h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Actually, I have not agreed to this. Gay men do have a shorter (average) life-expectancy than straight men, and because this is a fact that I can verify I will not capitulate until I see good reason to. Of course, things are changing, and it soon may not be the case, but it remains that insurance companies still have valid /statistical/ reasons for applying higher premiums, if not moral justification.

Furthermore, sexuality is not like a hobby. You can go off skydiving. I have just spent an exhausting time defending homosexuality on the basis of its evident unchangabilty, so I'm quite overly sensitive to that point.

The fact is, I don't think they're homophobic. I think they're trying to make money, and I don't imagine that they have enough ethical resolve to take a stance on homosexuality one way or the other.

- Jordan

hi Xander,

(sorry, I spelt your name incorrectly earlier . . .)

I think it is obvious that statistics are only as reliable as the methods used to obtain them. And it seems that people can find statistics to back up almost any point they want to make, so then, what does that say? I've seen people on threads here go Google crazy looking for statistics links to PROVE their point about something. It only proves that you have found a link that backs up what you want to say.

Mine was something similar. I just Googled in Gay Life Expectancy and the link I posted here was on the front page. But if I had Googled something a bit different or delved a bit further, I'm sure I could have come up with statistics to back up Reddyfreddy's conspiracy theory.

But I honestly don't think most gay men need to worry that they are going to drop dead at the age of 43. Or especially that lesbians run more of a risk of dying in a car accident than heterosexual women! How nuts was that one!

There seems to be nothing to prove here anyhow. It all comes down to tolerance and compassion. Those who don't possess these attributes will continue to be biased and unreasonable whilst defending their bad behaviour in any way they can.

The rest of us will just get on with it. Shall we?



az

As I've got to go to bed (very early working practices), all I wish to say is, well put 'az', I couldn't have said it any better.

Xander

I'm extremely worried that some people might think I am homophobic in some respect. All I'm saying is that insurance companies aren't prejudiced against gay or bisexual clients. I'm not saying it's right of them, or making anything of the lower life expectancy of gay men. (And so far, the only criticisms have been of the flawed reasoning of religious politicians pushing their agendas with silly statistics, none seem to concern the more reasonable sources I mention.)

The fact is, only now are the tables being turned, and AIDS is becoming less common in homosexuals and more common in heterosexuals. The statistics were valid, and only now is that changing. The case I make is, simply, that while statistics are valid, they are valid.

Anyway, the issue is academic. What's the point? I'm sure few people honestly think insurance companies charge higher premiums out of homophobia.

Speaking of which - what issue /are/ we discussing? Where has this thread gone?!

Oh, I'm lost.

- Jordan

Jordan!

Get over here!

Nobody thinks you are homophobic in the slightest. And besides, who wants to buy life insurance anyhow? They're all a bunch of crooks those guys. Selling 'security' based on fear.

The point of this discussion started by Ho. . . I mean Member, was asking whether it is defamatory to suggest someone is homosexual.

Anyhow, you should get to bed. You were either up way too late last night or up way too early this morning (I checked the time of your last posting on the god thread this morning).

I'm certainly ready to sleep.

buenas noches,
azzzzzzzzzzz

Thank goodness!

You're right - I was up way too late. I think I'm going to buy some cookies, have a meal and go to bed.

You should be my h2g2 mommy!

- Jordan

Hey Az,
Been away from the thread for a bit and come back to lesbians being more likely to die in car crashes.... Either the statistical notion went wild or Im about to die a bloody death in a vehicle!?


As a thought, you go through all that to get life insurance but if you neglect to make a will, or die suddenly, say, I dont know, in a car crash. Your partner more than likely wont see a penny of the money anyway, so whats the point? Most people have life insurance to amkes sure their other half doesnt struggle financially when they depart, but if they go thru all that hassle to get it then their partner never recieves it after their death, in a bizarre and twisted way is kinda funny.
Can we all say ironic?!

If that makes no sense, feel free to ignore me, it is just past 3am now and Im going!

Will

Okay - I am gong to get attacked with extreme viciousness - I did last time, but I just have to go there. (Deep breath...)
>>"What next? If the fundamentalists take over again? Already there are moves in the US Senate to stop abortion on demand. So then women will end up seeking abortions in unsafe situations. Religion and politics should be kept separate. And really, must be kept separate, to ensure equal rights for all."<<
Abortion on demand? Excuse me, but I didn't realise that's what Roe v Wade was all about - but obviously I was wrong. Many perfectly reasonable people, some (gasp) neither religious nor fundamentalist, regard abortion *on demand*, as frivolous murder.
Because some people can't be *rsed using contraception, and are too self absorbed to wait for sex until they're in a situation where they'd be happy to 'risk' a baby, they want the right to kill what many of us regard not as a 'blob', an encumbrance, an obstacle, or a parasite but as a person - not a 'potential' person (if Daddy actually cares to allow it to be born) but an actual baby.
One of the worst things for feminism ever, was when some people made sure that abortion demands were inextricably linked to womens' rights. News flash! Most active 'anti-abortionists' *are* women.
Declaration. I *am* 'religious', but not 'fundamentalist' (which I've noticed is defined here as feminist is, by the enemies thereof. Which is a bit silly...)

hi Della,

You are absolutely right. I was wrong to say that abortion on demand should remain legal. I should have used the term termination upon request.

<>

And those people have a legal right to never have a termination themselves.

Anyhow, if you don't want to keep getting blasted over this topic then why keep bringing it up, even on threads that are about something else?

So, do you consider it deflamatory to call someone homosexual? And what is your take on homosexual marriages?

az

Just in reponse to last Jodan's post *leaps to Jodan's defense* I meant to say this last night but I got sleepy and forgot, he/she (?) isn't homophobic, reading other posts it's obvious they are a perfectly decent human being and they are just raising a valid point. P.S I hate using 'they' and 'them' when I don't know somebody's gender

Jordan even. Where did I get Jodan from? Probably lazy reading. Anyway my sentiment still stands

Jordan,

Hey, was that 'thank goodness!' because I had gone to bed???

Your h2g2 mommy? I'll have to check it with the cats - they might get jealous.

az

ps
Iago - Jordan is a he

I'm just returning to the thread too after missing the last half dozen pages.


Aren't insurance companies prejudiced against everyone?


Azahar, you realise that there is a looong list of people on hootoo that need someone to tell them to get off the computer, it's time to go to bed

Jordan.

I don't know if you got that feeling from my post, I've read most of your posts and know by reading them, that your not homophobic.

What I said, I said about insurance companies, it's how I feel about them, not you. Sorry if I made it sound any different.

Xander

Just a few musing on what has been posted in the last few days.

Once purple was a royal colour and common folk could not vote.
If today we can all wear purple and we aim at democracy why shouldn't we aim at having gay marriages? Why just go about living by old rules?

Lesbians and car crashes. Percentages can be deceiving. Maybe there is also a higher percentage of lesbian drivers and hetero women have a man to drive for them?

<>

300 times more???

az

I bring it up (and I think you know that well enough) because to me, abortion is murder (*) and murder is wrong. I feel morally bound to say so.
My view on homosexual marriage? As Jordan said on another thread - there should be a stronger distinction between civil and religious marriages. Homosexuals are perfectly entitled to the former (civil) but not the latter (which I don't think they'd be likely to want anyway.)
Is it defamatory to call someone homosexual? Given that homosexual practice does *not* have universal and joyful acceptance, yes, it is defamatory, unless you (a) know they are and (b) are happy to proclaim that they are.


* footnote... Occasionally induced abortion may be necessary to save the life of the mother in which case it may be a matter of the 'lesser of two weevils', which is different. Allowing abortion for reasons of 'mental health' has led to a de facto abortion on demand situation here, because it is interpreted so loosely.

>>hetero women have a man to drive for them?>>
What a bizarre assumption!

>> yes, it is defamatory, unless you (a) know they are and (b) are happy to proclaim that they are <<

I'm pressuming that you are working under the pressumption that the 'homosexual' person in question is already out, if this is the case and they are happy for others to talk about their sexuality, then fine.

However, if the person being spoken about is not out, then I would personally consider that kind of situation as being a defamatory remark, even if the person is gay, as you probably know, those kind of actions are commonly refered to as 'outing'.

Xander