Another small step for homosexual rights

If you think Chicago teachers aren't paid enough, you'll be thrilled about the new benefits they'll be getting if State Rep. Greg Harris' (D-Chicago) HB 4731 passes in the House. 

With HB 4731, in addition to the health benefits they're already getting, Chicago teachers' survivor and death benefits will be able to be bestowed upon same sex domestic partners, as well.  Before the March 13th House committee hearing, Rep. Harris -- the only openly gay House member -- included opposite sex partners in the bill's language.   Now the definition of domestic partners applies to same sex partners only.

If you're wondering how HB 4731 defines as a domestic partner, here it is:

"Domestic partner" means an individual of the same sex as an unmarried teacher who (1) is involved with the teacher in a long-term relationship of indefinite duration; (2) has resided together with the teacher at the same address for at least 12 months; (3) is not related to the teacher by blood to a degree of closeness that would prohibit legal marriage in the state in which they legally reside; (4) is not married to any other person; and (5) has an exclusive mutual commitment to the teacher in which they agree to be jointly responsible for each other's common welfare and to share financial obligations.

This is nothing but another incremental effort to force hard-working taxpayers to subsidize homosexual rights.

Comments

[Erasmussimo]

Your conclusion:

"This is nothing but another incremental effort to force hard-working taxpayers to subsidize homosexual rights."

deserves comparison with this alternative wording:

"This is nothing but another incremental effort to force hard-working taxpayers to subsidize teacher rights."

The issue is not whether the taxpayers are working hard, nor is it whether they should pay for the health care of teacher's spouses -- that has already been decided in the affirmative. The issue is, are domestic partners functionally or operationally different from spouses? I see no reason to believe so.

I'd like to address the issue more generally. I do not understand the enmity directed at homosexuals by some conservatives. Yes, I find their lifestyles repugnant, but I recognize the basic principle that everybody has a right to the pursuit of happiness so long as they leave others alone. I just can't understand why conservatives reject the pursuit of happiness as a valid right. I can't understand why they have to stick their noses into other people's business. Can one of the more reasonable conservatives here explain the justification for this?

[Christine]

Here's a question, why does the partner have to be unrelated by blood, of the same sex, etc.?

Do they have to be having sex? Is someone going to check? How do they know if the relationship is really of "indefinite duration?" Isn't every relationship, until you end it?

What if I wanted to declare someone my "domestic partner" what business would it be of theirs if we were actually lesbians or just really good friends?

[jorod]

It's one thing to realize that not everyone can form mature heterosexual relationships. Quite another to endorse and encourage a lifestyle that leads to disease, suffering and an early death. Syphillis, gonorhea, herpes, hepatitis, etc. Encouraging people to accept this life-style only leads to more unhealthy behavior. Additionally, most who claim to be homosexuals are in reality sexual deviates and are emotionally disturbed. True homosexuals who simply prefer the company of the same sex are probably few and far between. Of course, the big motivator for homosexual rights is money. The treatment of AIDS can be very expensive. One AIDS cocktail can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why tolerate much less encourage such behavior? Not to mention the human suffering involved. Why lead our young people into such a life? If you child asks for bread, do you give him stones? If they ask for knowledge do you give them ignorance? If the facts of the gay life were discussed openly, I'm sure there would be a general consensus against it. However, anyone who tries to discuss the facts is branded as a bigot by the media.

[Hascat]

jorod:

Are you seriously suggesting that preventing same-sex domestic partners from receiving benefits will reduce the infection rate of STD's?

[spintreebob]

re: "The issue is not whether the taxpayers .. should pay for the health care of teacher's spouses -- that has already been decided in the affirmative"

This is the crux of the problem. It is historical accident, not logic, that has tied health care to the employer. It is a grossly inefficient system.

If it is none of the taxpayer's business whom a teacher lives with, then that teachers health insurance is also none of the taxpayer's business.

[Erasmussimo]

jorod writes,

"However, anyone who tries to discuss the facts is branded as a bigot by the media."

And I would say that's a pretty fair characterization. Bigotry is hatred for people based on their membership in a group rather than their individual personalities, and is usually associated with hyperbolic claims about the group's behavior. The assertion that gays suffer from a higher incidence of STDs has no foundation in evidence (although I'm happy to be corrected if somebody has seen some reliable evidence to the contrary). The assertion that they are sexual deviants and emotionally disturbed is also devoid of evidence.

You can't solve a problem if you burden yourself with crazy beliefs. The first step is to get the facts straight.

[Erasmussimo]

Oh, and spintreebob, I agree enthusiastically that we should separate employment from health insurance. It's an artifice that is now an obstacle to our attempts at cleaning up our health care system.

[George Kocan]

SAD (Sodomy Attraction Disorder) is a pathology. Giving legal recognition to a pathology is an abuse of the legal system. Persons with SAD do not want to do their own thing and leave the rest of us alone. A review of a sodomy "pride" parade will show that. Sodomites have insinuated themselves everwhere, especially schools where they have succeeded in censoring opposition.

[the wonderboy]

George, how does that sort of dialogue further this discussion? Pathology, SAD, legal protection to a pathology...please stick to things that actually have some sort of supporting evidence.

[Erasmussimo]

George, would you please quote the medical literature on "Sodomy Attraction Disorder"? I don't think that there is any. I think that this is just more bigotry without any supporting evidence whatever.

[Rick]

This is a repugnant idea. Who qualifies... barn yard animals too?

We have jackasses in the legislature out of touch with reality.

Elect Obama and let's get it over with.

Rick Biesada

[HGP]

It is wrong to promote a lifestyle that will lead to unhappiness, sickness and an early death.
In Denmark and Norway, countries who have a long history of decriminalized homosexual unions, the average age of death in Denmark from 1990-2002 for married heterosexual males is 74, while 561 partnered homosexuals average age of death was 51. In Norway the age of death for married male heterosexuals was 77, while 31 partnered homosexuals death age was 51.
In Denmark, the average age of death was 56 for 91 lesbians versus 78 years for married heterosexual women. In Norway married heterosexual women die at an average age of 81 versus 56 years of age for lesbians.
This data suggests that practicing homosexuals reduce their life span by about 25 years.
Smoking reduces lifespan by 1 to 7 years as a point of reference.
The U.S. taxpayer supported NIH budget for all AIDs related activities (research, education, support) seems to be over $21 billion.
In addition, homosexuals are disproportionately active as child molesters. They are like a narcotic addict. Addicts want people to join in destructive activity with them.
Because of the high cost to society, homosexual sex should be made a felony and any political entities that endorse or are permissive toward homosexual activity or allow civil unions should lose federal funding.
We don't want to even put the thought of encouraging homosexual activity into our citizen's minds.
Homosexual activity is a disaster for our society from a health care cost and social cost perspective.

[Erasmussimo]

HGP, the data you provide for mortality rates among homosexuals is seriously flawed. The AIDS epidemic did indeed kill a great many homosexuals, but two factors have combined to dramatically reduce that source of mortality:

1. a greater awareness of the risks of unprotected sex; and
2. improved treatment of AIDS.

Because of these two factors, I think that any data from before 2000 is not applicable to the current time. Have you any data that is relevant to the current situation?

You write,

"In addition, homosexuals are disproportionately active as child molesters."

Wow! That's a pretty sensational statement! Is this statement based on evidence or bigotry?

Only one of any number of websites addressing Erasmussimo's facile attack on the statements of "Deathstyle" figures provided by HGP. Even when the figures for AIDS related deaths are factored out, the numbers speak for themselves. Homosexuality is a Deathstyle choice where it is not a recognized para-phallic disorder or symptom of other more major disorders. If it is a choice, then those who make that choice should pay their own medical bills, as with cigarette smokers and their high taxes on their cigarettes to reimburse society for the expense of their self-destructive choices.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

Some facts for your viewing pleasure, if a few of you can manage to pull your rather large heads out of your behinds for a moment to read:

This is from apositivelife.com, a valid and fact-checking webiste.

"In most regions of the world, the group with the highest rates of HIV is people who have heterosexual intercourse."

Now, just based on that, a lot of you are very, very wrong. Gay people aren't spreading AIDS uncontrollably around the world. PEOPLE are spreading it. It doesn't discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation or race...it just spreads. Black straight women are almost equal with gay men in the prevalence of AIDS in the United States, and in the rest of the world it is MORE common in heterosexual couples.

The real risk factors? (again from apositive.com)

-Poverty. Inability to obtain proper sexual protection, which helps prevent the spread of AIDS.
-Ignorance. Not knowing it's out there makes you unable to try and protect yourself.
- Place of Residence. Do I need to mention Africa? And in the United States, the South has the highest rate of deaths from HIV. In my opinion, being born and raised there, not exactly the mecca of homosexual activity.

Stop hating.