Gay wedding parade float controversy

[GoldenBoy89]

Hello all and Happy New Year

I usually suck at making threads so I usually don't but I was surprised no one had mentioned this so I figured I would.

Anywho, onto the story!
Gay Wedding on Float Featured at Contentious Rose Parade - ABC News

One hundred twenty-five years of tradition collided with change and controversy as the Rose Parade in Pasadena, Calif., today included a gay marriage ceremony on a float.

In a note posted to Facebook, LeClair wrote that he wanted to provide the world with a glimpse of a loving gay marriage.

"I could not pass up the opportunity to declare my love and commitment to my soon-to-be husband for the whole world to bear witness," he wrote. "This is an opportunity to celebrate the long journey to Marriage Equality and honor those who came before us."

Sounds nice but of course, without fail, here they come

Nevertheless, supporters of traditional marriage objected. A San Diego woman created a Facebook group to protest the ceremony, and urged people not to view it live or on television.

"I guess they think they can pervert this year's theme "Dreams Come True," to allow this disgusting exhibition," she wrote. "Tell them NO! Tell their sponsors NO. Tell them you will boycott the parade by not watching or attending, and that you will NEVER watch or be part of it again."

JEEZ, lady. Get over yourself.

Oh well, one step closer to being a "Free Country"

Also the article mentioned a pretty interesting situation where a Seaworld float was protested by PETA members for their continued mistreatment of marine mammals, mainly orcas. 19 arrests were made and in another article it mentioned one of the protestors was a 12 year old girl.

Here's a link to that story on its own
PETA protesters suspected of trying to block SeaWorld float arrested - latimes.com

 

[Sitswithamouse]

Hello all and Happy New Year

I usually suck at making threads so I usually don't but I was surprised no one had mentioned this so I figured I would.

Anywho, onto the story!
Gay Wedding on Float Featured at Contentious Rose Parade - ABC News



Sounds nice but of course, without fail, here they come



JEEZ, lady. Get over yourself.

Oh well, one step closer to being a "Free Country"

Also the article mentioned a pretty interesting situation where a Seaworld float was protested by PETA members for their continued mistreatment of marine mammals, mainly orcas. 19 arrests were made and in another article it mentioned one of the protestors was a 12 year old girl.

Here's a link to that story on its own
PETA protesters suspected of trying to block SeaWorld float arrested - latimes.com

What a a great story.
Lets hope others can get over themselves and realise that in a free society, two consenting adults should have the right to share their love equally.

The second story doesn't surprise me. Seaworld have come under a lot of flak at the moment.

 

[AirPo]

Sounds nice but of course, without fail, here they come


JEEZ, lady. Get over yourself.

Oh the irony. A guy celebrating his dream coming true

can pervert this year's theme "Dreams Come True,"

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

... two consenting adults should have the right to share their love equally.

I've no problem with that. What I have a problem with is supporting a lifestyle I disagree with through increased insurance costs because other employers have agreed to cover "significant others" of the same sex. I have no desire to share the medical costs of homosexual relationships, but I have no choice, because the insurance companies have no choice. It isn't just about "morals." There is a practical aspect -- which I'm sure very few on this forum give two hoots about. You won't care that I can't add the project manager and three laborers I need this year because, between the ACA and my insurance company's inability to deny coverage to "non-traditional" spouses in other parts of the country -- neither Missouri nor Kansas sanction gay marriage -- my costs of doing business increase, and I can't even complain to governing authorities about it, since the jurisdictions raising my own costs aren't even places I'm doing business.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Parades: Should they be non-controversial?

 

[Fireball1244]

I've no problem with that. What I have a problem with is supporting a lifestyle I disagree with through increased insurance costs because other employers have agreed to cover "significant others" of the same sex.

So I should pay increased insurance costs to cover your spouse, but you shouldn't pay increased insurance costs to cover my spouse?

 

[keith99]

I've no problem with that. What I have a problem with is supporting a lifestyle I disagree with through increased insurance costs because other employers have agreed to cover "significant others" of the same sex. I have no desire to share the medical costs of homosexual relationships, but I have no choice, because the insurance companies have no choice. It isn't just about "morals." There is a practical aspect -- which I'm sure very few on this forum give two hoots about. You won't care that I can't add the project manager and three laborers I need this year because, between the ACA and my insurance company's inability to deny coverage to "non-traditional" spouses in other parts of the country -- neither Missouri nor Kansas sanction gay marriage -- my costs of doing business increase, and I can't even complain to governing authorities about it, since the jurisdictions raising my own costs aren't even places I'm doing business.

Uh,

The insurance companies do not cover spouses or significant others as if they were part of the individual.

Either the company or the employee pay extra top cover them. It costs you nothing unless YOUR employer choses to cover significant others and/or family.

I know in my case my employer pretty much covers me and covers about 20% of the cost of spouse/significant other or kids.

 

[mont974x4]

I did not watch the parade this year. I had better things to do than watch a fine tradition be politicized by an extreme minority hell bent on holding the nation hostage and flaunting their sin.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

Uh,

The insurance companies do not cover spouses or significant others as if they were part of the individual.

Uh ...

Didn't read my post very well, hm? I am the employer. My employees' families are covered under a split-premium arrangement, which is why I'm facing a decision of either eliminating or drastically reducing spousal and child coverage.

Also, my overall costs as an employer are affected by those covered in group coverage. Increase the risk of the pool covered, increase the cost of covering the pool as a whole. That's the way insurance works.

Either the company or the employee pay extra top cover them. It costs you nothing unless YOUR employer choses to cover significant others and/or family.

Reread my post. I AM the employer.

 

[AirPo]

Uh ...

Didn't read my post very well, hm? I am the employer. My employees' families are covered under a split-premium arrangement, which is why I'm facing a decision of either eliminating or drastically reducing spousal and child coverage.

Also, my overall costs as an employer are affected by those covered in group coverage. Increase the risk of the pool covered, increase the cost of covering the pool as a whole. That's the way insurance works.

Reread my post. I AM the employer.

Adding more people to the pool decreases the risk.

 

[Hetta]

I've no problem with that. What I have a problem with is supporting a lifestyle I disagree with through increased insurance costs because other employers have agreed to cover "significant others" of the same sex. I have no desire to share the medical costs of homosexual relationships, but I have no choice, because the insurance companies have no choice. It isn't just about "morals." There is a practical aspect -- which I'm sure very few on this forum give two hoots about. You won't care that I can't add the project manager and three laborers I need this year because, between the ACA and my insurance company's inability to deny coverage to "non-traditional" spouses in other parts of the country -- neither Missouri nor Kansas sanction gay marriage -- my costs of doing business increase, and I can't even complain to governing authorities about it, since the jurisdictions raising my own costs aren't even places I'm doing business.

Do you also object to insurance coverage of "significant others" when they are opposite sex partners?

 

[Hetta]

Hello all and Happy New Year

I usually suck at making threads so I usually don't but I was surprised no one had mentioned this so I figured I would.

Anywho, onto the story!
Gay Wedding on Float Featured at Contentious Rose Parade - ABC News



Sounds nice but of course, without fail, here they come

JEEZ, lady. Get over yourself.

Oh well, one step closer to being a "Free Country"

A Facebook page, seriously? Some people need to get a life. Now I have to go and find that page so that I can laugh at it ....

 

[mont974x4]

No, it spreads the risk. Whether it increases or decreases the risks depends on who is added.

An example using auto insurance.
Let's say I insure 100 people. So far the risk is low because they are experienced drivers and they have the means to maintain their vehicles. They also have the means to assume more of the risk themselves and keep their rates lower.

Now, let's say I open up the pool and I take in another 100 drivers. It is true I have spread the risk to twice the base. However, if those new drivers are inexperienced and tend to own vehicles they do not really care about the risk is increased. Increased exposure means increased risks. That translates to increased rates.

Health insurance would work the same except instead of the risk of collisions we're talking about risks of catastrophic illness and risk of accident related injuries.

 

[AirPo]

No, it spreads the risk. Whether it increases or decreases the risks depends on who is added.

An example using auto insurance.
Let's say I insure 100 people. So far the risk is low because they are experienced drivers and they have the means to maintain their vehicles. They also have the means to assume more of the risk themselves and keep their rates lower.

Now, let's say I open up the pool and I take in another 100 drivers. It is true I have spread the risk to twice the base. However, if those new drivers are inexperienced and tend to own vehicles they do not really care about the risk is increased. Increased exposure means increased risks. That translates to increased rates.

Health insurance would work the same except instead of the risk of collisions we're talking about risks of catastrophic illness and risk of accident related injuries.

In and of itself, adding numbers to the pool decreases the risk. That's why group insurance is less expensive the individual insurance.

 

[mont974x4]

Group insurance is generally a controlled increase in the risk pool. That's why that tends to work. The less control you have over who gets in the pool the less it works.

 

[AirPo]

Group insurance is generally a controlled increase in the risk pool. That's why that tends to work. The less control you have over who gets in the pool the less it works.

But in and of itself, adding to the pool decreases the risk.

 

[grasping the after wind]

My wife watched the parade and pointed out a wedding cake float with three people on top of the wedding cake. Was this what you all are discussing? Since I saw three people on top of that wedding cake float I thought it was advocating polygamous marriage. Thought it maybe was some extreme Mormon group or something. Wedding cakes do not usually have three figures on top of them. If it wasn't a pro polygamy statement as well as a pro gay statement , then why was there a third person there?

 

[QueSeraSera]

My wife watched the parade and pointed out a wedding cake float with three people on top of the wedding cake. Was this what you all are discussing? Since I saw three people on top of that wedding cake float I thought it was advocating polygamous marriage. Thought it maybe was some extreme Mormon group or something. Wedding cakes do not usually have three figures on top of them. If it wasn't a pro polygamy statement as well as a pro gay statement , then why was there a third person there?

It said ceremony . I would assume the 3rd person was the one presiding over the ceremony .

 

[mont974x4]

But in and of itself, adding to the pool decreases the risk.

No, it doesn't. It spreads the risk. There is a difference that I'm not sure how to help you see.


If I have 100 people paying for health insurance and 75 of them are sick we have a risk spread over a small pool. If I add 100 people who (hopefully) are healthy the risk doesn't drop it just spread over a larger pool of people paying for it. That's what Obama was hoping for with Obamacare. However, all those young healthy people that voted for him and wanted Obamacare to be law are not flocking to the signup for it.

What happens to our risk and our pool if we add 100 people who not healthy? The risk goes up and it is also spread over a larger pool. This is what is happening, as it generally does. Everyone ends up paying more. Why? Because although the risk is spread over a larger pool, the exposure (and therefore risk) actually goes up.


All I can say is....good luck.

 

[grasping the after wind]

It said ceremony . I would assume the 3rd person was the one presiding over the ceremony .

Why would you necessarily assume that ? Couldn't a polygamous marriage be a ceremony? I didn't pay that much attention to it. I saw a weeding cake with three people on it and assumed it was a polygamy float then went back to what I was doing before. My wife didn't clue me in on the details she was just laughing and saying " look at this ". I suppose she knew what it was about but I'm not a fan of parades like she is so I just thought it was three people getting married . She used to be in her school marching band so I suppose that is why she cares about them. If the third person was supposed to be an official of some kind it did not seem obvious to me but it wasn't a close up shot either so perhaps a more close up view wopuld have made that obvious.