I cried at the end of that one Futurama episode where Fry discovers his long lost dog. Does that make me a girl?

2) Automobile insurance doesn't cover maintenance on your brakes either, and nobody sensibly thinks it should. (Certainly nobody is proposing legislation to require that.) Why? Again, because it doesn't make sense. There's no risk to pool; almost everyone who owns a car has to incur the expense, so all you're doing is shifting money around to no effect.

But this analagy does not work. Everyone who has a car necessarily has brakes. Not every one who has health insurance needs contraception, so there is a risk to pool.

Besides, the risk includes not just the risk to the insured person, but also the risk to the carrier that it will have to pay the costs. That's why some auto insurers give discounts for security systems.

A third BLB lurks.

Billy Lamar Beane, too.

I cried at the end of that one Futurama episode where Fry discovers his long lost dog. Does that make me a girl?

It does not. But also crying at the end of the episode showing Leela's mutant parents secretly doting on her from the sewers while Pizzicato 5 music plays in the background consigns you to searching for Size-12 pumps.

"If you look at US laws and culture over the last hundred years or so, I can't think of a single generally accepted measure which restricts rights; any rights. Meanwhile, pushes to bestow not previously-existing rights have been largely successful."

Thank God that you are not a judge.
All laws and court decisions, bestow rights to one and restrict rights of the other.

Regardless of what side you are on the civil union compromise is the worst of all possible worlds.

What the defenders of marriage want is the recognition that marriage is something more than a contract designed to achieve individual satisfaction. For them marriage is something that brings individuals out of their selfish concerns and ties them to the community at large

What the advocates in favour of gay marriage want is the recognition that their relationships are as meaningful as straight relationships. That their love is more than a convenience designed to achieve individual satisfaction.

For both groups the contractual language of a civil union is not only not what they want but represents a violation of their desire for recognition. Since this is about recognition and not material goods no material compromise is possible. It is also why the issue is difficult to understand within the liberal mindframe since liberals don't understand the value of recognition.

The answer therefore is for those who support traditional marriage (as I do) to realize that gay couples who want to marry don't oppose their understanding of the value of marriage but rather seek to fulfill the idea of a fundamental ethical commmitment and that in fact they share a common enemy--selfish individuals who do not see the value of the institution of marriage and hence think that civil union is a compromise when in fact it is an offense to both sides.

So the traditionalist are half right. There is little doubt that marriage is under assault. However they fail to understand who is responsible and hence they direct their attacks at the wrong people.

Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: October 30, 2008 at 12:17 PM (#2999657)

BLB - i do hope you meaning barry lamar bonds and not bad little boy (my son)

A third BLB lurks.

- fascinating

you got the sean forman geek in glasses need to get fogged up thingy goin on?

they direct their attacks at the wrong people.

Very nuanced, articulate post.

However, it is hard for me to see Jeff Kent as the "wrong" guy to attack, regardless of the issue. ;

I cried at the end of that one Futurama episode where Fry discovers his long lost dog.

me too

Sorry to change the subject, but I've been avoiding this site for the past month as I mourned the sadness that is the Mets.

What did kevin do to finally get himself banned? Links would be appreciated, as I'd awaiting this for quite some time.

But also crying at the end of the episode showing Leela's mutant parents secretly doting on her from the sewers while Pizzicato 5 music plays in the background consigns you to searching for Size-12 pumps.

I cried. Well, almost.

What did kevin do to finally get himself banned? Links would be appreciated, as I'd awaiting this for quite some time.

The thread where it occurred has been closed, but I think it is still available for reading. Search "demause patriotism" as IIRC it was the Neil DeMause patriotism thread, which became another political thread and hit about 2000 posts. As to what kevin said, you would have to ask Dan, I guess. Dan also decided as part of the political season to have a "catch-all" election thread. It is a 30-day ban and happened about two weeks ago. The guy hassling kevin as "kevin's innermost thoughts" was banned permanently.

Tangentially related to this thread,

the Spanish Queen Sofia, on GLBTs, and gay marriange,,

I can understand, accept and respect that there are people of other sexual tendencies, but should they be proud to be gay? Should they ride on a parade float and come out in protests? If all of those of us who aren't gay came out to protest we would halt traffic,

If those people want to live together, dress up like bride and groom and marry, they could have a right to do so, or not, depending on the law of their country, but they should not call this matrimony, because it isn't," she is quoted as saying. "There are many possible names: social contract, social union"

The guy hassling kevin as "kevin's innermost thoughts" was banned permanently.

Parody is protected free speech!!

Thanks, robin. Hopefully being told by people in charge of the site that his behavior has been inappropriate will affect kevin a bit more than hearing it from people like me had.

But this analagy does not work. Everyone who has a car necessarily has brakes. Not every one who has health insurance needs contraception, so there is a risk to pool.

Not everyone who has a car needs brake maintenance. (If you lease, so that you're always driving a relatively new one, you may never need it.) And nobody "needs" contraception, either. (*) It's just a choice, so there's no risk. Inherent in risk is that the expense be unpredictable (except statistically) and unexpected. (That's why insurance for preexisting conditions doesn't make sense, either; you can't buy automobile insurance after you've driven your car into a tree.)


(*) To the extent that someone has a medical condition that requires one to take birth control pills -- if such a condition exists -- that would present a special case, in which contraception would be no different than other medical treatment such as antibiotics.

Besides, the risk includes not just the risk to the insured person, but also the risk to the carrier that it will have to pay the costs. That's why some auto insurers give discounts for security systems.

There's no distinction between "risk to the insured" and "risk to the carrier"; it's the same risk. But the security system case is not relevant; we're not talking about discounts, but about coverage. An analogous situation would be a health insurer charging lower rates to people who use contraception.

Since Kevin has come up, I'll speak up against those who say this place is better without him. I think he's a lunatic and irrational but he add colour and he's harmless--he's nothing like Rob Base who I thought was a seriously corrosive person and I'm very glad is gone.

So I hope Kevin returns to us at the end of his month of shame.

So I hope Kevin returns to us at the end of his month of shame.

Me, too.

But also crying at the end of the episode showing Leela's mutant parents secretly doting on her from the sewers while Pizzicato 5 music plays in the background consigns you to searching for Size-12 pumps.

I just had a touch of hay fever that week, alright?

David, usually it's called a "health plan" not (any longer) insurance.

I suppose your actual point stands; that it's no business of the gvmt to interfere in what health plans can and cannot offer to their customers.

As with most of your libertarian ideals, this would work great if people didn't screw each other.

kevin ain't all bad

he's fine unless you say trigger words - barry lamar, dustin predioa, cano, ellsbury, sizemore, science, women, hot women, big boobs, hot women with big boobs, scientific hot women with big boobs who are fans of dustin pedroia and hate barry bonds, steroids, robby cano, sizemore

- but there is some bad BAD boys here who just LUUUUUVVVV to poke kevin and get him started and YOU KNOW WHO U ARE!!!!

I posted at the time of the ban saying 30 days was excessive. kevin has many good points and is a smart guy.

If kevin uses his time off to get a job (or a life) then this site will be much improved when he does return.

and david,

you are not being a sensible man.

it is like this - when it comes for health insurance, the plan gonna pay for maternity. which is not near as cheap as paying for the contraception to prevent it.

most people will not agree to what u want because it involves having what they ALREADY have get taken away.

your LOGIC might could be ok, but it is not SENSIBLE to expect people to want logic

traderdave,

unless u know something i don't kevin got a job working in washington for the govt. and hopefully he made it up with his wife. i don't guess she is perfect, but hey, kevin ain't the one to be throwin stones you know what i mean and i think u do

Ah, civil service. That explains the stratospheric post count.

And nobody "needs" contraception, either. (*) It's just a choice, so there's no risk.

?!

Plenty of people "need" contraception. We call them "people who have sex and don't want to have babies."

Plenty of people "need" contraception. We call them "people who have sex and don't want to have babies."

I don't think that word means what you think it means..

The answer therefore is for those who support traditional marriage (as I do) to realize that gay couples who want to marry don't oppose their understanding of the value of marriage but rather seek to fulfill the idea of a fundamental ethical commmitment and that in fact they share a common enemy

Eloquently said. If only more people would understand this.

David, usually it's called a "health plan" not (any longer) insurance.

I suppose your actual point stands; that it's no business of the gvmt to interfere in what health plans can and cannot offer to their customers.

Actually, that was more like a tertiary point of mine. My primary point was that there's precedent for the government interfering with religious liberty for social goals, and therefore it is not absurd for people to be worried about the government penalizing churches that don't perform gay marriages. My secondary point was that it doesn't make conceptual sense for health insurance to cover contraception.

As with most of your libertarian ideals, this would work great if people didn't screw each other.

And now that you make this post, I have a quaternary point, which is (unless that 'screw each other' is a brilliant double entendre, in which case kudos), it doesn't make sense to think of the issue of lack of insurance coverage for certain treatments as insurance companies 'screwing' people, because you pay one way or the other.

I cried at the end of that one Futurama episode where Fry discovers his long lost dog. Does that make me a girl?

Professor...lava...hot!

you got the sean forman geek in glasses need to get fogged up thingy goin on?

I'm not sure what this means and am afraid to answer.

kevin's month off provides a good chance to fulfill his 2 weeks with the national guard, or whatever armed services he is pretending to be a part of this month.

He's Kevin Deautrive, military barber.

I couldn't care less about this gay marriage issue. (Save to say that that I have no problem with the idea of Prop 8, though I wouldn't vote for it, whereas I DO have a huge problem with the CA courts ignoring the previous verdict of the people on the subject. Either way, this is a matter best handled on a state level. Gay marriage is neither a "fundamental right" governed by Constitutional protections, nor is it some insidiously evil Gramscian plot to rend apart the conservative social fabric of a nation. It's just a social matter that should be addressed in a federalist manner.)

What I would like to say, however, is that BTF has been a far, far better and more enjoyable place since kevin was banned. I sincerely hope that Szymborski decides to extend the ban indefinitely, or that kevin decides to never return here even if he is technically allowed to do so. He was a disgrace and a pox upon this place, and a (the?) key contributor to BTF's tonal deterioration over the last year or so. Frankly it seems to me that the only reason some people here liked him is because he was helping to transform this site into the sort of forum they preferred, but which it never should be. Let us pray that neither he nor those like him ever haunt this place again.

And now that you make this post, I have a quaternary point, which is (unless that 'screw each other' is a brilliant double entendre, in which case kudos), it doesn't make sense to think of the issue of lack of insurance coverage for certain treatments as insurance companies 'screwing' people, because you pay one way or the other.

Ah, but it's more complicated than that, isn't it?
Most people don't have a "free and clear" choice of health plans (like, they do, for say, cell phone plans). Because people can generally only afford the plans that their employer choses to subsidize. So, in that sense, the employer by asserting their (monetary) power over employees by selecting health plans that don't cover contraception is (marginally) reducing their freedom.

Now, this system (where the only health care you can afford you get through your employer) may be f-ed in the first place, but that's besides the issues.

So, do religious rights trump "other" rights (in this case the right to affordable health care?) Anyway, I know _your_ opinion on this...

There's no distinction between "risk to the insured" and "risk to the carrier"; it's the same risk.

I am not sure that is correct. The carrier will pay for medical costs associated with the pregnancy. So there is much less economic risk for the insured when a pregnancy occurs. Providing contraceptives reduces the risk (both the occurance and the costs) to the carrier; it only reduces the risk of occurance for the insured. In that way, it is like vaccines (which were mentioned above).

Professor...lava...hot!

That's Dolemite, baby!

Also, Gaelen in 106 did a much better job of making the point I was going for in my "separate but equal" post (66).

As for kevin, good riddance to bad rubbish.

Ah, but it's more complicated than that, isn't it?
Most people don't have a "free and clear" choice of health plans (like, they do, for say, cell phone plans). Because people can generally only afford the plans that their employer choses to subsidize. So, in that sense, the employer by asserting their (monetary) power over employees by selecting health plans that don't cover contraception is (marginally) reducing their freedom.

No; I think you're missing the point I was making there. Insurance companies are not magical money trees; if you require them to cover something, it comes out in higher premiums. When it's something like contraception, which is just an ordinary expense rather than an unexpected risk, all you're doing is telling everyone to pay for someone else's contraception. To the extent most insureds get it (either for themselves or their spouses), all you're doing is shuffling money around.

Now, this system (where the only health care you can afford you get through your employer) may be f-ed in the first place, but that's besides the issues.

Well, it's not entirely; the reason you get health insurance through your employer -- something which conceptually doesn't make much sense; you don't get auto insurance, homeowners' insurance, etc., through your employer -- is because of government distortions of the market. Payment in the form of cash is taxed, while payment in the form of health insurance premiums isn't, so it's a better deal for employees to get the latter. So one government distortion is being used as justification for another. In any case, if you don't like it, you can change jobs, just as if you don't like any other form of payment.

So, do religious rights trump "other" rights (in this case the right to affordable health care?) Anyway, I know _your_ opinion on this...

Sure: that no such animal as a "right to affordable health care" exists.

Either way, this is a matter best handled on a state level. Gay marriage is neither a "fundamental right" governed by Constitutional protections, nor is it some insidiously evil Gramscian plot to rend apart the conservative social fabric of a nation. It's just a social matter that should be addressed in a federalist manner.)

I completely disagree that the marriage issue should be left to the States. I'm sure the lawyers are going to jump on me and tell me the many ways I am wrong but marriage in my view, fall under inter-state commerce and thus according to the fourteenth amendment falls under Federal jurisdiction.

Really, regardless of someone's stance on what is, and is not, a marriage the idea that State's could have different laws is preposterous. I promise to love and to cherish you until I die or am forced to move to pursue employment opportunities does not exactly have the authority of catechism.

The argument is incoherent since the whole point of the traditional view concerning marriage is to create lasting institutions that are directed towards the eternal that can act as a bulwark in the temporal world of change. Allowing a legal situation in which whether a couple is married or not changes according to geography undermines the very principle of marriage and is, dare I say it, anti-family values.

Gaelan--
Your post #106 gives a lot of good stuff to think about, but this sentence
It is also why the issue is difficult to understand within the liberal mindframe since liberals don't understand the value of recognition.
seems to be nothing more than a gratuitous shot at liberals. Throughout the history of this country liberals have fought for recognition of minorities, women, labor and all manner of marginalized people.

Civil Unions is not some liberal's ideal answer to the gay marriage issue. It's a political compromise that one hopes would give same-sex couples at least the same legal rights as married people while they are waiting for society in general to be ready to accept that same-sex marriage are in your words "as meaningful as straight relationships". Liberals who support same-sex civil unions are following the old proverb of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

#121 -- funniest post of the day!

Your post #106 gives a lot of good stuff to think about, but this sentence ...
seems to be nothing more than a gratuitous shot at liberals.

Guilty. Though I should clarify that what I mean by "liberal" is in the sense of liberalism and not liberal in the sense of the BTF liberal--conservative divide. For instance in my view the most "liberal" people here are Nieporent and Ray while I am conservative even though I have only voted ever voted for left wing parties.

He's Kevin Deautrive, military barber.

If he decides to adopt the persona of "K-Deaux", the homosexual hairstylist in order to work at Hotty's Salon, he really could add some quality content to this thread.

kevin has many good points and is a smart guy.

He's a ####### idiot and a pathetic #######. But he shouldn't have been banned. Neither should Rob Base. Nor the Bearded Wizard, Mike Piazza, and randall.

And they shouldn't have been banned... why exactly?

I cried at the end of that one Futurama episode where Fry discovers his long lost dog.

Don't forget the one where it turns out that Fry's brother Yancy, rather than stealing Fry's name, had actually named his own son Philip J. Fry in honor of his "missing" brother.

cmon boys

give poor ol kev another chance.

you don't make your kids sit in the corner forever do you? i know sometimes he, um, forgets his manners, but that is true of a whole lot of you. AHEM!!!!

yeah it is his character flaw that he can't never admit he was mistaken, or say he is sorry, or even stop shouting too many times, or stop exaggerating to prove he is right, but hey, we all sinners in our own way.

[commence platitudes]
I cannot see how anybody should give a damn one way or another about marriage, beyond possible tax ramifications. There are far, far more important things for this country to worry about than who's marrying who. This is homophobia, plain and simple. SCOTUS ruled on polygamy in the 19th century, and I'm pretty sure that is one slope we're not about to slide down.

[/platitudes]

Count me among those in favor of civil unions for all, and marriage for those who want it.

And they shouldn't have been banned... why exactly?

Arva--

I will try to drop you a line next time I am in KY--likely early summer 2009. I bookmarked that thread. Just don't shoot me if I show up in my Obama cap.**

The whole banning thing...Jim and Dan et al of course have the proprietary right to do what they want, and Base is a very different case than kevin. My personal take is that with the "ignore user" option*, people should only be banned for really extreme stuff. kevin contributes along with the bluster.

*And yes, I know people get quoted, but still.
**Assuming he hasn't taken all your guns.

Shorter Scott: yes, it will happen, but we'll pretend it isn't by saying that it's not really a religious function but just something that happens to be done by a religious institution.

Gee, despite being a flaming idiot, I thought there was at least a chance that you were a capable lawyer.

I guess not.

Same place I'm always going when I raise these issues. The state tells us who we can associate with and on what terms -- or, more precisely, who we can refuse to associate with -- commercially and socially. We used to have the right to decide; we no longer do. (Or, rather, we still have the right, but the government violates it.)

What David is trying to say is that he is now, and always has been, opposed to most of the Civil Rights Acts. But purely on philosophical grounds.

What David also always fails to mention is that there is no natural right to form a corporation which becomes a separate entity, which thereby shields its owners from personal liability.

Corporations are an invention of the law, like so many other things. David has no problem with arguing they should have rights, without taking into account that they only exist because the state allows them to exist as an invention.

My primary point was that there's precedent for the government interfering with religious liberty for social goals, and therefore it is not absurd for people to be worried about the government penalizing churches that don't perform gay marriages.

Yes, it is. The adoption case is very different.

But at this point, you have become such a caricature that is not even worth discussing it with you.

no such animal as a "right to affordable health care" exists.

In your universe, where you get to define the rights, and ignore the history that led to the property you so desperately cling to.

srul,

david is in favor of every civil right there is. just not the act. even though rights wouldn't exist without the act.

i understand david's love of freedom, but i do not get how you escape the tyrrany of the majority to be free without laws

the whole idea of libertarian sounds great but the trouble is there is too many jerks out there for it to work in real life

and won't never be true that everyone has equal rights/treatment under the law. too much prejudices you can't get rid of because too many people really think - one way my way

Leaving aside the fact that I personally think Srul's politics are of the retrograde variety and that his tone is dismayingly kevin-like -- I realize that others will disagree -- I think we can all join together in agreeing that there is never an excuse for making five consecutive tiny posts all arguing with one person.

Dear god man, the edit function is your friend.

dismayingly kevin-like

Fat, drunk and kevin is no way to go through life, son.

Edit- FYI, in California we have Domestic Partnerships not Civil Unions. I offer this to both sides so that when you get ready to accuse your political opponents of ignorance, you'll be ready to go.

his tone is dismayingly kevin-like

epic fail

Less politics, more Futurama.

If you want to ban anyone from BTF, fine, but at least spell out the reason, and provide a universal standard for banning that can be applied across the board. Kevin has had his moments, but if you wanted to start collecting names of members who've engaged in personal attacks here, Kevin would hardly be the only one on the list.

#159 - Yeaarrgghhhh:

Whose epic fail? Mine? I was thinking in particular of posts like #151 and #155 when I wrote that. And I thought I made my point rather politely.

Andy -

I think many (most?) of us have descended to the personal every now and then. It's inevitable when hot political topics are being discussed by a group of people whose overriding collective tone is best described as "smugly snarky." But it's a rare thing for most of us, and we either apologize (as I try to do when I step over the line) or simply return to substance. kevin is a different beast entirely when judged on those terms.

Less politics, more Futurama.

WHO WANTS TO PARTY WITH NIXON?

I have never really seen Futurama. I caught an episode or two back when it was a new show, and honestly it seemed pretty boring to me. Am I missing something grand? Is that where all the funny from The Simpsons migrated to after the 8th season or so?

What David is trying to say is that he is now, and always has been, opposed to most of the Civil Rights Acts. But purely on philosophical grounds.

Only partially correct. The "always has been" is wrong; I used to be your generic reflexive liberal.

But it's true that I am now opposed to all anti-private discrimination laws. ("Private" being a key caveat, which is why it's boldfaced; I continue to support the 14th amendment, which applies to state action.) This should hardly be a surprise to Srul; I've said it many times here, as Andy could tell you.

Is that where all the funny from The Simpsons migrated to after the 8th season or so?

Pretty much.

Whose epic fail? Mine? I was thinking in particular of posts like #151 and #155 when I wrote that. And I thought I made my point rather politely.

You made your point politely, but come on. The claim that Srul's tone is "kevin-like" is...I'm trying to think of a stronger word than absurd.

Is that where all the funny from The Simpsons migrated to after the 8th season or so?

Pretty much.

This.

Probably not as good as the peak of the Simpsons, but still a HOF quality show.

This.

Probably not as good as the peak of the Simpsons, but still a HOF quality show.

Exactly. Kind of the Al Kaline to the Simpsons Joe D.

Is Jeff Kent the most conservative grad (or least former student) of Berkley ever?

Wait, Joe D. is a bad analogy. I need someone who had an absolutely incredible early peak and then a very, very long decline.

Shorter Scott: yes, it will happen, but we'll pretend it isn't by saying that it's not really a religious function but just something that happens to be done by a religious institution.

Holy cow is David a lying sack of dirt. Jesus. If that's what you think I said, you need to get out of here and go back to grade school, you ignorant pustule. And you add a false dichotomy between Canada and the United States, utterly ignoring that it's likely unconstitutional for the US government to force Catholic churches to provide contraception to employees. Do you actually think you're making sense? Or are you just the best troll ever?

I used to be your generic reflexive liberal.

Ah, so brain damage was involved to make you the man you are today. My apologies for treating you poorly.

Ah, so brain damage was involved to make you the man you are today. My apologies for treating you poorly.

I fail to see how this contributes to comity and greater understanding among the denizens of BTF.

No; I think you're missing the point I was making there. Insurance companies are not magical money trees;

Do they show profits? I know they must or else they wouldn't exist. But this is a weird point anyway... the gov. doesn't force insurance companies to cover contraception (with the possible exception of those it contracts with to cover government employees)... they do it because it makes them money (either literally, by preventing costly pregnancies, or indirectly by appealing to consumers who want such a feature).

if you require them to cover something, it comes out in higher premiums. When it's something like contraception, which is just an ordinary expense rather than an unexpected risk, all you're doing is telling everyone to pay for someone else's contraception. To the extent most insureds get it (either for themselves or their spouses), all you're doing is shuffling money around.

Isn't this what insurance is supposed to do? Manage the risk/cost of something over the buyers?

C'mon David, do you really think I have a problem with this? We should start numbering our arguments, like that prison joke:

4!
16!
2!
14, you ignorant pustule!

[mst3k]
THAT WAS NUMBER TWO!!
[/mst3k]

Is McDonald's under assault when a couple of people walk in the door with no shoes on?

I can't believe nobody commented on this. There's no way 100% of you understood what I meant (I'm not positive I do; it was something about establishments having rules yet people not following those rules don't constitute an "assault" on that place), so I'm left to assume something more sinister. Expect to hear from the MLBPA about my "collusion to ignore" charges.

I fail to see how this contributes to comity and greater understanding among the denizens of BTF.

When I flat out lie about what you say, and do so in a way that utterly changes what you said into something 1) not true and 2) deeply offensive to you, you can call me brain damaged. DMN has filled the irritation gauge for the day.

because California now forces Catholic Charities to provide contraceptive coverage to its employees, which has the advantage of being both a violation of Free Exercise and economically illiterate. (It makes no sense conceptually for insurance to pay for contraception; that's welfare, not insurance.)

Ironically, this isn't even totally correct:


cal contraception insurance

What is required? If a health insurance plan provides coverage for outpatient prescription drugs, it must provide coverage for a variety Food and Drug Administration-approved prescription contraceptive methods, as designated by the insurer. If the insured's health care provider determines that none of the methods designated by the insurer is medically appropriate, the insurer shall provide coverage for another FDA-approved prescription contraceptive prescribed by the insured's health care provider.

To which insurance plans does the law apply? All health care service plan contracts (except for specialized health care service plan contracts) and certain disability insurance policies issued or renewed on or after January 1, 2000 that provide coverage for outpatient prescription drugs.

Does the law contain a refusal clause, allowing certain employers and/or insurers to refuse to provide or pay for contraceptive coverage? Yes.

To whom does the refusal clause apply? Religious employers for whom contraception is contrary to their religious tenets.

What does the refusal clause allow? A religious employer may require issuers of its health insurance plans to exclude coverage for contraception.

So:
1) They only cover Prescription contraceptives (i.e., not condoms), and only for plans that cover prescriptions - not inconsistent with "insurance" at all.

2) My guess is that "Catholic Charties" as mentioned above are not exempt from this law because they are not "a nonprofit organization that has the purpose of inculcation of religious values and that primarily employs and serves persons who share the religious tenets of the entity"

Is Jeff Kent the most conservative grad (or least former student) of Berkley ever?

Probably not even close, actually. Because of the left-leaning nature of the campus, many of the College Republicans tend to lean even further right to compensate (such is my theory at least :p). Of course, I don't really know enough about Kent's views on other matters, but I knew some pretty nutty ones.

Andy -

I think many (most?) of us have descended to the personal every now and then. It's inevitable when hot political topics are being discussed by a group of people whose overriding collective tone is best described as "smugly snarky." But it's a rare thing for most of us, and we either apologize (as I try to do when I step over the line) or simply return to substance. kevin is a different beast entirely when judged on those terms.

Esoteric,

Even on that level, Kevin's not any worse than some of the other people here. At his worst he carries on with crap like that duel with JC about not reimbursing him for an Orioles ticket, which should never have been taken to BTF. But other than that, I distinctly recall that his invective has more than been matched by plenty of people he spars with, and on an almost perfect tlt-for-tat basis. I could easily name names, but I'm not interested in getting in the middle of anything like that.

The main thing about Kevin that I think gets under peoples' skin isn't so much his namecalling, its's his sheer energy. I mention above that there are quite a few Primates who match Kevin tlt for tat with the personal stuff, but in a way it's as if Kevin is one of those old time carnival fighers who takes on one opponent after another for what seems like forever. You could put it this way: His peak isn't all that remarkable in terms of invective, but his career value is positively Ruthian.

Look, I have to admit that I get bored with the way he and Nieporent (and others) go back and forth baiting each other on a personal level, drowning out any other conversation. But it takes two to tango. And anyone with minimal scanning skills can avoid that sort of a catfight.

And it's also true that there's more than one way to troll a thread. You can get in an opponent's face, and that's pretty transparent. But you can also selectively quote the most tangential part of an opponent's argument in order to avoid dealing with the heart of it, make a snarky non sequitur that deftly changes the subject, and go merrily skipping away, ignoring the question.

That sort of cheap and lazy tactic trolls a hell of a lot more discussions here than personal attacks. And Kevin's hardly Exhibit A in that respect.

But if you all have a problem with Kevin's style of posting, there's a simple remedy. Establish a set of standards for everyone, warn a violator once---right there on the thread where we all can see it---and then suspend him for a second violation. IOW treat it like drug testing with a powerful pee test.

And if that policy gets Kevin (or anyone else) in trouble, so be it, but at least then we'll all know what it was all about, without having to ask around after the fact.

If Jeff Kent wants to donate to that cause it's his constitutional right to do so. I would hope that if he's willing to donate the money, he's willing to take on the public recourse for it, otherwise he shouldn't have made the donation. I don't agree with him, I think if gay people wanna get married then go for it. If the US government has true separation of church and state, there's really no reason to prevent it. If a church doesn't want to perform the rite, that's also their decision.

There's lots of lawyers just foaming at the mouth for more divorce cases. Opening up the marriage pool helps the economy!

Honestly, I have no problem with Jeff Kent donating, and publicly ostracizing someone because of their donations seems a bit sketch to me. While I don't think it's wrong, per se, and transparency is almost always good, I think it's much better to try and talk about the issue rather than branding someone for holding an unpopular view with the societal scarlet letter.

Do they show profits? I know they must or else they wouldn't exist. But this is a weird point anyway... the gov. doesn't force insurance companies to cover contraception (with the possible exception of those it contracts with to cover government employees)... they do it because it makes them money (either literally, by preventing costly pregnancies, or indirectly by appealing to consumers who want such a feature).

Zenbitz, you're utterly and totally missing the point. The government (or, rather, some government) DOES force insurance companies to cover contraception. That's how this topic arose in this thread -- California was requiring insurance companies to do so, and refused to exempt Catholic Charities, even though it's against their religion.

EDIT:

1) They only cover Prescription contraceptives (i.e., not condoms), and only for plans that cover prescriptions - not inconsistent with "insurance" at all.

Yes, it is inconsistent. The fact that a "prescription" is involved doesn't change the fact that it's not a risk.

2) My guess is that "Catholic Charties" as mentioned above are not exempt from this law because they are not "a nonprofit organization that has the purpose of inculcation of religious values and that primarily employs and serves persons who share the religious tenets of the entity"

You're correct that this is what the California court held as a matter of statutory interpretation, but I'm talking about the constitution.

Honestly, I have no problem with Jeff Kent donating, and publicly ostracizing someone because of their donations seems a bit sketch to me. While I don't think it's wrong, per se, and transparency is almost always good, I think it's much better to try and talk about the issue rather than branding someone for holding an unpopular view with the societal scarlet letter.

Whilst I agree in principle, as I said in post #2, he's still a turd.

Maybe he and Kevin are actually gay and shacking up together? Just thought I'd throw that out there...

Holy cow is David a lying sack of dirt. Jesus. If that's what you think I said, you need to get out of here and go back to grade school, you ignorant pustule. And you add a false dichotomy between Canada and the United States, utterly ignoring that it's likely unconstitutional for the US government to force Catholic churches to provide contraception to employees.

AND YET, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DID JUST THAT, and no court was willing to call it unconstitutional.

Any more than they were willing to call unconstitutional the penalties imposed on Bob Jones for their religious beliefs.

David, sorry for my ramblings. I was indeed confused, found a cit (just as we have on ze web) and I agree, State of CA DOES force insurance companies with prescription plans to include prescribed contraceptives. I guess I cannot argue with the point that this makes no sense to you. If it doesn't, it doesn't. Makes sense to me. One gets birth control pills from an MD with a prescriptions. This is the kind of stuff that is covered by a typical health plan. My health plan covers trips to PT to work on a slightly impinged rotator cuff.


However, there is a SPECIFIC EXEMPTION for religious organizations. Now, I infer you are referring to a specific case (which has not been ruled on by the SCOTUS) on whether a catholic charity qualifies as a religious organization. BUT it is not true that, for example, if a local nunnery buys insurance for the sisters that they MUST, by CA state law use a health plan that covers contraceptives! But maybe that one hasn't gone to court yet?

However, there is a SPECIFIC EXEMPTION for religious organizations. Now, I infer you are referring to a specific case (which has not been ruled on by the SCOTUS) on whether a catholic charity qualifies as a religious organization. BUT it is not true that, for example, if a local nunnery buys insurance for the sisters that they MUST, by CA state law use a health plan that covers contraceptives! But maybe that one hasn't gone to court yet?

you'll get something like the below.

AND YET, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DID JUST THAT, and no court was willing to call it unconstitutional.

Any more than they were willing to call unconstitutional the penalties imposed on Bob Jones for their religious beliefs.

You expect DMN to come up with a solid legal response to this? Dude probably has been cited for ineffective assistance of counsel so many times that the NJ bar is on the verge of tossing him out.

RR - glad to hear it, and I'll look forward to it.*

*And there's a decent chance I'm going to vote Obama. Especially because both McCain and Obama had a hand in the excrable bail-out bill, which means there economic policies can't be very different and socially, I tend toward the left. Also, there's no way in hell I'm casting a vote letting Palin near the White House.

I can understand, accept and respect that there are people of other sexual tendencies, but should they be proud to be gay? Should they ride on a parade float and come out in protests?

That’s what has always confused me. I mean, were you to hold a “Straight Pride Day” parade folks would think you are mad.

Am I “proud” to be straight? I am neither proud nor ashamed--I just am.

Proud or straight--what precisely is there to be proud of? I look at good looking people of my own gender and get horny; I look at good looking people of the opposite gender and get horny.

What’s to be proud of? Does it deserve celebration or recognition?

What does it take to be gay or straight--hormones and fully developed reproductive systems. We get that at adolescence. Are we celebrating or proud of having reached puberty? In a normal person that happens without any effort, study or achievement. Why not celebrate armpit hair? We get that too as part of the package (pun not intended).

Are you aware of the sexual preferences of all the people around you? The racial ethnic makeup of their ancestors?

I don’t; I do not ask nor do I much care.

Personally, I feel such “Pride Day” things are counter-productive because the opposite of pride is shame and in having “Pride Days” that are inadvertently conceding that some view such things as a matter of shame that needs to be counteracted.

Is there shame in being straight? Male? Female? No, but it does not mean there is an element of pride either--it simply is how things are.

What is gay? What is straight? Things over which we have no control aren’t points of pride or shame. We were born homo sapiens--we do not celebrate the fact that we were not born dogs, nor horses, nor goldfish. Things to be celebrated or taken pride in are things we do--things we choose and things we achieve. It is not an achievement to be gay and it is not one to be straight. We recognize the idiocy of racism because no one is allowed to choose their parents.

It’s why things like the KKK are not only nasty--but idiotic. They’re proud to be white--um, what did they do to have that “privilege” to be Caucasian? Did they go through 15 years of gruelling post-secondary education? Did they achieve it through a long apprenticeship? Did they accomplish it through years of practice, hard work, self sacrifice and dedication?

They’re white through sheer chance and random circumstance.

It’s like some folks who wear the fact that they’re American--born into the country that is currently the world’s biggest superpower gives them a reason to swagger. I remember a few years ago a guy giving me a rough time for being Canadian--he was going on and on about the superiority of the United States and was trying to get me to admit that the U.S. of A was the greatest country in the world.

I said I’ll admit that the USA is the greatest country in the world when he admits that he had absolutely nothing to do with it becoming and being such.

It ended the conversation.

That’s the point--he happened to be born in a certain part of the world and felt that it conferred honour upon him--something he could pin to his chest as a point of pride.

He did nothing. He had no control over it--he just happened to be born to parents living in a certain part of the planet earth.

It’s like the joke somebody once made about George Steinbrenner: that he was born on third base yet acts like he hit a triple.

The churches should stay completely out of politics and should have no influence upon society at large. Even though we may have been born into a certain belief system, we can choose to stay and we can choose to leave. It’s a matter of choice. Those who choose for themselves cannot choose for others since by making their choice they have metaphorically cast their ballot for freedom of choice.

I think that soon organized religion is going to pay dearly for its millenniums of interference in areas that they do not belong (and the suffering and heartache it has inflicted on humanity because of it)--but that’s a subject for another day.

The problem is that the wording of the issue is the problem. It’s not about gay rights, straight rights, minority rights--it’s about human rights.

If one group is given rights denied another, then they cease to be rights but become privileges since rights by definition belong to all. Privileges are (ideally) things earned, they are bestowed as a perk of achievement--something gained by accomplishment and not circumstance.

Rights are a recognition that people cannot choose certain circumstances--such as parents, gender, the point of normal human development at which you find yourself.

Sexuality is not a point of pride, or achievement--it is nothing to be celebrated, it is a small part of what people are; I cannot help but think that it’s why such issues cause problems. We’re compartmentalizing a small aspect of the human experience and treating it as the whole whether it be race, gender or something else and wondering if this small part of the whole deserves the same rights than the entirety of others allegedly enjoys.

It’s comparing apples to oranges (race/nationality/gender/religion/sexuality to people) instead of apples to apples (people to people).

It’s the human failing of categorizing people into groups instead of a whole (humanity).

I guess what I’m saying is that rights apply to all and mildly criticizing the approach of the group seeking certain rights. Instead of using things like “pride” regarding something that one should be neither proud nor ashamed they should be using an approach of simple humanity, ergo, I am a human being and am fully entitled to the same rights of other human beings. If I am denied these rights then they are not rights at all but privileges.

If they are privileges what did group A do to deserve them that group B did not? What did group A do to earn this privilege that group B did not. If group A received this privilege because of circumstances beyond their control, then why is group B’s circumstances beyond their control being held against them?

Has anything good ever come from the mixing of religion and politics? Heck, if not much good has come from religion and politics of itself the mixing of it cannot be good either. The unnecessary suffering caused by humanity's stupidity never ceases to amaze me. We keep dividing ourselves, categorizing ourselves, separating ourselves and we fight, literally to do so; once accomplished, once we've managed to give ourselves the identity, the individuality that separates ourselves from other groups of people we then start fighting those other groups because we feel they're now a threat to "us".

Anyway, I just needed to vent.

Best Regards

John

You've made a hell of a lot of great posts here, John, but that one may have topped them all.

The only caveat I'd make is that in some cases I can see the "pride" days as part of a phase of psychological transition from complete ostracism to routine acceptance, and as such a part of our overall evolution from tribalism to humanism. But we ain't quite there yet.

John,

You are a thoughtful & decent person and you make this little corner of the ether better, smarter and kinder.

However, there is a SPECIFIC EXEMPTION for religious organizations. Now, I infer you are referring to a specific case (which has not been ruled on by the SCOTUS) on whether a catholic charity qualifies as a religious organization. BUT it is not true that, for example, if a local nunnery buys insurance for the sisters that they MUST, by CA state law use a health plan that covers contraceptives! But maybe that one hasn't gone to court yet?

I know that there's a specific exemption for religious organizations. The problem is that (a) the exemption was narrowly drawn so as to allow liberals who want to force people to provide contraceptive coverage to claim that religious organizations aren't religious organizations at all. Like Catholic Charities.

(b) That's a statutory exemption, not a constitutional one; it exists only because the legislature decided to put it in there, not because it had to. There's no specific exemption in Massachusetts, so the church was not given any choice wrt adoptions. It was told it would either provide adoption services to gay couples or not be allowed to provide adoption services at all. (A similar situation happened in San Francisco; these are anti-discrimination laws rather than the prescription drug law, and there was no exception in such laws.) The argument often cited by liberals for why this was acceptable was that adoption services are "really" government services, and therefore, if a church wanted to provide them, it needed to abide by whatever conditions the government placed on it.

(c) Scott is a very bad excuse for a lawyer, so he doesn't read Supreme Court decisions; contrary to his claims, Employment Division v. Smith implies that in fact no exemption is required for churches under the first amendment.

The same argument that was used for adoption could be applied to marriage -- that a marriage is "really" a government function, and therefore any church that wants to be allowed to officially perform marriages must abide by these requirements.


So, really, what we're left with is the idea that we don't need to worry about it because the legislature/courts would never do such a thing. Anybody who thinks that is a compelling argument is absurdly naïve/historically ignorant. Reductio creep is a real phenomenon, and some liberals prize nondiscrimination over every other value. (Witness sexual harassment laws, many of which clearly violate the first amendment.)

Personally, I feel such “Pride Day” things are counter-productive because the opposite of pride is shame and in having “Pride Days” that are inadvertently conceding that some view such things as a matter of shame that needs to be counteracted.

"Conceding" isn't the right word. Who's going to deny some people view homosexuality as shameful? "Gay Pride" parades are a big raised middle finger to bigots. There's nothing wrong with giving bigots the raised middle finger, IMO. Counter-productive to what? #### the bigots.

That’s what has always confused me. I mean, were you to hold a “Straight Pride Day” parade folks would think you are mad.

Am I “proud” to be straight? I am neither proud nor ashamed--I just am.

Proud or straight--what precisely is there to be proud of? I look at good looking people of my own gender and get horny; I look at good looking people of the opposite gender and get horny.

What’s to be proud of? Does it deserve celebration or recognition?

John,

the reason GLBT people are "proud" is that it wasn't that long ago that it was illegal to be GLBT in many western societies. And is still illegal to be GLBT in many countries around the world, often punishable by jail terms, and treatment to "cure" them.

The reason people are "proud" is what got this thread started. GLBT people still aren't treated equally in the US. They weren't treated equally in the UK until recently: it took a ruling from the European Court of Human Rights and lots of work before a law standardising the age of consent for straight and gay people, was forced through Parliament, over the opposition of the House of Lords. And Sofia of Spain certainly doesn't appear to view them as equal.

Since you're Canadian, from wikipedia,

A youth of twelve or thirteen can consent to sexual activity with an individual no more than two years older than them. A fourteen- or fifteen-year-old can consent to sexual activity with a partner who is no more than five years older than them, or to whom they are married.

Anal intercourse

Additionally, section 159 of the Criminal Code sets the age of consent for anal intercourse at 18 years, with an exception if the two partners are married.

Are you aware of the sexual preferences of all the people around you? The racial ethnic makeup of their ancestors?

I don’t; I do not ask nor do I much care.

That's very nice. Now, try to convince bigots like Jeff Kent, or John Smoltz, or Tommy Lasorda to your way of thinking.

Personally, I feel such “Pride Day” things are counter-productive because the opposite of pride is shame and in having “Pride Days” that are inadvertently conceding that some view such things as a matter of shame that needs to be counteracted.

Is there shame in being straight? Male? Female? No, but it does not mean there is an element of pride either--it simply is how things are.

Again, in an ideal world, this is great. Most GLBT people do not live in that ideal world. In the real world, some do view such things as a matter of shame. Yes, by having "pride", it is a "concession" that the perception of shame needs to be counteracted

What is gay? What is straight? Things over which we have no control aren’t points of pride or shame. We were born homo sapiens--we do not celebrate the fact that we were not born dogs, nor horses, nor goldfish. Things to be celebrated or taken pride in are things we do--things we choose and things we achieve. It is not an achievement to be gay and it is not one to be straight.

And again, if only more people would share your view that we were all born homo sapiens. Full stop.

Even in most modern western societies, growing up straight and growing up gay isn't similar. Go to many boards / sites, and childish derogatory gay / lesbian jokes are still common.

And growing up transgendered is DEFINITELY NOT similar to growing up gay [edit, I mean growing up straight]. AT ALL. Not in any society in the world, not even the most tolerant ones. They are still far more marginalised than gays / lesbians / bis.

It’s why things like the KKK are not only nasty--but idiotic. They’re proud to be white--um, what did they do to have that “privilege” to be Caucasian? Did they go through 15 years of gruelling post-secondary education? Did they achieve it through a long apprenticeship? Did they accomplish it through years of practice, hard work, self sacrifice and dedication?

They’re white through sheer chance and random circumstance.

You're comparing gay pride to the KKK? I suggest reading up on the history of homosexuality in the 20th century.

The problem is that the wording of the issue is the problem. It’s not about gay rights, straight rights, minority rights--it’s about human rights.

If one group is given rights denied another, then they cease to be rights but become privileges since rights by definition belong to all. Privileges are (ideally) things earned, they are bestowed as a perk of achievement--something gained by accomplishment and not circumstance.

That what advocates of GLBT rights have been advocating. That really is all that advocates of GLBT rights are advocating. Equal rights.

I guess what I’m saying is that rights apply to all and mildly criticizing the approach of the group seeking certain rights. Instead of using things like “pride” regarding something that one should be neither proud nor ashamed they should be using an approach of simple humanity, ergo, I am a human being and am fully entitled to the same rights of other human beings. If I am denied these rights then they are not rights at all but privileges.

The problem here is that some do NOT see GLBT as equal / "normal" human beings entitled to the same rights as other human beings. They see them as sub human, or "deviants" who need to be "cured". They are aware of the arguments about human beings, and equal human rights. kevin started a flame war not too long back, trying to make an argument on what if GLBT people could be "cured". And his position isn't all that original.

#### the bigots.

Will this group doing this want their own pride day too? :-b...

Best Regards

John

I know Jeff Kent is gay 'cause when I kiss him he giggles.

Thanks, rfloh, said far better than I could have/would have when I realized I was feeling rather off about not seeing the heaping praise of John's post. STARTING OFF WITH "we're all human, so why are these gay people crowing" misses the point by a country mile. That and the already-mentioned KKK reference is your lead? Then the "and, of course, the church is bad to say so religion politics etc. etc....." Eh.

If that's not what you meant, John, that's certainly how it came off.

The joke about Steinbrenner was actually a joke made about Bush the Elder, by Lloyd Bentsen, I believe. But its origin seems to be during the Depression. Scroll to pages 16 and 17 for the scoop:

Born on third...