Mufasa and Gambit

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]Makavali wrote:

I think we’ve established that I don’t care about what the institution of boy lovers can and cannot do.[/quote]

Precisely - you aren’t interested in principle or logic, you’re guided by bias and hysteria. If you “like” it, it deserves rights, if you “don’t like” it, it doesn’t. That’s why no one bothers to take what you say seriously.

That’s the greay irony, of course - left-wingy types (especially the atheists) claim to be the true heirs to Reason and Rational Thought, but in fact, peel back the first layer, and they are rank Emotionalists. Free speech, freedom of conscience - all conditional to the left-wingy types as to whether they like what you’re doing or not.

And so it is with impinging on an institution of “boy lovers” - were it an institution the Left was warm and fuzzy to (I’ll create one: a secular non-church that redistributes wealth from rich people, teaches 24-hour classes on self-esteem and lobbies government to amend the Constitution to outlaw judgmentalism), the Left would be taking to the streets to protect this “institution” from creeping “fascism” of the government forcing it to act outside of its conscience.

202

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

TB and Push, why not respond to my points rather than trying to be sarcastic and funny or commenting on my perceived intellect? [/quote]

Well, I was simply having fun with Push’s point, but your point has already been responded to.

203

[quote]milod wrote:

Are you saying that the fact that the contract lists some potential uses of the money that the church may disagree with is the key difference? Then Obama’s compromise clearly solves the problem. Now the contract specifically says that the church’s money will not be used for that purpose. That’s an even stronger guarantee than they get with just giving the money to the employees and letting them do whatever they want with it.[/quote]

Incorrect - the compromise merely relocates provision of the objectionable services, and leaves the institution in the same place it as before the “compromise” - without the ability to refuse to provide insurance that contains coverage it finds morally objectionable.

The “compromise” is not one at all - it creates the exact same result, but it just in name says the institution isn’t providing it, although it still is, because the institution is providing the insurance coverage: it is purchasing the coverage and services, paying its share of it.

Companies get to tailor the insurance programs they purchase for their employees all the time, and well they should. Religious objections are part of that tailoring. This “compromise” doesn’t change a thing - the institutions still have to provide coverage through their insurance programs in violation of their religious tenets - and the idea that it is “free” is comedy gold.

This has an easy fix, of course - let the employee buy their own insurance, cut out the middle man that has its own objectiosn, where they can tailor their own preferences to the coverage. Then, the church doesn’t have to be involved.

Also, yes, it is, and don’t offer “protips” if you’re not a pro.

EDIT: typo, added underlined.

204

You know, for those who can see no difference between buying contraception and sterilization with one’s own dime, and mandating that an employer’s insurance provide…Well, I guess there’s no point in mandating it, then. Just use your money to buy it. Same thing, without the unnecessary government involvement. Since there’s no difference, you know.

205

Crises over, we’re all anti-mandate now that we realize there’s no difference. So we’ll just stick with people buying it themselves, directly.

206

Look how far down into the muck the liberals have pulled us. They are trying to move the window as far to the left as possible so we all become accustomed to the higher cost of insurance and what will be the lowering availabilty and quality of medical services

Health insurance should exist for only 2 reasons. 1 - Cover major medical issues and 2 - Cover the risk for the insured from becoming financially destitute.

The reason insurance costs have gone up is that too many benefits have been added to what should just be a simple major medical policy with a high deductible as well as the insured being insulated from the true costs.

My company provides Dental insurance, which is ridiculous as it cost $700 for $1000 in coverage. THis is telling me that 30% do no got to the dentist and are subsidizing the other 70%. If all the employees started going to the dentist the insurance cost would rise to $1000 to cover the $1000 benefit, thus giving no benefit at all.

207

[quote]Sloth wrote:

You know, for those who can see no difference between buying contraception and sterilization with one’s own dime, and mandating that an employer’s insurance provide…Well, I guess there’s no point in mandating it, then. Just use your money to buy it. Same thing, without the unnecessary government involvement. Since there’s no difference, you know.[/quote]

Exactly. If people are “paying for it” anyway, let them buy it directly from an insurance company. Problem solved.

Of course, that isn’t the case. Why is there a mandate at all? Why must the government compel an institution to provide this coverage? The entire point of a mandate is to make someone do something they won’t otherwise do without the pain of penalty.

All of these post-hoc rationalizations are horseshit. The Obama administration wants the “right” of “free” contraception recognized, and everything else must yield to this policy, freedom of conscience included.

And a disclaimer - I’m not Catholic, and I don’t have a problem with contraception. What I have a problem with is an infringement of religious liberties.

Also, as an aside, this fiasco reminds me of the growing difference between Liberals and Leftists. Liberals may push for reform, but they have some inherent concerns against authority run amok as a principle, and understand that principle applies across the board (i.e., it’s dangerous to open doors that both Liberals and Conservatives could abuse in the future).

Leftists have made it clear they don’t even pretend to recognize any restraint on authority - the government should be be able to boss anyone around, as long as it is in the name of “progress”. They have no concerns about the broad abuse of power, or precedents set when a “progressive” happens to not be in power - only one principle stands: as long as it supports “progress”, the Ends always, always, always justifies the Means.

Hyopcrites, to a man.

210

[quote]Makavali wrote:
You are such children. Do you actually want abortion rates reduced or do you seriously expect things to work according to your Church doctrine?

Not going to happen.

Grow up. Life isn’t as simple as you make it seem.[/quote]

This is an utilitarian argument.

Christianity is a deontological religion.

Your idea of how life works literally does not compute in a Christian and an utilitarian mindset is no more mature than any other, arguably less than most.

211

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Pat, I posted some data above regarding benefits to society regarding contraception and other women’s health services. If you are interested.
[/quote]

I could provide some data regarding the culling of those with sub par intellect or at least the sterilization of those with less than desirable traits.

Interested?

212

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

I think we’ve established that I don’t care about what the institution of boy lovers can and cannot do.[/quote]

Precisely - you aren’t interested in principle or logic, you’re guided by bias and hysteria. If you “like” it, it deserves rights, if you “don’t like” it, it doesn’t. That’s why no one bothers to take what you say seriously.

That’s the greay irony, of course - left-wingy types (especially the atheists) claim to be the true heirs to Reason and Rational Thought, but in fact, peel back the first layer, and they are rank Emotionalists. Free speech, freedom of conscience - all conditional to the left-wingy types as to whether they like what you’re doing or not.

And so it is with impinging on an institution of “boy lovers” - were it an institution the Left was warm and fuzzy to (I’ll create one: a secular non-church that redistributes wealth from rich people, teaches 24-hour classes on self-esteem and lobbies government to amend the Constitution to outlaw judgmentalism), the Left would be taking to the streets to protect this “institution” from creeping “fascism” of the government forcing it to act outside of its conscience.[/quote]

That’s why I think Catholic churches should be forced to hire Muslim priests… oh wait.

214

Why not decouple insurance from employment, i.e the Australian system? I’m genuinely curious

Ed

216

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Edward wrote:
Why not decouple insurance from employment, i.e the Australian system? I’m genuinely curious

Ed[/quote]
[/quote]
Is that internet sarcasm? If not, why hasn’t such a thing been attempted or at least proposed?

Ed

217

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Can’t have it both ways, Mak. You can’t have the oppressive thug just nail the church and leave you and your cannabis alone. Sorry, bud.[/quote]

Aside from the fact that it’s not nailing the church, why not?

The church dislikes abortion, no? I’m going to assume contraception negates the need for abortion.

I could be wrong though.

Maybe.

218

[quote]Edward wrote:
Why not decouple insurance from employment, i.e the Australian system? I’m genuinely curious

Ed[/quote]

Assuming correspondingly higher pay to allow for people to pay for their insurance themselves, this would be ideal.

Living in Australia now, my employer offers discounted access to health insurance, but does not provide it automatically.