thing he's found.

When a man loves a chicken
People think that he's insane.
But all he can do is wing it for the one he loves.

Yes, this man loves a chicken.
Oh, I know it can't do me no harm.

Just for you, Doug..............FRegards
31 posted on 11/29/2003 9:55:10 PM PST by gonzo (A mind is a terrible thing,,, and it must be stopped,,,in my lifetime,,, before I kill somebody...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TheCrusader
Although I didn't ask them, I met a "couple" just last night who've been together for something like 20 years. These two gents have whatever kind of glue holding their relationship together that you or I might have with our own spouse. I don't apologize or make up with my wife because of a legal "marrage" or because I'm a christian. We stay together because we love each other and work at it. After 20 years together, you've got to realize they must do the same.
I don't think these two are attacking religion or christianity in any way. I think like Doug's picking on fondness for goats, saying it's a deliberate attack on christianity muddles the debate and weakens our side's argument.
32 posted on 11/29/2003 10:02:08 PM PST by WhoisAlanGreenspan?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: Snidely Whiplash
Your hysterical blither notwithstanding, the definition of "humanity" would have to be broadened considerably before "goat" would be included in the category. To bring this crap up only muddies the waters in an already-FUBAR situation.

While the waters are muddy enough, what about the PETA types? They practically exhalt animals over humans now.

IMHO, this is about tying down survivor's benefits and tapping into healthcare plans more than emotional bonding. Call it "marriage" and they can "adopt" other gays and increase the drain on employers' healthcare plans while heterosexuals pick up the tab.

It is still legally OK in many states for these corporate/government employee health insurance plans to discriminate against smokers, heavy drinkers, hang glider pilots, motorcyclists, and skydivers, but not Gays, despite the medical problems inherent in their 'lifestyle'.

34 posted on 11/29/2003 10:02:54 PM PST by Smokin' Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: WackyKat
Two mothers in law would convince a lot of folks.
35 posted on 11/29/2003 10:05:23 PM PST by Smokin' Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: WhoisAlanGreenspan?
I didn't say it is a deliberate attack on Christianity. My point, even to the gum-flapper flame thrower, is that once we have changed the definition to what some group wants, the next group will come along and demand something else. The definition will continue to be changed.
36 posted on 11/29/2003 10:11:52 PM PST by doug from upland (Hillary didn't hire Pelicano.......my butt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
LOL. I thought the ole pedophile Muhammed married her when she was was 6-years-old and consummated his marriage with her when she was 9. He was then, 54 years old.

Oh well, the Ayatollah, great representative of his religion, thought being into kids as well as barnyard stuff was fine.

Great examples for their followers.

37 posted on 11/29/2003 10:14:22 PM PST by USF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
well! < /false offended tone >
I remember that mentioning a need for "BAD days" to those darling people who pushed "GLAD days" down our throats at coll. was not pleasing to those same darling people... at all.
38 posted on 11/29/2003 10:23:43 PM PST by King Prout (...he took a face from the ancient gallery, then he... walked on down the hall....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USF
MIDI - BOBBY'S GIRL

I know that he wants me bad…I know that he wants me bad

I'm only 8 years old…he's still got it, I'm told
In just one year I'm gonna be his

Although I still am flat...he'll call me pussy cat
That I'm too young is nobody's biz

I will be Mohammed's girl…I will be Mohammed's girl
That is what I really want to be
When I am Mohammed's girl…I am Mohammed's girl
I know he will take good care of me

All of his wives are hags…they've turned into old bags
I am so fresh and very nubile

On me he's had his eye…he is my kind of guy
I'll be the next one he will defile

I will be Mohammed's girl…I will be Mohammed's girl
That is what I really want to be
When I am Mohammed's girl…I am Mohammed's girl
I know he will take good care of me

I will be Mohammed's girl…I will be Mohammed's girl
That is what I really want to be
When I am Mohammed's girl…I am Mohammed's girl
I know he will take good care of me

I will be Mohammed's girl…I will be Mohammed's girl
(fade out)

39 posted on 11/29/2003 10:24:57 PM PST by doug from upland (Hillary didn't hire Pelicano.......my butt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
ROTFLMFAO!!!! Good one ;o)
40 posted on 11/29/2003 10:27:08 PM PST by USF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: gonzo
oh, dear me! sick, twisted, and brilliant.
41 posted on 11/29/2003 10:27:35 PM PST by King Prout (...he took a face from the ancient gallery, then he... walked on down the hall....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: WhoisAlanGreenspan?
I don't apologize or make up with my wife because of a legal "marrage" or because I'm a christian.

Big mistake. Do it in the name of God and you'll have a lot less problems.

I think like Doug's picking on fondness for goats, saying it's a deliberate attack on christianity muddles the debate and weakens our side's argument.

It's a valid point, that I've used myself. It does put the issue in perspective and show how ridiculous gay-marriage is. Animal "love" is a fact of life just like homosexual, but the mere presense of an a$$-itch does not entitle someone (or something) to the place reserved for real marriage.
42 posted on 11/29/2003 10:47:23 PM PST by singsong (Demoralization kils first the civilization and THEN the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
KEYWORDS: BAAAAAAA; BOWWOW; HEHAW; HOMOSEXUALAGENDA; HOMOSEXUALVICE; MARRIAGE; MEOW; MOOOOOOOO; OINK; PERVERSION; QUACK; SAMESEX;

ROFLMAO

43 posted on 11/29/2003 11:01:47 PM PST by Diddley (Free Republic: An aboveground forum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diddley
Some people added a few to the original keywords.
44 posted on 11/29/2003 11:30:13 PM PST by doug from upland (Hillary didn't hire Pelicano.......my butt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Oh. I see now.

But it's still funny.
45 posted on 11/29/2003 11:43:40 PM PST by Diddley (Free Republic: An aboveground forum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
polygamists are excited at the prospects.

Big surprise. But there are even fewer of them than gays. I can think of one legal, secular reason to disallow polygamy - death or divorce would create a nightmare for the parties to such a marriage WRT property, disposition of children, etc.

There are also those in the homosexual circles who want the age of consent legalized.

Wha? If you're talking about lowering age-of-consent laws, NAMBLA is a red herring IMO. They have, what, 10 members in the USA? They can't even have a damned website in this country, let alone get a law passed. Those homosexuals who aren't whackos but do want a re-examination of age of consent laws are on about the disparity between the consent age for gays & heterosexuals; there still remain in many states higher ages of consent for homosexuals than heterosexuals.

It would make all sorts of horror stories legal.

Or not. Fearmongering is dishonest and unnecessary.

Snidely

46 posted on 11/30/2003 12:20:45 AM PST by Snidely Whiplash (Best not to post after you've been down at the pub...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: doug from upland
Quote of the Day by MissAmericanPie
47 posted on 11/30/2003 12:34:41 AM PST by RJayneJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
While the waters are muddy enough, what about the PETA types? They practically exhalt animals over humans now
And they have absolutely nothing to do with this gay marriage business. Idiots, maybe, but really not germane to the issue.

IMHO, this is about tying down survivor's benefits and tapping into healthcare plans more than emotional bonding.

Got it in one, IMO. Those homosexuals who are already in long-term relationships aren't going to have the relationships themselves materially affected. It's largely about medical rights, and suchlike as you mentioned. I guess I can see where they're coming from, more or less...if I'm living long-term with a woman and want to make it honest, I head w/ her down to the courthouse - $25 and a blood test later, we're hitched, with all the rights pertaining thereto.

Call it "marriage" and they can "adopt" other gays and increase the drain on employers' healthcare plans while heterosexuals pick up the tab.

What - do gays not have to pay for their insurance? And are insurers really going to start granting coverage wholesale, without regard for pre-existing conditions or poor medical history? They sure as heck aren't now...

And really, if they're only 1% of the population, as many here claim, how much of a drain could they really put on the system?

Snidely

48 posted on 11/30/2003 12:39:05 AM PST by Snidely Whiplash
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Snidely Whiplash
I>What - do gays not have to pay for their insurance?

Employer group plans, especially government employees, often provided as part of the compensation package. Are spouses 'risk assessed'? Dependants? I guess it depends on the plan.

Now that AIDS/HIV drugs are so much more effective these people live longer, (as long as they see the doctor lots and stay on the meds)--I don't know. Marry one, adopt two, you now have 4 on the plan, could run a million or so. You can't fire them because they are gay.

A multitude of other medical conditions arise from putting things where the body was not designed for them to go. Most of these conditions would be far more unlikely in a non-gay group. They develop over time, may not be readily apparent, and, if assessed as part of the pool's risk, will cause an increase in insurance rates for everyone in the pool.

If there are 100,000 employees, the difference might not be so great. With a smaller company group, I can see where the entire group might become uninsurable for one ersatz couple's coupling.

49 posted on 11/30/2003 1:13:32 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (GOATS!? (Just say naaaaaaaah!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: gonzo
Damn, such a good song. I know the lady that sang backup on the original by Percy when he was recording at Muscle Shoals. I don't think Percy would sing this version though.
50 posted on 11/30/2003 5:58:04 AM PST by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-71 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson