If "reformist/progressive Catholics" don't like the new Pope then they can always join one of the Protestant faiths. Why is it that you liberals always believe in freedom of religion for everyone except conservative Christians?

What did you expect? A pope to say sure Homo's can get married hear, and sure we will allow priests to be married after 500 years of traditon? I don't understand...why don't you take a little time to read some of his works before you begin to condemn him.

I think most American Catholics practice birth control so it's not like everything the pope said was strictly adhered to anyway. And conservative Christians can believe what they like but don't tell me my beliefs are less worthy, and try to legislate your beliefs and control MY life. That's my impression of conservative Christians.

but you liberals are constantly trying to legislate beliefs. whats the difference?

Liberals believe in freedom of religion, therefore Conservative Christians are free to practice as they wish. What most of us object to is that Conservative Christians want to foist their views on all of us through moral brow beating and now legislatively.

America is about freedom of Choice. I am tired of constantly being told my views are wrong or immoral. I dont care what Conservative Christian read, watch or say, but I want the same Freedom to watch, read or express my views.

Dear "posted by..."

Since you want to be anonymous, lets keep it that way. I take umbrage with but you liberals are constantly trying to legislate beliefs. whats the difference? Since the religious right is steadily hijacking the repub party. The far right Christians attack everyone who does not share their beliefs, and your politicos pander to them left and right. Who exactly is legislating beliefs. We liberals believe in the separation of church and state. We believe if you want to worship a rock, worship your rock, its your business. We will look at you kinda strange but hey, its your choice. We liberals believe that your relationship with God is personal and Sacrosanct. I do believe God is my salvation. I will testify to whomever, but I will not let my religious beliefs cloud my politics. Too many people died because of religion and politics, from the Crusades to Slavery. So please take your misguided thoughts elsewhere if you want to troll and be close minded. We liberals are all about enlightenment, not keeping you barefoot and pregnant like the repubs so want you to be.

I like the Cheney comparsion better - but comparing John Paul II to George just destroys the analogy. JPII, for all his wrong-headed beliefs, had more character, leadership, and love of people in his Parkinson's inflicted pinky than Dubya has in his whole person. Both have charisma, but that's about all they have in common.

B16 may have a love of humanity, but its been strictly restrained by a bureaucratic administrator that has been enforcing doctrine above needs of the people for over two decades. How can we be sure he'll change, especially in light of his pseudo-campaign homily in the Mass prior to the Conclave where he attacked modern culture and Relativism?

troll I will, but I will troll here.

secular legislation is no different than religous legislation. they both come back to peoples beliefs. it simply comes down to which proportion of the population votes for their favorite party.

believing in separation of church and state is all fine, but i would like to see one sentence in the constitution that states anything about this seperation. it states their is a freedom of religion...not freedom from religion. it sounds crazy when you state that liberals don't legislate beliefs, because that is all legislation is.

but you liberals are constantly trying to legislate beliefs. whats the difference?

Huh? That's a joke, right?

Hey blanky the halfassed troll, it is a logical consequence of the phrase "freedom of religion" that one is also free not to suffer the imposition of particular religious beliefs. The right to choose religious beliefs (the essence of freedom of religion) includes the right to say "not that" and "not that" and "not that" to any and all religious beliefs one encounters.

Man, it'll be nice once you learn to think, so we can debate this as something approaching equals.

"...four terms of George W. Bush only to find that his successor as president is Karl Rove."

One can only hope such an analogy isn't prescient.

secular legislation is no different than religous legislation. they both come back to peoples beliefs. it simply comes down to which proportion of the population votes for their favorite party.

Wrong! There is a difference between established law and popular beliefs.

And you need to bone up on the historical interpretation of the socalled "Establishment clause" of the First Amendment.

what imposition are you suffering from? congratulations you figured out the meaning of freedom of religion. Now show me something about seperation of church and state in the constitution.
i never said i did not believe in freedom of religion, i don't give a crap what religion anybody is. if they say something i don't like i choose not to listen.

legislating gay marriage is not legislating the liberal belief.

maybe if you were not so hypocritical and stick to the issues we could have a logical discussion.

I've been trying to clarify how to best communicate to the Christian extremists.

Instead of playing into their "persecution belief" that we are ANTI-Christian, it's probably more accurate to let them know that we think they are just like the MORMONS, you know, extremely narrowminded (no coffee!) and completely wrong about Jesus and the Bible. They are hardly Christian at all.

They are a newfangled CULT, just like the Mormons.

alright, then please give me your interpretation of the establishment clause. i would gladly discuss this issue with you.

alright, then please give me your interpretation of the establishment clause. i would gladly discuss this issue with you.

It's not my interpretation of the establishment clause that matters. It's the Supreme Courts. And it's very easy to understand the courts interpretation. All you have to do is an internet search and you'll find everything you need.

By the way. Show me something about abortion, alchohol, drugs or anything at all about marriage in the Constitution.

As far as seperation of church and state goes look up Thomas Jefferson's "wall of seperation" letter. Much of how the constitution has been enterpreted has depended on the writings of the founding fathers.

I have read jeffersons letter to madison. but that is not what i asked...i asked you to give me YOUR interpretation of the clause, because i know what the s.c. interpretation is.

alcohol can be found in amendments 18 and 21...they deal entirely with alcohol. still nothing on the seperation? i thought so.

i'm not advocating anything about either drugs or abortion, those are not in the constitution so it should be left up to the states to decide on each of these issues.

amendment 21 nullifying amendment 18 because it was a massive mistake made by religious fundimentalists fucking with the Constitution.

What does my interpretation matter? It does not. I refered you to the SCotus' interpretation. And if I'm not mistaken the court has held that the clause' intent is to infact create in a sense a "seperation" between government and any act that can be construed as supporting any particular religious belief or can be interpreted as foisting a particular religious doctrine on a citizen who does not subscribe to that belief. The court has clearly maintained that the clause means more than simply guaranteeing "freedom of religion". It also means "freedom from religion" if you will. Doesn't the Constitution also forbid the establishment of any form of religious test as a qualification to hold public office?

Do you not recognize a distinction between law based on a history of established tradition (a la English common law and the English 'constitution' and the legislation of a moral code based on the tenets of a religious doctrine? The 18th amaendment was law based on religios doctrine, not established tradition and that's why it failed and that's why it was overturned.

but you liberals are constantly trying to legislate beliefs. whats the difference?

Huh? That's a joke, right? ann

No, not a joke.

It's typical Karl Rove.

Accuse the other party of exactly what you are doing so the people you are doing to

won't realize you are doing it to them while you are doing it.

fucking with the constitution? the constitution allows for amendments to be made, thus making it a part of the "law of the land"...it has nothing to do with anyone "fucking with it".

you must be kidding when you say it was overturned for any reason other than they needed it in order to generate tax money for the new deal. any 5th grade history book will say the same thing.

all i wanted was your interpretation...becasue i interpret it differently than the court and i though we could have a nice conversation about our different beliefs. i don't see it as freedom of religion at all. it prohibits the u.s. from forming a state church...much like that of the church of england. in 1947 the s.c. ruled that the government must pay for parochial school students to be bussed to school. today i'm sure that some would call this a violation.

sorry ann. bad tags.

squash,

explain to me how a push for legislation leagalizing gay marriage is not a legislation on the liberal belief. then explain to me why defining marriage as between a man and a women is legislation being pushed by neocons.

explain to me how legislation only allowing the teaching of evolution and excluding intelligent design is not legislation based on liberal beliefs.

just face it, you think your beliefs are better than everyone elses and because of this you are right and approximently 50% of the population are rednecks, religious zelots, neocons, or whatever else you want to call them

explain to me how a push for legislation leagalizing gay marriage is not a legislation on the liberal belief.

Because it's legislation about equal rights.

explain to me how legislation only allowing the teaching of evolution and excluding intelligent design is not legislation based on liberal beliefs.

Because evolution theory, unlike Intelligent Design, is based in scientific fact. Are there gaps in what we know? Yes. Intelligent design has no basis in scientific fact. It violates scientific method. It seeks to fill the gaps in evolution theory with a priori conclusions. We might as well teach our children alchemy in science class if we're going to teach them ID.

fucking with the constitution? the constitution allows for amendments to be made, thus making it a part of the "law of the land"...it has nothing to do with anyone "fucking with it".

It had to do with the majority seeking to impose their morals on the population as a whole. It was the first amendment that restricted the rights of the citizen as opposed to protecting them.

Perhaps they needed the money but it was a miserable failure of an attempt to legislate morality and that's the point here.

i don't see it as freedom of religion at all. it prohibits the u.s. from forming a state church...much like that of the church of england.

Well you disagree with the SCOTUS. That's your right. Ain't it a great country.

in 1947 the s.c. ruled that the government must pay for parochial school students to be bussed to school. today i'm sure that some would call this a violation.

Well if you mandate that children must attend school but you give them the right to choose public or private schools yet you provide busing for those that choose public school it's only fair that you provide busing for those that choose private schools. It has nothing to do with religion. Why should the state help some kids get to school and not others?

you must be kidding when you say it was overturned for any reason other than they needed it in order to generate tax money for the new deal. any 5th grade history book will say the same thing.

One other comment on this. Do you really belive that the 21st Amendment succeeded in being enacted because the majority of people thought it would be a good tax source? Of course the industrialists who got the ball on repeal rolling thought so. They didn't want corporations taxed. But the average person? You think they were thinking about tax revenue for the New Deal? I bet most of 'um were thinking about the fact that they really didn't like the government telling them they couldn't have a beer if they wanted.

i don't see it as freedom of religion at all. it prohibits the u.s. from forming a state church...much like that of the church of england.

The First Amendment;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .

Seems to cover both bases to me.

all right here we go...

1st. you use the word equal rights as if the people of this country have a right to everything and anything they want. gay marriage has nothing to do with rights. marriage just like a lot of things in the u.s. is not a right, it is a privilage. nobody has the right to get married because the government tells you when you are able to do so...the same as driving. so gay marriage has nothing to do with rights, because i don't know one gay person that was turned down the right to vote, the right to speak freely, and the other few rights guarenteed in the constitution. however, the right to marry another man, women, or child (for you ACLU supporters) does not exist and will never exist because 3/4s (a super majority) does not want it.

2nd, i never said i agread with the 18th amendment and i never said it was not a chance to legilslate morality. you asked where the constitution says anything about alcohol and i could not pass on the chance to make you look stupid. however, the fact that an amendment to the constitution was passed shows that the majority of the population supported it, thus it became the law of the land. was it right? hell no because it led to massive organized crime, and all sorts of other problems. however that does not take away from what you said: it made zero sense. i would be more than happy to talk to you more but you first need to explain how in the hell the first amendment restricted the rights of any citizen.

3rd, you stated that the THEORY of evolution and not the THEORY of intelligent design is because the THEORY of evolution is based on scientific fact. give me your adress and I will send you five dollars to go to borders and buy a dictionary, just so you can look up the term THEORY. it will seriously help you in future arguments of the same question.

4th. do you know why parochial schools were started in the u.s. well after public school became mandatory? it was because the majority of public schools required students to read the King James version of the bible...which is quite ironic.
however, if the freedom of religion is the freedom from religion, and since the taxpayers are forced to pay for the funding of their schools, but none of that money is alowed to enter the parochial's, then why in the hell should they pay for the bussing of these students? this includes the bussing of the students. if their parents choose for them NOT to attend public schools, then those same parents should NOT be forced to pay for their bussing. christ even i can see that, but then again, i'm not a hypocrit.

lastly, GO READ A BOOK ON THE NEW DEAL. ROOSEVELT STATED IN HIS FIRST WEEK OF OFFICE THAT THE 21ST AMENDMENT MUST BE REPEALED IN ORDER TO PAY FOR THE NEW PROGRAMS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO ENACT.

thanks for being with me...i'll be here all week

Equal rights is two words.

Marriage is a priviledge indeed. It emparts financial and legal benefits on those allowed to enter it. Currently most states deny those priviledges to someone wishing to marry someone of the same sex based soley on gender. If a state constitution spells out that the state shall not discriminate based on gender, or sexual orientation then there seems to be a bit of a conflict.

i would be more than happy to talk to you more but you first need to explain how in the hell the first amendment restricted the rights of any citizen.

I never said the First Amendment restricted anyone's rights.

The theory of evolution is based in scientific fact. ID is not.

if their parents choose for them NOT to attend public schools, then those same parents should NOT be forced to pay for their bussing.

I have no idea what the reasoning was behind the bussing decision but I'll look it up and get back to you. If a state mandates that all children be given educational instruction regardless of whether it be in public schools, private schools or at home it seems to me that if the state provides transportation to it's public schools it should be expected to provide transport to the private schools. Within reason obviously. The state is requiring the schooling. If they are going to transport kids to schools what difference does it make if they are transporting them to public schools or private schools.

christ even i can see that, but then again, i'm not a hypocrit.

What exactly makes me a hypocrit?

GO READ A BOOK ON THE NEW DEAL. ROOSEVELT STATED IN HIS FIRST WEEK OF OFFICE THAT THE 21ST AMENDMENT MUST BE REPEALED IN ORDER TO PAY FOR THE NEW PROGRAMS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO ENACT.

That does not mean that that's the reason people chose to repeal it. FDR said a lot of things. He did not however repeal the 18th amendment.

Perhaps the distinction between being fact and being based in scientific fact is not clear enough.

Evolution theory is based on the available evidence. ID is based on the lack of evidence.

I think the problem here is what exactly constitutes a "belief." The point is, that when you legislate on a belief, you typically have no basis in reality for it(statistics, studies, what-have-you..) to prove that it should be that way according to some principle. Some liberals legislate on beliefs, and some conservatives legislate based on facts. When a Christian is pushing for a marriage definition amendment because his religion tells him to, he is legislating on belief. When a Christian is pushing for the same thing because of the higher incidence of mental illness and health problems in gay people, and because he thinks that society should protect it's citizens(including the children the homosexual couple is parenting), then he is legislating based on facts. I don't find those facts persuasive, but that doesn't mean that he is legislating on belief.
Hmmm, came out kind of muddled. Anyone who can see what I'm trying to say, could you maybe mediate for the poor folk who can't understand what the hell I just said?

take a look at your post at 1:16. you said the 1st amendment restricts peoples rights. it may be a communication error, I just wanted you to clarify.

if you believe in separation of church and state then it should be absolute...even when it comes to bussing becasue the parents chose to send their child to a private institution.

How many state constitutions actually say anything about sexual orientation? i'd be willing to bet it is less than 5. in those states it may be a problem.

the whole purpose of the marriage tax break is becasue the government wants its citizens to reproduce...last time i checked a gay couple cannot do this, thus they lose the privilage of marriage. give them civil unions so they can make whatever legal decisions need to be made, but believe it or not, if they prepare corectly they are already able to make these desicions. All they need is a durible power of attorney that states this individual is to make decisions for me whenever it is necessary.

take a look at your post at 1:16. you said the 1st amendment restricts peoples rights. it may be a communication error, I just wanted you to clarify.

I wrote, it's the first amendment that restricted...

Not it's the First Amendment that restricted...

Nor did I write, it's the 1st Amendment that restricted...

There is a difference. If there was a communication error it was on your part since we were clearly on the subject of the 18th amendment which I discribed as "people fucking with the Constitution".

if you believe in separation of church and state then it should be absolute...even when it comes to bussing becasue the parents chose to send their child to a private institution.

That's your opinion. I look at it another way. The state is requiring you educate your child. They are providing transport to the public schools. This has nothing to do with the content of the education being provided. It is simply a convenience to facilitate students getting to school. If they provide it for the public schools they can provide it for private school students as well. We'll have to agree to disagree. But I don't know why you consider it a religious question. It has nothing to do with religion. It's about transportation.

How many state constitutions actually say anything about sexual orientation? i'd be willing to bet it is less than 5. in those states it may be a problem.

I bet a lot more of them speak about gender as to discrimination. And mandating that a man can marry a woman only and not another man is discrimination based on gender.

the whole purpose of the marriage tax break is becasue the government wants its citizens to reproduce...last time i checked a gay couple cannot do this, thus they lose the privilage of marriage.

Really! Is there some requirement that married couples reproduce in order to recieve the benefits of marriage? What about couples that can not concieve? If they adopt is that good enough? Why then can same sex couples not adopt to qualify as well? The reproduction argument is a red herring. In fact I'm surprised you would even stoop to invoking it.

give them civil unions so they can make whatever legal decisions need to be made, but believe it or not, if they prepare corectly they are already able to make these desicions. All they need is a durible power of attorney that states this individual is to make decisions for me whenever it is necessary.

That does not entitle a surviving partner to things like death benefits. What it the problem with allowing them to enter into civil marriages? If they want to for stable monogamous relationships why should that bother anyone?

Discussions are so much more pleasant when you refrain from childish personal insults. Don't you think?

why to you have to be married to be in a monogamous relationship?

you're right it is about transporting the child to school "safely", but what if one of those children begin to read their bible loud enough for others to hear while traveling to school? Or perhaps they wear a sweatshirt some cold morning that says "abortion is murder", what if their is 10 children on the bus, and they decide to have a quick prayer session? there is an awful lot of things can create "problems" for those that believe in seperation of church and state.

no it is not a requirement for children to be born, but that is actually not a bad idea. the fact is, that is exactly why the tax break is there. marriage (most of the time) leads to children, children cost money, tax breaks gives parents more money. it is not the best argument in the world, but that is most certainly why it is offered.

same sex adoption: do you have children? would you want them raised in a homosexual household? they might be the greatest people in the world...but would you allow your child raised their?

they can recieve death benefits from any reriement or life insurence program they set up. If you plan for the future than S.S. is a complete non-factor. You would also be surprised how many married people don't get their husband/wifes social security either.

correct on the miscommunication...i misread the post; my apologies.

you're right it is about transporting the child to school "safely", but what if one of those children begin to read their bible loud enough for others to hear while traveling to school? Or perhaps they wear a sweatshirt some cold morning that says "abortion is murder", what if their is 10 children on the bus, and they decide to have a quick prayer session? there is an awful lot of things can create "problems" for those that believe in seperation of church and state.

Is the bus company somehow organizing this activity? If not who cares? Nothing stops a child or a group of children from standing up anywhere they want and professing their faith.

same sex adoption: do you have children? would you want them raised in a homosexual household? they might be the greatest people in the world...but would you allow your child raised their?

Yes I do have children. And I know children being raised by same sex couples and ya' know what? They're perfectly pleasant normal children. You should get some help with your homophobia.

they can recieve death benefits from any reriement or life insurence program they set up. If you plan for the future than S.S. is a complete non-factor. You would also be surprised how many married people don't get their husband/wifes social security either.

That does not change the fact that the state offers it to some and not to others based solely on gender or sexual orientation.

if it is on a "public school bus" owned by the local/city school district, yes it does. they are not allowed to pray in school as a group, it does create a problem. now some larger school districts us regular public transportation to get students to school, however, that is not whay the s.c. or I am talking about.

would you allow your children to be raised by homosexuals. i never said that they all turn out to be mass murderers if they are raised in a same sex household.
another topic on this. do you feel it is wrong for opposite sex couples to get "1st dibs" in the adoption pool, as long as they can prove they are worthy of raising that child?

ashideena,

very good posts, i think that is basically what i was trying to say the entire time, it was just not coming out right.

would you allow your children to be raised by homosexuals.

The question is rather moot since if my children were to be raised by anyone other than myself it would mean that I were dead and in that case I'd have nothing to say about it.

But in any event I would allow my children to be raised by anyone that I thought would provide a safe, stable nurturing environment for them. Regardless of whether they are a couple of the same sex or of opposite sexes.

if it is on a "public school bus" owned by the local/city school district, yes it does.

Does that mean that anyone who walks into city hall, drops to their knees and begins to pray in that building which is owned by the city makes the city liable for violating the seperation of church and state?

that is my question, the line has been drawn but the line is too vaugue and changes too often. the case about the boy scouts is a great example. apparently what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander.

about the gay issue, good for you i'm glad you feel that way and i agree that children need to be raised in the correct environment full of love and nurturing in order to succeed, i just do not think that that is a good environment.

but when a child is up for adoption, should there be guidlines on who can adopt that child. should a married couple of the opposite sex have priority? should a gay couple have priority (assuming all things are equal)?

DONT feed the ignorant fucktard trolls

Let them spew their circular logic at each other in freeperville.

'' is not here for a discussion it is here to muddy the waters, keep us playing defense. Make THEM defend themselves, you CANNOT reason with them.

Ignorant cultists, Dense on purpose.

....Follow the gourd, NO the shoe, he has give us his shoe.

kennybabes,

what is your problem, we are having a simple discussion on the s.c. if you don't like it you don't have to read it. oh i forgot, you believe that if you someone does not agree with you 100% then they an idiot and not worthy to talk to you.

Look my no discussion with the ignorant fucktards.

Do something constructive folks, trying to convince a member of the KKK that black people are people too will get you no where fast.

The American Taliban are not misunderstood, they are not rational, they are not here for edification, they are here to make you question your basic goodness. To bring you over to the dark side, to make you doubt what you know in your hearts is true.

"Would you want a faggot to raise your children" fucking please. 2 gay men in a loving relationship is much preferable to what Dobson and his ilk would do to your children.

Somebody call your Senator and say NO to Bolton, or donate to the DNC or phone bank for your labor union or go help habitat for humanity build a house. Dont waste your energy on the willfully ingnorant who shout out "hey look at me, being an ignorant ass-hat is fun, come join me"

but when a child is up for adoption, should there be guidlines on who can adopt that child. should a married couple of the opposite sex have priority? should a gay couple have priority (assuming all things are equal)?

I think that needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Obviously there need to be guidelines. The well being of the child needs to be paramount in that consideration. All things else being equal who should get a job, the qualified white man or the equally qualified black man? I don't think anyone should be asked to answer such a question hypothetically. No two people are exactly equal. No two couples are exactly equal. I think laws like those of Florida that expressly bar gays and lesbians from adopting are ridiculous. If a person can provide a stable nurturing environment who's business is it what genitalia the respective parents have? I just find it hard to understand how people who could argue that abortion is wrong and that every unwanted child should be brought into the world and given up for adoption could turn around and say an otherwise qualified couple wishing to adopt one of those children should be rejected simply because they are a same sex couple. That's hypocritical.

That is a very good point that you make.

however, it is not as hypothetical as one might think. these are criteria that the adoption agencies must deal with questions everyday. it does make me sick however, to see the hollywood celebrities easily get to adopt a child only to be raised by a nanny...i think that is awful for the child.

adoption is something i hold very dear to my heart becasue without adoption, i would not have married the most wonderful women i have ever known. but your overall diagnosis is correct, the people that are fortunate enough (and i like the idea of a "nuclear" family and we can agree to disagree on this) and loving enough to be able to adopt a child must be loving people that will give the child an excellent homelife, full of support.

it does make me sick however, to see the hollywood celebrities easily get to adopt a child only to be raised by a nanny...i think that is awful for the child.

I think you're making a blanket statement that you probably can't back up with facts here. Besides which "Hollywood celebrities" are not the only people who's kids are being raised by nannies. There are a lot more kids in suburbia who come home to a nanny after school because mommy and daddy are at work than there are in Hollywood. Child rearing problems didn't begin in, and they are'nt going to end in Hollywood. But i know it's an easy target. Just like homosexuals.

no thats not what i was saying, i just mistated. i don't think children should be adopted only to be raised by nannies...that was what i meant to say. kids need to be raised by their parents...natural or adopted.

Welcome to the two-income household 21st century!

in 1947 the s.c. ruled that the government must pay for parochial school students to be bussed to school.

If your refering to the case Everson v. Board of Education the courts decision is reasoned as I suspected. The aid, in the form of a reimbersment of bus fare, was determined to be aid to the child and not aid to the religious institution. In essense it was a form of welfare. I believe Justice Black compared it to the police or fire department providing protection and fire rescue to parochial schools. They are protecting the students and teachers. Not aiding the religion.

And you misstate the nature of the case. The ruling did not state that "the government must pay for parochial school students to be bused to school". The ruling upheld the constitutionality of the law that allowed the reimbusement of busing expenses paid by parents of children regardless of what ype of school they sent their children to. Not quite as sinister as you make it sound.

i agree with the ruling, always have and always will.

about your "gender bias" and gay marriage theory. gender bias happens on a daily basis, and not only to homosexuals and women. i don't know how it is in your state, but in mine it is illegal to drive without car insurance. but when one turns driving age, it is less expensive for a girl to get insurance than it is a boy, up until the age of 25. i understand why it is more expensive, because "studies" show that young men are more likely to take risks. but what about the young men that are perfect drivers and understand the responsability that comes with it? why is this not decided on a case by case basis? why does the government support this?

it is less expensive for a girl to get insurance than it is a boy, up until the age of 25. i understand why it is more expensive, because "studies" show that young men are more likely to take risks. but what about the young men that are perfect drivers and understand the responsability that comes with it?

You refute your own point. Males are more likely to file a claim or have a claim filed against them. That's how insurance works. Those who are more of a risk for the inxurance company pay more for coverage. If a man keeps a clean record he can get a lower rate.

why does the government support this?

Does the government support this?

The same products are sold for different prices in different areas. There are many reasons for this. Would you propose that the government dictate prices? I don't think you can claim an equivilance between disparate insurance rates and the complete exclusion of people from a state sanctioned institution.

so they should pay more without ever having driven before? that is exactly what discrimination is. you are making a determination based on previous individuals. how is that right? and by the way they have to drive for 9 years before they get a lower premium. this is gender discriminatioon and their is no way around it. they should pay a higher rate if they prove they are a bad driver...not simply because they are males.

yes the government supports it because it is mandatory to have insurance in order to drive!

If the government mandates that insurance be paid by all citizens that drive, then they should not allow the insurance companies to discriminate male drivers simply for being male. if i own a company and i choose not to higher a newlywed women in fear that she will miss too much work in the near future in order to raise a family, am i not discriminating? if she filed a civil rights law suit would she win? i don't have proof that she will start a family...but it is an honest concearn. insurance companies can't prove that this driver will be bad, and this one good, so we shall immediatly allow this person to pay $200 a quarter less.

insurance companies can't prove that this driver will be bad, and this one good, so we shall immediatly allow this person to pay $200 a quarter less.

In order to ameliorate the problem you find with how insurance premiums are determined the insurance companies would simply raise everyone's rates. No one will pay $200 a quarter less. Everyone will pay $175 more a quarter I suspect.

yes the government supports it because it is mandatory to have insurance in order to drive!

But the government doesn't tell you what insurance company you have to use.

if i own a company and i choose not to higher a newlywed women in fear that she will miss too much work in the near future in order to raise a family, am i not discriminating? if she filed a civil rights law suit would she win?

That's a very tricky area. One where I see a lot of conflict in the future. Our society is going to need to work very hard to figure this one out. Especially as women fill more specialized and higher level jobs.

I must say I've enjoyed this thread. Thanks.