I'm pretty dense.

 

All I deciphered from that page was that this was the cost coming out of your pay check depending upon the option. I didn't see anywhere that stated this is the cost paid by the state and this is the cost paid by the employee.

 

So maybe the problem lies in the state paying beyond the employee. In Henry County Schools in Virginia, they only pay my wife's premium. We have a family policy but she has that difference (roughly $800 per month) deducted from her check.

 

So in regards to NKU and KY, maybe they would save money if they only paid for the employees. But if the practice is to pay for the households as well then does the employee have right to add on any significant other in the household?

 

It is a sticky wicket. I know what I think would be the right thing to do but I don't know that it is the legal thing to do. Thanks for the data HT.

 

Page 10 list the employee's contributions for the desired plan, and then page 11 lists the employer's contributions, in this case the employer is the state of Kentucky, if that clears it up any.

Page 10 list the employee's contributions for the desired plan, and then page 11 lists the employer's contributions, in this case the employer is the state of Kentucky, if that clears it up any.

 

Thanks :thumb:

I really dont think Christians ever have other people's best interest in mind. They have their internal motives no matter what they say.

 

Funny because Christians internal motives are to put others before themselves.

Maybe, but if I am gay and LBBC, the Christian, doesn't want me to have health insurance provided through my significant others employer. Am I really to believe that he has my best interest in mind when he shares his faith?

 

How does my faith play a role in saying that it is hogwash that the NKU President indicates he cannot field a good staff by looking at heterosexual only candidates.

 

Except that you and gooch are anxiously looking to cast a stone at a

Chrisitan whenever you can make a stretch to do so.

 

So, let me understand that you and gooch feel others should be allowed to have their own opinion and make decisions on their support or lack of support for public policy based on those opinions EXCEPT FOR CHRISTIANS.

I hope your comments are not pointed at my stance. (Felt I had to ask that)

 

You haven't responded to my post. Is it okay if they pay for the health care plan out of paycheck? (Like we do in Virginia)

 

Not at all. It was in response for Chenoweth trying to claim I was saying something I was not.

 

I think it is appropriate for health benefits to cover family. Family only.

This vote is for nothing. The only dependents who an employee can claim is a legally married spouse, or a former spouse in which the employee must provide insurance, and a dependent child. The state of Kentucky will not insure any partner outside of marriage. Kentucky doesn't recognize homosexual marriages.

This is like my kids taking a vote and telling me they are going to change their bedtime. Good try, but I'm not bound by it.

Uncle Jed is right on.

 

Let me substitute myself for LBBC here, Chenoweth, yes I think that the universities should deny homosexual partner benefits, and no, I don't expect that the homosexual partners are going to be feeling 'the love of Christ' as a result. Its hard to feel Christ's love when you are knowingly sinning against Him. You might as well have asked whether I would be denying Christ's love for preventing you from killing someone or smoking crack. Sin is sin. I can love you and still prevent you from picking the apple from the tree.

 

Now, where were you going with the point you were trying so doggedly to make?

Uncle Jed is right on.

 

Let me substitute myself for LBBC here, Chenoweth, yes I think that the universities should deny homosexual partner benefits, and no, I don't expect that the homosexual partners are going to be feeling 'the love of Christ' as a result. Its hard to feel Christ's love when you are knowingly sinning against Him. You might as well have asked whether I would be denying Christ's love for preventing you from killing someone or smoking crack. Sin is sin. I can love you and still prevent you from picking the apple from the tree.

 

Now, where were you going with the point you were trying so doggedly to make?

 

Let me add to the bolded, because I think it is a very important point to make. We all sin. A sin of homosexual activity is no different than a sin of heterosexual activity outside of marriage.

 

Too many people try to hold Christians up to a perfect standard. They believe or WANT TO BELIEVE that if we point out the sin of something, than we are holding ourselves as some perfect moral judgement.

 

Nothing can be farther from the truth. I am not close to being perfect and get furious with myself on a daily basis for allowing some of the stupid sins to creep into my life that I allow to creep into my life.

 

I WILL UNASHAMEDLY and PROUDLY hold the life of Jesus Christ up as a perfect moral judgement and God's Word in the Holy Bible as another.

Let me add to the bolded, because I think it is a very important point to make. We all sin. A sin of homosexual activity is no different than a sin of heterosexual activity outside of marriage.

 

Too many people try to hold Christians up to a perfect standard. They believe or WANT TO BELIEVE that if we point out the sin of something, than we are holding ourselves as some perfect moral judgement.

 

Nothing can be farther from the truth. I am not close to being perfect and get furious with myself on a daily basis for allowing some of the stupid sins to creep into my life that I allow to creep into my life.

 

I WILL UNASHAMEDLY and PROUDLY hold the life of Jesus Christ up as a perfect moral judgement and God's Word in the Holy Bible as another.[/QUOTE]

 

 

But dont expect others too! Keep your religion out of public policy!

Let me add to the bolded, because I think it is a very important point to make. We all sin. A sin of homosexual activity is no different than a sin of heterosexual activity outside of marriage.

 

Too many people try to hold Christians up to a perfect standard. They believe or WANT TO BELIEVE that if we point out the sin of something, than we are holding ourselves as some perfect moral judgement.

 

Nothing can be farther from the truth. I am not close to being perfect and get furious with myself on a daily basis for allowing some of the stupid sins to creep into my life that I allow to creep into my life.

 

I WILL UNASHAMEDLY and PROUDLY hold the life of Jesus Christ up as a perfect moral judgement and God's Word in the Holy Bible as another.[/QUOTE]

 

 

But dont expect others too! Keep your religion out of public policy!

 

So, I am not allowed to bring my faith into my decision making?

 

You can have your morals and faith guide you, but I am not allowed to let my faith guide me?

 

I thought we had freedom of religion in this country and I could use my faith to help me guide my decision making INCLUDING who I cast my vote for.

 

But again YOU AND CHENOWETH brought Christianity into this debate, not I.

 

So, I am not allowed to bring my faith into my decision making?

 

You can have your morals and faith guide you, but I am not allowed to let my faith guide me?

 

I thought we had freedom of religion in this country and I could use my faith to help me guide my decision making INCLUDING who I cast my vote for.

 

But again YOU AND CHENOWETH brought Christianity into this debate, not I.

 

Your misunderstand, I have no problem with you using your faith to guide decisions. But homosexuals dont affect your everyday life, therefor you cannot make decisions as to their well being.

 

Your misunderstand, I have no problem with you using your faith to guide decisions. But homosexuals dont affect your everyday life, therefor you cannot make decisions as to their well being.

 

Those who sell crack don't affect my everyday life, can I make decisions on their well being?

 

Serial murderers have not affected my everyday life, can I make deicisions on their well being?

 

Ken Lay didn't affect my everyday life, can I make decisions on CEO's who scam people out of their life savings and their well being?

 

Your misunderstand, I have no problem with you using your faith to guide decisions. But homosexuals dont affect your everyday life, therefor you cannot make decisions as to their well being.

 

Axe murderers do not affect my everyday life, yet we have enacted public policy prohibiting them from doing what they do. That is based upon some collective moral judgment. ALL LAWS are based upon some collective moral judgment. To deny that is to have your head in the sand.

 

So obviously there is a line, gooch.

 

The question being presented here is where that collective moral judgment line is. LBBC and I reserve the right to tell our legislators where that collective moral judgment line is, REGARDLESS of from where our moral judgment derives, just as you do.

 

Axe murderers do not affect my everyday life, yet we have enacted public policy prohibiting them from doing what they do. That is based upon some collective moral judgment. ALL LAWS are based upon some collective moral judgment. To deny that is to have your head in the sand.

 

So obviously there is a line, gooch.

 

The question being presented here is where that collective moral judgment line is. LBBC and I reserve the right to tell our legislators where that collective moral judgment line is, REGARDLESS of from where our moral judgment derives, just as you do.

 

 

My question, which LBBC has yet to address (or maybe even hear), is whether or not a Christian's strong stance on a morality issue (even if they are right) should be secondary to the Christian's call to love the lost. Pharasees did a lot of judging (and lots of times were even morally correct in what they were saying).

 

I know this isn't an easy question and there are lots of what if's and side issues that can be argued, but put simply if one rails (or calls their congressmen) against providing domestic partner benefits to the significant others of gays, you can win the argument, but you probably aren't going to love many gay people into God's kingdom.

 

 

My question, which LBBC has yet to address (or maybe even hear), is whether or not a Christian's strong stance on a morality issue (even if they are right) should be secondary to the Christian's call to love the lost. Pharasees did a lot of judging (and lots of times were even morally correct in what they were saying).

 

I know this isn't an easy question and there are lots of what if's and side issues that can be argued, but put simply if one rails (or calls their congressmen) against providing domestic partner benefits to the significant others of gays, you can win the argument, but you probably aren't going to love many gay people into God's kingdom.

 

With the utmost of respect to an obviously intelligent poster, you are missing the forest for the trees.

 

Christians are called to love sinners, but the 'stance' and the 'call' are inseparable. Christians do not love "gays" into God's kingdom, they love people, period. Christ brings them to the Kingdom, not us. There is no prioritization of God's 'calls.'

 

What you are referring to is how a Christian goes about communicating their stance, which should be in a loving fashion. If it is not, they have sinned. But a person who feels insulted because a Christian has said 'Hey, I'm not in favor of extending domestic partner benefits to you,' is just going to have to feel insulted, because Christians are also called to arm themselves against sin and not sit idly by.

 

I don't believe the question is hard at all.