dude ,bottom line it really the econmoic of aspect of this issue trully matter.gays who live long enough with their partner expect to have the same benifit and right same as others in society .like the will or sharing the beloning if they break up .let's say a gay who is wealthy live with a partner then they break up and the one who has money don't have to pay or share anything .
so they want the same thing .because i believe a famous or rich gay might change of partner many times .i believe this is real issue .in my opinion america as a whole a conservative country with open minded people who never trully have had problem with those guys living together,having their nite club, being productive in society .but now the all come down the money and economic issues .
however some churches don't feel comfrotable to speak about it,but still they turn their face other way in these whole ordeal.
so they want the same thing .because i believe a famous or rich gay might change of partner many times .i believe this is real issue .in my opinion america as a whole a conservative country with open minded people who never trully have had problem with those guys living together,having their nite club, being productive in society .but now the all come down the money and economic issues .
however some churches don't feel comfrotable to speak about it,but still they turn their face other way in these whole ordeal.
Fole with all respect, I respect your posts and know you are a very intelligent person but like to say religion can easily take the better one part of a person and poison it. Especially the most extreme that is Islam.
There are gay people who are growing up children. I know one couple one of which was married to a woman and had a child. Then he turned gay and dated another gay man. They seem more into each other and much happier than most hetrosexual couples I know. And they take great care of their daughters better than anyone I know. She is one happy child and super intelligent and top student.
It is good to respect others and not let the religious beliefs get in the way. It there is a god and you you have to answer to, in order to find your way into heaven, I suggest making sure once you get there, you dont have to answer why your wronged his creations by playing god to them. whether it is disabling them to have insurance, go hungry so that one gets higher taxes into self pocket, or stopping gays from marrying, racism, etc... a religious person will have to answer their god when their time comes.
There are gay people who are growing up children. I know one couple one of which was married to a woman and had a child. Then he turned gay and dated another gay man. They seem more into each other and much happier than most hetrosexual couples I know. And they take great care of their daughters better than anyone I know. She is one happy child and super intelligent and top student.
It is good to respect others and not let the religious beliefs get in the way. It there is a god and you you have to answer to, in order to find your way into heaven, I suggest making sure once you get there, you dont have to answer why your wronged his creations by playing god to them. whether it is disabling them to have insurance, go hungry so that one gets higher taxes into self pocket, or stopping gays from marrying, racism, etc... a religious person will have to answer their god when their time comes.
Last edited:
Here is my view.
I encouraged homosexuality among men as a teenager, and into my early twenties.
Why? So there were more single women out there for me to poke at!
I think that we need to ignore homosexuality and hope it disappears! If women figure out that they are the fairer of the species, and get turned off blokes because lets face it they can go around fisting each other and engorging themselves on the fairer flesh, then we as males who like to fuck women are in big trouble. If all the women in the world were gay, I would rather kill myself than have it off with a bloke. That doesn't mean that if they want to they shouldn't, but do I really need to know all about it in public? Some stuff shouldn't be flaunted...
Gay Marriage. Well, personally, a marriage is a union between two souls. not two people. If they want to get married, that's up to them. I couldn't care less, but don't ask me for acceptance. Why should I have to accept something that I personally don't agree with? To ratify that marriage, existence as anything? What I think should not matter one IOTA. It was the same for me when I married my wife, I didn't care what others said about, and did it because it made US happy.
I encouraged homosexuality among men as a teenager, and into my early twenties.
Why? So there were more single women out there for me to poke at!
I think that we need to ignore homosexuality and hope it disappears! If women figure out that they are the fairer of the species, and get turned off blokes because lets face it they can go around fisting each other and engorging themselves on the fairer flesh, then we as males who like to fuck women are in big trouble. If all the women in the world were gay, I would rather kill myself than have it off with a bloke. That doesn't mean that if they want to they shouldn't, but do I really need to know all about it in public? Some stuff shouldn't be flaunted...
Gay Marriage. Well, personally, a marriage is a union between two souls. not two people. If they want to get married, that's up to them. I couldn't care less, but don't ask me for acceptance. Why should I have to accept something that I personally don't agree with? To ratify that marriage, existence as anything? What I think should not matter one IOTA. It was the same for me when I married my wife, I didn't care what others said about, and did it because it made US happy.
lom jaan, thank you for the complement. In this case, I am quite comfortable that the people who are arguing against my position are the ones who are driven by prejudice, or more accurately, "ta'assob," so much so that fail to even understand what I am arguing for. I of course have not fully and coherently explained my position and the reasoning behind it, to some extent purposely so, so some of the resistance is understandable. Here it is: I am not arguing for or against gay marriage. I am arguing that marriage is not an individual liberty. Instead, it is a status that a society recognizes to deal with the issue of children, therefore the society must have a say on the matter.
This is how it works, children are unable to take responsibility for themselves. So they are not free individuals as are adults. As such, there are all sorts of issues for which you are forced to assign responsibility for. There is no such problem with adults. Children's responsibility is either the family unit's or the state's. Traditionally, marriage is what has been used to recognize the family unit by the society, to assign benefits from the society to the family unit for the incredibly difficult and valuable service of raising the child from which the society benefits greatly (or harmed,) to assign responsibility to, and to protect. The idea behind marriage is to formalize and recognize this relationship. As I stated earlier, if a couple wish to have children outside of marriage they should not expect to receive the facilities and benefits from marriage. Society is a direct participant in this arrangement. Therefore it must have a say. If a community, say a state, does not wish to recognize marriage for gays, it has every right to do so. If a community wishes to recognize marriage of gays, it has the right to do so. In such issues, it is always better to make it as local as possible to avoid oppression of minorities as much as possible. So it is much better to allow each state to decide.
As I stated earlier, what is true is that most neither understand nor recognize marriage as such. For anyone or a society that do not understand or recognize marriage as such, whether they are for or against gay marriage, it does not mean that they are somehow more liberal or open minded, it simply means that they either are unfamiliar or have not thought through the issue of children, are punting the issues that will inevitably arise, or are fascists, i.e. would like the state to take over. In all cases, that person or society is for less freedom AND it will pay through the nose for its failure to deal with such an important issue. The US for example, and many other western countries are absolutely paying through the nose for this problem.
This is how it works, children are unable to take responsibility for themselves. So they are not free individuals as are adults. As such, there are all sorts of issues for which you are forced to assign responsibility for. There is no such problem with adults. Children's responsibility is either the family unit's or the state's. Traditionally, marriage is what has been used to recognize the family unit by the society, to assign benefits from the society to the family unit for the incredibly difficult and valuable service of raising the child from which the society benefits greatly (or harmed,) to assign responsibility to, and to protect. The idea behind marriage is to formalize and recognize this relationship. As I stated earlier, if a couple wish to have children outside of marriage they should not expect to receive the facilities and benefits from marriage. Society is a direct participant in this arrangement. Therefore it must have a say. If a community, say a state, does not wish to recognize marriage for gays, it has every right to do so. If a community wishes to recognize marriage of gays, it has the right to do so. In such issues, it is always better to make it as local as possible to avoid oppression of minorities as much as possible. So it is much better to allow each state to decide.
As I stated earlier, what is true is that most neither understand nor recognize marriage as such. For anyone or a society that do not understand or recognize marriage as such, whether they are for or against gay marriage, it does not mean that they are somehow more liberal or open minded, it simply means that they either are unfamiliar or have not thought through the issue of children, are punting the issues that will inevitably arise, or are fascists, i.e. would like the state to take over. In all cases, that person or society is for less freedom AND it will pay through the nose for its failure to deal with such an important issue. The US for example, and many other western countries are absolutely paying through the nose for this problem.
Thank you for clearing it. I will add, times have changed and 2 men now also apt to adopt children or when one has a child from another woman adopt it. So, one can argue that, in that case, marriage applies to gay men as well.
The people getting married dont get married when they are having children. Many, never even have children. So, the argument is hard to stand on. Add to that single parents that have have a child and take care of it. So, marriage cannot be or is not longer about children.
If it is for taxes, then either tax advantage for married couples should be eliminated or the gay should also participate.
Thanks for listening,
from one who hopes they will not play god to others nor have any interruptions in others living their lives fully their way.
The people getting married dont get married when they are having children. Many, never even have children. So, the argument is hard to stand on. Add to that single parents that have have a child and take care of it. So, marriage cannot be or is not longer about children.
If it is for taxes, then either tax advantage for married couples should be eliminated or the gay should also participate.
Thanks for listening,
from one who hopes they will not play god to others nor have any interruptions in others living their lives fully their way.
Tell me my young friend....who do you think is more apt to PLAY GOD....those who wish to preserve and enfoce past rules....or those who wish to change them? You casualy go around and claim "Times are Changing"...... Why? How? for the better? In every case?
Let me be the one to break it to you - in our evolutiuon we are mixing a ton of $hit into the melting pot. Most of it is $$$ driven...but there is also a ton of "Pleasure" driven habits spreading widely.......I am sure you still recall the Gerbil incident. lol
Let me be the one to break it to you - in our evolutiuon we are mixing a ton of $hit into the melting pot. Most of it is $$$ driven...but there is also a ton of "Pleasure" driven habits spreading widely.......I am sure you still recall the Gerbil incident. lol
I thought this report can some how be relevant to this thread. There by I claim Desmond Hatchett as a big contributor to longevity of human specie, economy and well being of the society. He surely is a master among procreators.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/1...1-women-cant-pay-child-support/#ixzz1vR9Eaw4q
More HERE
BTW: Desmon is only 31 years old with plenty of time left to make over 90 more, unless Tennessee decides to lift the ban on castration.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/1...1-women-cant-pay-child-support/#ixzz1vR9Eaw4q
More HERE
BTW: Desmon is only 31 years old with plenty of time left to make over 90 more, unless Tennessee decides to lift the ban on castration.
Don't blame the player, blame the game.
I want to know the reason for him having so many kids all over. If it has the slightest thing to do with religion not to use birth control, then I think all people belonging to the republican party and the church bares responsibility and must pay to support the kids.
It is time Republicans and the chuch take responsibility for the all the S**t and problems they are creating by pushing for family, having children, and not using birth control and the religion down the throat of the sheep.
You want to support Romeny and the religious S**t like Palin and other religious fanatics like Bush, then pay for it.
How long do us Liberals have to put up with the mess these conservatives create and then have to use our taxes to pay for it?
I want to know the reason for him having so many kids all over. If it has the slightest thing to do with religion not to use birth control, then I think all people belonging to the republican party and the church bares responsibility and must pay to support the kids.
It is time Republicans and the chuch take responsibility for the all the S**t and problems they are creating by pushing for family, having children, and not using birth control and the religion down the throat of the sheep.
You want to support Romeny and the religious S**t like Palin and other religious fanatics like Bush, then pay for it.
How long do us Liberals have to put up with the mess these conservatives create and then have to use our taxes to pay for it?
I thought this report can some how be relevant to this thread. There by I claim Desmond Hatchett as a big contributor to longevity of human specie, economy and well being of the society. He surely is a master among procreators.
I want to see the chart of the number of kids per family vs. the ones in the blue. And I want to see how many of the people that are having multiple children are doing it based on religion.
Do we Liberal have to pay for the mess these religious conservatives create?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/1...1-women-cant-pay-child-support/#ixzz1vR9Eaw4q
More HERE
BTW: Desmon is only 31 years old with plenty of time left to make over 90 more, unless Tennessee decides to lift the ban on castration.
I want to see the chart of the number of kids per family vs. the ones in the blue. And I want to see how many of the people that are having multiple children are doing it based on religion.
Do we Liberal have to pay for the mess these religious conservatives create?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/1...1-women-cant-pay-child-support/#ixzz1vR9Eaw4q
More HERE
BTW: Desmon is only 31 years old with plenty of time left to make over 90 more, unless Tennessee decides to lift the ban on castration.
Last edited:
Motori, why would you think I dont pay tax? I am not in the top 0.1% to be able to get away with it. I do know a multi-bilionaire who pays 10% tax though. But I pay my 40%.
Having said that, I dont think anyone should have children anymore. It is just not affordable. And for the same reason that a poor man should not have it, so nor should a rich man.
Let the pro-lifers pay for it.
Having said that, I dont think anyone should have children anymore. It is just not affordable. And for the same reason that a poor man should not have it, so nor should a rich man.
Let the pro-lifers pay for it.
Last edited:
Flint, I think we can agree on somethings here. I am against all the tax cuts that encourages 1) having children 2) marriages that results in more tax cuts. Followed by government having to spend my money on figuring out schools, education, dept. of education, etc.. Although, I fully support zero child policy starting from now, a 1 child policy, like that of China, could be a good start. Will cut on massive government spending.
Last edited:
Absolutely! Child tax credit makes no sense. I will pay for them if I want to have kids. Same for mortgage interest deduction. They once said people would not buy cars if car loan interest was not deductible. Nothing of the sort happened. Same for education. You take money from the Feds to teach math and reading but next thing you know they will fine you because you are selling sodas in school vending machines. Now, as to the zero child policy, be consistent. It is not the government business if they are not paying for them.
I think U.S. is the only country in the western World that gives tax credit/deductions for a house payment..I liked it when I lived in U.S.
IMO..Corporate Tax should be zero..or darn near it..I should qualify this for Corporations that do have people on payroll ..meaning U.S. employees & not in china for instance..
IMO..Corporate Tax should be zero..or darn near it..I should qualify this for Corporations that do have people on payroll ..meaning U.S. employees & not in china for instance..
At the end of the day, not having corporate tax, not taxing the wealthy all works out great for the small percentage that takes advantage.
However, as the result, the smaller number of people that would then have money to spend, would end up hurting the economy. That is the difference between the third world countries and the first world. At the end, all empire falls for the same reason, greed by a small number of people that want everything and have the power to force it.
Our good Iranian friends want the wealth and life style that comes in a first world, but laws that govern third world.
I am with you if you want all taxes gone , and support elimination of all taxes on wealthy, corporate as long it it also implies eliminating all forms of taxes for everyone. And that would imply immediate disbanding of all military, police, and government. Can you support that, or you you are just watching for your own pocket?
However, as the result, the smaller number of people that would then have money to spend, would end up hurting the economy. That is the difference between the third world countries and the first world. At the end, all empire falls for the same reason, greed by a small number of people that want everything and have the power to force it.
Our good Iranian friends want the wealth and life style that comes in a first world, but laws that govern third world.
I am with you if you want all taxes gone , and support elimination of all taxes on wealthy, corporate as long it it also implies eliminating all forms of taxes for everyone. And that would imply immediate disbanding of all military, police, and government. Can you support that, or you you are just watching for your own pocket?
Last edited:
Lordi Jon..my argument is that corporations are already providing a great revenue source for the government..suppose the law would say..any corporation that would hire 10 or more employees in U.S. ..meaning pays payroll & social security taxes for 10 or more people won't pay corporate tax..u don't think this is justified..?..
btw- The CEO ,as any part of the corporation, will pay taxes on his/her income...I just don't see why u have to tax an entity twice..
btw- The CEO ,as any part of the corporation, will pay taxes on his/her income...I just don't see why u have to tax an entity twice..