PDA

View Full Version : Same-sex marriage ban approved in Louisiana



ChrisF202
19 Sep 04,, 14:23
Same-sex marriage ban approved in Louisiana

Opponents promise court challenge


NEW ORLEANS, Louisiana (AP) -- Louisiana voters overwhelmingly approved a state constitutional amendment Saturday banning same-sex marriages and civil unions, one of up to 12 such measures on the ballot around the country this year.

With 95 percent of precincts reporting, the amendment was winning approval with 79 percent of the vote and support for it was evident statewide.

Only in New Orleans, home to a politically strong gay community, did the race appear to be close, and even there the amendment was passing by a small margin.

Christian conservatives had conducted an intense grassroots lobbying campaign for the amendment, which had been expected to pass easily. The civil rights group Forum for Equality had already promised legal action against it.

"It's gratifying to see the people of Louisiana had an opportunity, as distinguished from judges, having the final say on the issue of whether traditional marriage will continue to be the fundamental institution in our state," said Darrell White, a retired state judge and consultant for Louisiana Family Forum, which pushed for the amendment.

John Rawls, a lawyer for Forum for Equality, reiterated the group's contention that the amendment does far more than stop gay marriage and that it could affect many private contracts between unmarried couples, gay or straight.

"I am disappointed that so many Louisianans either did not read the amendment or are so afraid of gays that they voted for this amendment anyway," Rawls said.

Louisiana already has a law stating that marriage can be only between a man and woman, but supporters of the amendment want to protect that law in the Constitution.

The amendment also would prohibit state officials and courts from recognizing out-of-state marriages and civil unions between homosexuals.

Voting machines delivered late to some polls
Rawls said there were many possible grounds for challenging the results in state and federal court. One appeared Saturday, when voting machines were delivered late to some New Orleans precincts, keeping some from casting ballots for hours.

State director of elections Frances Sims said at least 59 precincts did not have voting machines when polls opened because officials with New Orleans' clerk of court's office failed to meet drivers who tried to deliver the machines earlier that morning. The problem was solved by midday.

Julius Green, 58, said he went to his polling place in New Orleans' Bywater neighborhood about 10 a.m. and found no voting machines -- just a crowd.

"This is ridiculous," Green said. "It makes people feel that their vote don't count."

Gay rights advocates say the amendment would deprive gay and straight unmarried couples of the right to enter into certain contracts and own property together.

Supporters of the ban disagree, including LSU law school professor Katherine Spaht, who helped write the amendment. "It doesn't touch private contracts," she said.

Still, advocates on both sides agreed it will be up to the courts to decide exactly what the amendment does and does not do.

First, however, courts may have to step in and decide if the amendment was legally adopted. In challenges that went to the state Supreme Court, Forum for Equality said the Legislature made several mistakes in putting the measure together, chief among them adding the ban on civil unions into the amendment. Amendments are supposed to have a single purpose, opponents said.

That challenge was turned away when the courts ruled that it could not be brought before the election.

Similar amendments to ban same-sex marriage are on ballots in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon and Utah. Petitions in Ohio are still being verified.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/19/louisiana.same.sex.marriage.ap/index.html

The people have spoken and now the gay rights groups and the liberals want to override the people's choice and have the liberal courts decide things, another example of what is to come if John Kerry and his goons "win" the election, afterall, they think they know whats best for us.

ZFBoxcar
19 Sep 04,, 15:16
The people have spoken and now the gay rights groups and the liberals want to override the people's choice and have the liberal courts decide things, another example of what is to come if John Kerry and his goons "win" the election, afterall, they think they know whats best for us.

The majority does not have the right to violate individual rights. The decision should not even be the government's to make. Let Churches make their own decisions, but why a referendum in which straight people get to decide what rights gay people have is fair is beyond me.

Trooth
19 Sep 04,, 17:12
The people have spoken and now the gay rights groups and the liberals want to override the people's choice and have the liberal courts decide things, another example of what is to come if John Kerry and his goons "win" the election, afterall, they think they know whats best for us.

I would read this as exactly the opposite. The majority have decided what is best for the minority in an issue that, frankly, has got nothing to do with them. How does two people expressing a committment for each other affect those not involved? It isn't like the heterosexual community is showing a great faith in marriage anyway, looking at the divorce rates!

Ray
19 Sep 04,, 17:45
What is the legal and social status of two persons of the same sex who are legally married and they are:

1. Passing through a State where it is banned.

2. Go to stay in a State where it is banned.

visioninthedark
19 Sep 04,, 17:48
What is the legal and social status of two persons of the same sex who are legally married and they are:

1. Passing through a State where it is banned.

2. Go to stay in a State where it is banned.

Very good questions.

Confed999
19 Sep 04,, 18:50
The majority does not have the right to violate individual rights. The decision should not even be the government's to make. Let Churches make their own decisions, but why a referendum in which straight people get to decide what rights gay people have is fair is beyond me.
Amen... If we had a non-partisan Supreme Court, this would not even be an issue.

What is the legal and social status of two persons of the same sex who are legally married and they are:

1. Passing through a State where it is banned.

2. Go to stay in a State where it is banned.
If the licence were not recognized, then the marriage would not be either.

ChrisF202
19 Sep 04,, 19:01
Amen... If we had a non-partisan Supreme Court, this would not even be an issue.
Ah ... but it dont work that way

Just for the record, I dont know where I stand on gay rights. I dont like the idea of 2 guys or 2 girls kissing or marrying, but I also dont think that they should be opressed and bashed for their sexual views.

Trooth
19 Sep 04,, 19:24
Just for the record, I dont know where I stand on gay rights. I dont like the idea of 2 guys or 2 girls kissing or marrying, but I also dont think that they should be opressed and bashed for their sexual views.

Your comments above implied you supported this oppression. Was i misreading? And its an interesting choice of words to use the phrase "sexual views". Was it intentional?

Asim Aquil
19 Sep 04,, 20:41
How does gay marriages affect anyone? Isn't this like in violation of some bill of rights or that thing we see on tv getting brought up a lot called the 1st amendment?

America has good freedom laws, moves like these would just screw it up. I personally won't make it my business to comment upon someone else's sexual preference. Heck I'd cheer for girl on girl any time :D.

Dragoon
19 Sep 04,, 21:00
Gay marriage and any marriage is a legal concern. since the state recognizes Marriage as a legal union with certian rights and obligations it also offers certian incentives to promote marriage,

such as
1. The ability to file joint tax returns
2. Social security benifits
3. insurance benifits
4. inheritance rights when one partner dies

The debate has been muddied by people saying that Gays and Lesbians are being denied the right to marry. when simply put most anti-gay marriage bills simply define the LEGAL definition of a marriage.
In reality the issue is one of legal not moral standing. civil unions and other avenues are open to gays as well as men and women who wish to form non-standard families. it is just that the state does not recognize them as being the same as a LEGAL marriage.

Dragoon

ZFBoxcar
19 Sep 04,, 21:07
moral standing

In this situation, that moral standing is purely religious and so the state is unjustified in taking the side of religion, which gay marriage would not effect, as a church can refuse to perform the marriage. Why shouldn't gay couples have the rights of

"1. The ability to file joint tax returns
2. Social security benifits
3. insurance benifits
4. inheritance rights when one partner dies" ?

Trying to change the nature of the debate by saying that these are not rights is not reallly fair. You can argue whether straight people should have those privlidges, yes, but if it is granted for some and not others, that is unjust. If not "rights" then these privellidges should be for all or none.

ChrisF202
19 Sep 04,, 22:51
Your comments above implied you supported this oppression. Was i misreading? And its an interesting choice of words to use the phrase "sexual views". Was it intentional?
I ment sexual views as in the fact that they go for the same sex.

Trooth
19 Sep 04,, 23:56
I ment sexual views as in the fact that they go for the same sex.

Ah, my mistake, i thought you were implying it was a choice thing.

Ziska
20 Sep 04,, 00:56
oppression my arse.

Homosexuality is a sin, and I would hope that the majority of america still thinks so.

It's about time the decent people of america realised that their constitution is allowing all manner of perversion to go unchecked under the guise od 'religious freedom'.

ZFBoxcar
20 Sep 04,, 01:10
oppression my arse.

Homosexuality is a sin, and I would hope that the majority of america still thinks so.

It's about time the decent people of america realised that their constitution is allowing all manner of perversion to go unchecked under the guise od 'religious freedom'.

From the persective of a non-Christian (or non-Jew or non-Muslim, but this is about a predominantly Christian country) homosexuality is not a sin. The US is not a theocracy. It does not exist to fulfil any religious goal. The constitution was designed so that there would be minimal interference from the government in the lives of the people, and that includes staying out of their bedrooms. And being a sin does not mean something should be illegal (when it does not conflict with the rights of another person). If you believe its satanic or w/e, then let God or Satan punish them. Its not the place of the government to force them to stop. You put religious freedom in quotation marks i notice. So you don't think the government prohibiting certain behaviour on the grounds that its a religion based sin is a violatin of freedom of religion?

Ziska
20 Sep 04,, 01:13
I don't believe in freedom of religion, and neither should christians. The bible says that the state has the power of the sword to reward good and to punish evildoers. Also according to the bible, homosexuality is evil.

Freedom of conscience, yes, freedom of religion no.

ZFBoxcar
20 Sep 04,, 01:16
I'm a Jew, do you believe that the state (I live in Canada) should kill me or torture me or in some way force me to convert to Christianity?

Ziska
20 Sep 04,, 01:22
not at all. The state cannot enforce the 1st table of the law. It can enforce the 2nd.

(the first table deals with god/man relations, the second man/man.)

I could force you to go to church, read the bible, etc. I could not however, force you to become a christian. I could and should however, stop you from sinning inasmuch as I can. So, you can wear phylacteries etc in private and follow the torah. But you cannot kill, steal, lie, commit adultery, disrespect authority, blaspheme.

Confed999
20 Sep 04,, 01:34
Thank you God, for not making me a Christian...

ZFBoxcar
20 Sep 04,, 01:49
not at all. The state cannot enforce the 1st table of the law. It can enforce the 2nd.

(the first table deals with god/man relations, the second man/man.)

I could force you to go to church, read the bible, etc. I could not however, force you to become a christian. I could and should however, stop you from sinning inasmuch as I can. So, you can wear phylacteries etc in private and follow the torah. But you cannot kill, steal, lie, commit adultery, disrespect authority, blaspheme.

Hmm...well, if you have to obey commands given in Christianity despite being a non-Christian, wouldn't that make you a Christian? Maybe I don't understand Christianity well enough, but in Judaisim the action is what matters, so if you perform obey the laws and perform the rituals, you are a Jew no matter what you believe. But thats a side issue, the main one is, why should the state intervene on the part of one religion over another if a state is not uniformly one religion (and if it were uniformly one religion there would be no need for that interference)? It actually raises a few questions about your political beliefs. Do you believe in a democratic government? What if the electorate did not elect one that would protect Christian values (other than the ones that involve violating someone else's rights such as killing or stealing)? Since this is the case, how can you reconcile that with your belief that you should not disrespect authority? It also raises the question of if you believe all people should have the same rights. Why should your principles be elevated above those of others? Now I'm not some liberal who thinks all views are equally accurate or something as absurd as that. But why should your views become unbreakable laws while others a crime? I believe that encouraging or discouraging a behaviour must, in a democratic society, come from merit, rather than coersion from the government.

roshan
20 Sep 04,, 03:22
If the homosexuals want to get married then they should be allowed to do so. Its better if they get married and settle down instead of letting them be free all their life to run around doing things they shouldnt be doing.

Trooth
20 Sep 04,, 17:58
Christianity (like any other religion) is a club. If you want to be in the club, you have to follow the rules.

In the case of a lot of religions (one of which is christianity), not being in the club means eternal damnation etc.

Therefore i fully support the right of any church to discriminate against any group based on their scripture. Because at the end of the day, If Christ doesn't want you as you are, you don't want to be in that club anyway.

However, in terms of civil unions i think the church should stay out of it. It hasn't anything to do with it (although technically in the UK it has ...). As ZF said, the evil sinning homosexuals will get their punishment in Hell. And if they don't then the christians were wrong anyway.

What is muddying the waters is the desperation of a lot of churches to appeal to the people, to shore up dwindling attendances in many places. They have the challange of making 200 year old stories and teachings applicable to the modern world. It isn't that they are not applicable but - as with everything in today's society - it has to be easily accessible or people will lose attention.

Thus the modern church is now trying to "bend" to permit things that its teachings don't allow. I say "stuff that", go back to their fundamentalist roots, and then people can judge them on their merits (or lack thereof).

But, if someone isn't in the club, the club should stay out of their lives.

Ray
20 Sep 04,, 18:31
What makes you feel Christianity is a Club?

It is as freewheeling as any other religion. And none require the stamp of the padre to claim that he is a Christian nor is there any renewal every year! :)

All the bigotry vanished long back!

Ray
20 Sep 04,, 18:39
I could force you to go to church, read the bible, etc.

Not in today's world. Fat chance.

One can't stuff religious belief down the throat; at least not in the Christain world or else the Bible thumpers would rule! And we would have genuine Crusades!
:biggrin:

That every country can have its own relgious beleif indicates that the Christains (who are a world majority) genuinely believe in Love and COMPASSION.

Bigotry has no place in MODERN Christian belief.

Let anyone Bible thump!

I jsut attended the Founder's Day in my school.

The non Christians sang the Hymns with gusto, maybe more than the Christians! Some of them are great adherent of love and compassion than many Christians. Yet, they continue to be follwoers of their own relgiious beliefs!

So, let the bigotry some Christains may have vanish.

Lets just spread the Good word without Bible bashing.

It matters not if people don;t take Jesus as the Son of God. It is adequate if they become followers of His teachings and indirectly spread the good word.

Bigotry only win enemies.

hammer
20 Sep 04,, 19:08
Secularism has thrived in India . hasnt it ray?! one of the facts i am very proud about.

Ray
20 Sep 04,, 19:14
By the Grace of all types of Gods, including the tribal God Besucha, it has.

Thank alll Gods for that.

hammer
20 Sep 04,, 20:15
By the Grace of all types of Gods, including the tribal God Besucha, it has.

Thank alll Gods for that.

Besucha ?!! i havent heard about that one . :biggrin:

tarek
20 Sep 04,, 20:43
The real hero is the swami vivekmanda - it's secular Hindu-ism that has been the success story, not secular-ism, which by itself cannot be judged as having failed or succeeded, it is merely the political expression of a larger societal process of social transformation, namely, secularization

Ray
20 Sep 04,, 21:31
Visit Jharkhand and you will realise Besucha is their God, even to Christian tribals. Extraordinary, but true.

I went there. Their God was nothing but a huge tree. They worship Nature. All tribals irrespecitive of their belief! They have 'mahua' (an intoxicant produced from flower) and sway and dance chanting songs or whatever.

Thank Heavens that some religious zealots is not curbing their freewheeling life. To be true, they were much happier, even in their poverty, than many enlightened and rich religious zealots living in replicas of the Trump Towers.

It was fun being with them. I felt sort of 'free' of this world. It was a great pleasure - a feeling I just can't describe - something like who the hell cares if tomorrow doesn't come! :)

visioninthedark
20 Sep 04,, 22:11
Hmm...well, if you have to obey commands given in Christianity despite being a non-Christian, wouldn't that make you a Christian? Maybe I don't understand Christianity well enough, but in Judaisim the action is what matters, so if you perform obey the laws and perform the rituals, you are a Jew no matter what you believe.

Interesting .... I didn't know that ... I always though that a person was considered Jewish only by decent and that Judaism didn't believe in conversions.

ZFBoxcar
20 Sep 04,, 23:03
You can convert. The only thing thats problematic is that the Orthodox, while willing to perform conversions, do not recognize conversions performed by Reform or Conservative Rabbis. The Rabbis in charge of deciding who is Jewish according to the Israeli Law of Return are Orthodox. That means if you were converted by a reform Rabbi, it would make it much more difficult to get automatic Israeli citizenship. Interestingly, John Kerry's brother is a convert to Judaism.

Ray
20 Sep 04,, 23:34
So is Madonna.

ZFBoxcar
21 Sep 04,, 00:10
I don't think she actually converted, I thought she was just a student of Kaballah (Jewish mysticism)

Gio
21 Sep 04,, 04:23
I don't think the state has any right what so ever to decide what marriage is in the first place. I'm for the prvitization of marriage.

Ziska
21 Sep 04,, 05:08
According to the bible, we can do nothing to affect our own salvation. The only way we can be saved if is christ comes into our hearts, etc.

But do you mean to tell me that you keep the ceremonial law in its entirety?

Dragoon
21 Sep 04,, 06:57
In this situation, that moral standing is purely religious and so the state is unjustified in taking the side of religion, which gay marriage would not effect, as a church can refuse to perform the marriage. Why shouldn't gay couples have the rights of .
The state is not chosing the side of religion it is extending taxation and legal privalages to a group that is behaving in a manner that society..., the majority of it.., feels is benificial to the state and to society at large. Most sub cultures are quick to cry foul when the larger society doesn't let them have there cake and eat it to. groups that want all the perks of the society whaile they reserve the right to behaive in a manner totaly contradictory to the larger whole of society.


. The ability to file joint tax returns
2. Social security benifits
3. insurance benifits
4. inheritance rights when one partner dies" ?


Trying to change the nature of the debate by saying that these are not rights is not reallly fair. You can argue whether straight people should have those privlidges, yes, but if it is granted for some and not others, that is unjust. If not "rights" then these privellidges should be for all or none.

It is not me who is changing the argument, The laws in question only concern the legal definition of a marriage, The extension of benifits and privaledges to encourage or discourage certian behaivors is unfortunately ( I believe in a neutral tax code that doesn't penalize or benefit anyone in particular but nobody is consulting me on the subject) a long standing practice of every society. The "BANNING" of gay marriage is not a ban it simply formalizes the LEGAL definition of a marriage.

You can not legitimize yourself by forcing yourself on others( yes they are...., yes they are!) or insisting that if your subgroup doesn't get the same perks as the peple who are behaiving in a manner that is accepted and encouraged then no one should.

since marriage is not a constitutional protected or defined status then it is well within a state or federal governments authority to define the requirements for a legaly recognized marriage. the same as it is for a coporation or limited liability partnership in business. i the strictest terms a marriage is legal partnership formed by two consenting adults or minors who have the permission of their legal guardians. There are legal obligations and requirements that go along with that legal recognition and several unspoken or unwritten expectations of a married couple. in reality a homosexual partnership is not capable of generating off spring or is it accepted as a stable enviroment for raising children. both of which are the primary reason for creating a family.

If Homosexual partners want a formal union the most states recognize common law marriages and civil unions, if a private company corporation wants to recognize a domestic partnership and extend the perks and privaleges it offers to married couples thats within it's right and no one is saying that they shouldn't. comanies that do should be prepared for a backlash if their customers or clients are offened and wish not to do business with them...., The freedom of association also allows for the right not to associate with someone who is conducting themselves i a manner that they find offensive. choices have consequences an adult is willing to accept the consequences of his actions and choices.
if you don't want you choices ridiculed then behave in a way that is acceptable to society or atleast be adult enough to accept the consequences of your choices if you don't want to be judged then keep you preferences to yourself. parading down the street in a tutu and wings is a good way to get you and your subculture marked as "fruits and nuts" being in your face with any Lifestyle choice is subject to social backlash.

Dragoon

ZFBoxcar
21 Sep 04,, 22:02
The state is not chosing the side of religion it is extending taxation and legal privalages to a group that is behaving in a manner that society..., the majority of it.., feels is benificial to the state and to society at large.

I do not believe the majority has the right to dictate to the minority on the issue of equality. Thats like allowing segregation if white people, as the majority, find it to be the right way for society to go.


Most sub cultures are quick to cry foul when the larger society doesn't let them have there cake and eat it to. groups that want all the perks of the society whaile they reserve the right to behaive in a manner totaly contradictory to the larger whole of society.

What exactly are they doing wrong or in a way that hurts society? Why are they less deserving of the benifits you describe?


It is not me who is changing the argument, The laws in question only concern the legal definition of a marriage, The extension of benifits and privaledges to encourage or discourage certian behaivors is unfortunately ( I believe in a neutral tax code that doesn't penalize or benefit anyone in particular but nobody is consulting me on the subject) a long standing practice of every society. The "BANNING" of gay marriage is not a ban it simply formalizes the LEGAL definition of a marriage.

Well then the debate is changed to whether homosexuality is a choice. I don't believe it to be a choice. Remember the thread about tax breaks for hybrid cars? Well, what car you get is a choice. What gender you are sexually attracted to is not really a choice. To continue the analogy I used above, its like giving white people a tax break to encourage black people to become white. Gay people can't be something they aren't so trying to bribe/coerce them with giving/taking away benifits is stupid. I do agree with you however that the tax code should be neutral in general.


You can not legitimize yourself by forcing yourself on others( yes they are...., yes they are!) or insisting that if your subgroup doesn't get the same perks as the peple who are behaiving in a manner that is accepted and encouraged then no one should.

How are they forcing themselves on others? And yes I believe you can. If you can't legitmatize a perk for a certain group over another, then that perk should not exist or should exist for everyone. Thats what equallity under the law is.


since marriage is not a constitutional protected or defined status then it is well within a state or federal governments authority to define the requirements for a legaly recognized marriage. the same as it is for a coporation or limited liability partnership in business. i the strictest terms a marriage is legal partnership formed by two consenting adults or minors who have the permission of their legal guardians. There are legal obligations and requirements that go along with that legal recognition and several unspoken or unwritten expectations of a married couple. in reality a homosexual partnership is not capable of generating off spring or is it accepted as a stable enviroment for raising children. both of which are the primary reason for creating a family.

So if the constitution doesn't say something, then whatever the government rules on the issue is fair and just? It may be legal to suppress gay marriage (or the privelidges of marriages for gay people), but that does not make it right. Also, if the reason for the benifts is to encourage procreation, then why not change it so the benifits go only to couples with children? Having or adopting children is a choice, unlike being gay or straight.


If Homosexual partners want a formal union the most states recognize common law marriages and civil unions, if a private company corporation wants to recognize a domestic partnership and extend the perks and privaleges it offers to married couples thats within it's right and no one is saying that they shouldn't. comanies that do should be prepared for a backlash if their customers or clients are offened and wish not to do business with them...., The freedom of association also allows for the right not to associate with someone who is conducting themselves i a manner that they find offensive. choices have consequences an adult is willing to accept the consequences of his actions and choices.

Businesses have the right to choose on that matter. The government does not have freedom of association. I don't know how corporations come into this.


if you don't want you choices ridiculed then behave in a way that is acceptable to society or atleast be adult enough to accept the consequences of your choices if you don't want to be judged then keep you preferences to yourself. parading down the street in a tutu and wings is a good way to get you and your subculture marked as "fruits and nuts" being in your face with any Lifestyle choice is subject to social backlash.

Whos talking about ridicule? Nobodys saying you can't bash gay people. Freedom of speech and all. But when ridicule becomes legislation that crosses the line.

Dragoon
22 Sep 04,, 00:54
I do not believe the majority has the right to dictate to the minority on the issue of equality. ..
( There is no such thing as a perfect balance of Social freedom and Social regulation. this argument would be a moot point if our government wasn't playing social engeneer with our money)

Thats like allowing segregation if white people, as the majority, find it to be the right way for society to go..
Rights are innate. they are not granted by any living being. It is the bvelief that certian rights are inalienable that is the foundation of our constitution There is NO way to change what race or nationality you are. who yo have sex with is a choice. There is almost no reputeable scientific proof that sexuality is anything but a concious or suybconcious choice. there is no common genetic trait that marks Homosexuals or hetro sexuals.
You can claim otherwise but until there is proof ( If you have any I'm always open to persuasion) there is no legal basis for forcing a change in policy based on a claim of denying a right to someone...., Unless you can convince enough people you are right and they elect represenitives who will make appropriate laws to protect Sexual preference as an innate RIGHT.

( BTW if homosexuality is a right then how about pedophilia, necrophilia, and beastiality..., The very laws that establish any sexual prefference as a right would by default make all sexual prefferences a right.im not comparing them to ny of the above but how would you word a law or bill to protect homosexual right without openming a nasty can'o'worms.)


What exactly are they doing wrong or in a way that hurts society? Why are they less deserving of the benifits you describe?.

Ask the catholic church about gays..., the vast majority of the abuses are by homosexual priests against young men. There are only a handful of Man on girl cases. There is a corrisponing link between homosexuality and sexual abuse of minors. there is a larger proportion of suicide,murder and violence among homosexuals, permiscuity and unsafe sex is far more common among homosexuals. ( Want the Stats? or if I presented them would you even accept statistical proof.) Marriage has always been and even with increased divorce rates and single parent families becoming more common a better enviroment for raising a child..., (once again do I have to go find the numbers for you or should I just assume you are going to ignore them.)

Well then the debate is changed to whether homosexuality is a choice.?.

No it is still whether a homosexual union deserves equal treatment to a marriage. which is something a sexual partnership is not. it seems to bee ignored tha a hetrosexual common law of domestic partnership is also not subject to the same benifits as a homosexual partnership.

Gay people can't be something they aren't so trying to bribe/coerce them with giving/taking away benifits is stupid. .
It is not uncommon for a person to change sexual preference as they mature,( it is possible to alter a persons sexual preference( Intentionaly or unintentionaly) when treating emotional or psychological problems. The evidence that sexual preference is innate is thin and not very convincing when accfepted astandard of proof and scientific analysis are applied. If there is no proof to indicate preference is innate than by default it is a matter of choice.

an innate trait is remakably difficult to alter. now while religion is also a choice it is one of those few CHOICES that has been extended formal and legal protection under the constitution. The intent is not to bribe Gay/lesbians into Hetroland is is they intent of the tax code to reward the formation of families. unless you behave in a manner that the tax code requires then you are not eligable for that perk.

.
I do agree with you however that the tax code should be neutral in general..

then lets work on that common point of agreement, I would preffer a fair and impartial system of taxation. that includes all punitive and benificial tax codes.
If we as a society want to encorage excellent parenting then local orginizations can offer discounts on books and clothes, heck special rates at resturauant s for families anything the FED gets involved in is screwed from the get go. (Im A bottom to top kingd of guy if a problem can be fixed at the local level then thats where it shoulfd be adressed,Sexual preference is a private matter and should stay that way. if individuals dont accept or approve of your choices then thats a private matter. if someone doesn't want to rent a house to me because im a Malaysian, Sheep hereder that practices witchcraft with my bisexual Puerto Rician transexual lifemate then I reckon I should find someplace that does want me.)

.
How are they forcing themselves on others? ..
we're here were queer get used to it..., gay pride this gay pride that..., every time I open a paper someone is whining that while my masculine/macho behavior is offensive and intimidating, That I cant even THINK that the sterotypical behavior mimiced and flaunted by most homosexuals is in anyway offensive or risk being punished. If I get aggrivated with a homosexuls incompetence then I'm just being homophobic. if I ask a homosexual not to disccuss there last date within earshot of me ZI get wrote up for trying to intimidate them, If I chose not to allow a homosexual access to my children I'm a hateful bigot. Homosexuals in general I don't find offensive, they are well behaved and well restrained in ther actions and fit in perfectly well in most circumstances. when a Precious little fellow insists on mincing about with his rainbow pin and gay pride sticker proudly displayed, all the while insisting that I accept his antics, while he dictates what i can discuss and can't discuss, how I can or can't behaive, what jokes I can tell or even what common words I can use around him then that.
1. is forcing his views on me
2.supressing my right to self expression
3. creating a difficult and hostile work enviroment for me
4 and expecting preferentioal treatmen based solely on his lifestyle.

and thats what I'm accused of every day just for being straight.

.
So if the constitution doesn't say something, then whatever the government rules on the issue is fair and just?..

I have Terrible news for you Legal has nothing to do with fair or Just. fairness is purely subjective what is fair to me may be unfair to you, what is just changes with each generation. since fairness and justice cant be codified to suit 300 million people Governments should stick to the legal matters. only the fact that the federal gopvernment has become all pervasive and is tampering in things it is completely unsuited for is causing most of our social worries. if state and local goernments were left to handle most issues than it would be a simple matter of finding a set of laws you liked an moving there. our ancestors brave oceans and hostile locals to get the right to pray without including the king I f gays want to form there own communities and set there own rules then have at it.

.
It may be legal to suppress gay marriage (or the privelidges of marriages for gay people), but that does not make it right. Also, if the reason for the benifts is to encourage procreation, then why not change it so the benifits go only to couples with children? Having or adopting children is a choice, unlike being gay or straight..

Gays are not being told they cant marry they are being told that there marriages will not be recognized by state or federal governments. if priest wants to perform a religous service an extend the churches blessing.to there union then Im not aware of any law that says they cant. If a gay couple wants to get together with their family and friends and publicly express there dedication and devotion to a lifetime with one person then they are free to do so. BUT the government is not obliged to extend a non constitutional privalidge to any group that does not meet the requirements for that privaledge..

The idea behind marriage liscenses and a legal marriage is to encorage the formation of a stable family for those children and offset the expenses of that job. the tax code is full of loopholes and perks dependant on behavior and choices. but demanding that you recieve a perk intended for one specific group without fulfilling the function or requirements of that group is a bit like wanting a senior discount on your meal when your not the required age.



.
Businesses have the right to choose on that matter. The government does not have freedom of association. I don't know how corporations come into this..
My point was that "Legal Marriage" which is different than civil or religious marriage is pretty much the same as a corporations. it exist only because the government wanted to extend certian privalidges and place certian obligations and restrictions on it. unless a business can meet the requirements of incorporation then it is not eligable for the benifits but no one has ever argued thats wrong or repressive. a legal marriage is a form of leagl partnership with both perks and requirements. thoose are set up in the tax code and federal and state regulations concerning inheritance, liability and finacial, obligations. (If you want to extend constitutional protection to sexual prefference then that should be the focus, that would kill several hundred birds with one very big stone. untill sexual prefference is extended constitutional protection then it is subject to all the vaugeries of all aplicable codes and law. I would much preffer Gay rights groups move in that direction since I generaly preffer to leave moral and social issues to individuals and restrict the government to matters of legal nature. once agian i wish they would either scrap or reconstruct current tax law to remove all the pork, perks and penalties, it would make a lot of social issues go away overnight so we could focus on them at a personal level wthout all the lawyers protesters and mouthpieces stirring things up to gan power,prestige and money..)



Thats It for now my head hurts.

Dragoon

ZFBoxcar
22 Sep 04,, 01:57
( There is no such thing as a perfect balance of Social freedom and Social regulation. this argument would be a moot point if our government wasn't playing social engeneer with our money)

I agree with you and yet, you stand behind the benifits given to straight married couples (or so I gather, unless you are playing devils advocate).


Rights are innate. they are not granted by any living being. It is the bvelief that certian rights are inalienable that is the foundation of our constitution

So once you reach territory that is not in the constitution, its all up for grabs? There is no more right and wrong being anything expressed in the constitution?


There is NO way to change what race or nationality you are. who yo have sex with is a choice. There is almost no reputeable scientific proof that sexuality is anything but a concious or suybconcious choice. there is no common genetic trait that marks Homosexuals or hetro sexuals.

I am not a biologist. But think about it, who would WANT to be gay if they had a choice? I don't think you would find many takers. And yet there are lots of gay people. Lots of them grew up in homes that condemn homosexuality. Why would they CHOOSE to be gay? Also, consider yourself for a sec, are you not disgusted by the idea of gay sex? I know I sure as hell am. But me being grossed out does not make what they are doing immoral.


You can claim otherwise but until there is proof ( If you have any I'm always open to persuasion) there is no legal basis for forcing a change in policy based on a claim of denying a right to someone...., Unless you can convince enough people you are right and they elect represenitives who will make appropriate laws to protect Sexual preference as an innate RIGHT.

If rights are innate, how can they be granted? Now you are saying something can be made an inallienable right that wasn't an inalienable right before? That doesn't sound very innate or inalienable.


( BTW if homosexuality is a right then how about pedophilia, necrophilia, and beastiality..., The very laws that establish any sexual prefference as a right would by default make all sexual prefferences a right.im not comparing them to ny of the above but how would you word a law or bill to protect homosexual right without openming a nasty can'o'worms.)

With these words: "Two consentual adult human beings".


the vast majority of the abuses are by homosexual priests against young men.

I don't know exactly how extensive that problem is, but the main cause is that they are in the closet (being priests and all...another example of why its reasonable to assume homosexuality is not a choice...not excusing in any way the priests for their actions, but why would they become priests if they decided to be gay?). Gays who are out of the closet have means to contact other gays and forming consentual relationships.


No it is still whether a homosexual union deserves equal treatment to a marriage. which is something a sexual partnership is not. it seems to bee ignored tha a hetrosexual common law of domestic partnership is also not subject to the same benifits as a homosexual partnership.

What benifits does a homosexual partnership recieve?


we're here were queer get used to it..., gay pride this gay pride that..., every time I open a paper someone is whining that while my masculine/macho behavior is offensive and intimidating, That I cant even THINK that the sterotypical behavior mimiced and flaunted by most homosexuals is in anyway offensive or risk being punished. If I get aggrivated with a homosexuls incompetence then I'm just being homophobic. if I ask a homosexual not to disccuss there last date within earshot of me ZI get wrote up for trying to intimidate them, If I chose not to allow a homosexual access to my children I'm a hateful bigot. Homosexuals in general I don't find offensive, they are well behaved and well restrained in ther actions and fit in perfectly well in most circumstances. when a Precious little fellow insists on mincing about with his rainbow pin and gay pride sticker proudly displayed, all the while insisting that I accept his antics, while he dictates what i can discuss and can't discuss, how I can or can't behaive, what jokes I can tell or even what common words I can use around him then that.

Um...as much as I despise most political correctness, I don't see how defensiveness, grossing you out or name calling are grounds for not granting benifits or passing certain legislation. If they were grossed out by certain heterosexual behaviour you would probably be similarly defensive, and even if you weren't, you would have a right to be offended. That may sound a bit hypocritcial since I admitted that the idea of homosexual acts kind of sicken me, but I realize that this is subjective and not revulsion from any concrete moral or practical backing. I can't help being sickened by it, but its not their responsibility to act straight around us anymore than its our responsibility to act gay around them. You make it seem like they owe it to straight people to act straight.


I have Terrible news for you Legal has nothing to do with fair or Just. fairness is purely subjective what is fair to me may be unfair to you, what is just changes with each generation. since fairness and justice cant be codified to suit 300 million people Governments should stick to the legal matters. only the fact that the federal gopvernment has become all pervasive and is tampering in things it is completely unsuited for is causing most of our social worries. if state and local goernments were left to handle most issues than it would be a simple matter of finding a set of laws you liked an moving there. our ancestors brave oceans and hostile locals to get the right to pray without including the king I f gays want to form there own communities and set there own rules then have at it.

And in this generation where gays are considered people, and homosexuality is not a crime, one's sense of justice dictates that they and their associations are entitled to whatever privledges heterosexual associations get (or don't get).



The idea behind marriage liscenses and a legal marriage is to encorage the formation of a stable family for those children and offset the expenses of that job. the tax code is full of loopholes and perks dependant on behavior and choices. but demanding that you recieve a perk intended for one specific group without fulfilling the function or requirements of that group is a bit like wanting a senior discount on your meal when your not the required age.

Then like I said, why not have it only for those couples who have children?


BUT the government is not obliged to extend a non constitutional privalidge to any group that does not meet the requirements for that privaledge..

Its not obliged by law (not familiar with all US laws, but I'll take your word for it) but like I said, something not being required by law and not being required by morality are 2 different things. And as I said above, right now, morality (dictated by reason rather than religion) dictates equality for homosexuals and their associations.

My head hurts too :)

Confed999
22 Sep 04,, 02:32
To be true, they were much happier, even in their poverty, than many enlightened and rich religious zealots living in replicas of the Trump Towers.
"It's not having what you want,
It's wanting what you've got" ~Sheryl Crow - "Soak Up The Sun"

ZFBoxcar
22 Sep 04,, 04:41
But do you mean to tell me that you keep the ceremonial law in its entirety?

Sorry, just noticed this now. Orthodox Jews do keep it in its entirity. Reform Jews have a more relaxed view, because we believe the bible is not the word of God himself, but inspired by God and written down over a long period of time. Also, while one can convert to Judaism, someone who is born a Jew is still a Jew even if he becomes an athiest. The way I see it there is plenty of ambiguity, but I havn't read every Jewish text in existence, so for all I know there are clear explanations, but this is all I know. Aswell, much of what the Orthodox keep is not the law as given in the Torah, but the laws as interpreted in the Talmud (written by Rabbis and scholars). So in fact, even reform Jews still follow much of whats in the Torah, but not so much the Talmud. At least, in Canada. I have family in California and what they call reform Judaism there seems nothing more than a social club. If a Jewish holiday is at an inconvenient time, they postpone it. Meh, gotta love California.

List
22 Sep 04,, 07:49
I don't know exactly how extensive that problem is, but the main cause is that they are in the closet (being priests and all...another example of why its reasonable to assume homosexuality is not a choice...not excusing in any way the priests for their actions, but why would they become priests if they decided to be gay?). Gays who are out of the closet have means to contact other gays and forming consentual relationships.

It probably isn't related to homosexuality as much as you'd think. A lot of child abusing priests are likely not homosexual in a more normal sense. Many pedophiles are attracted to both young girls and boys, as well as grown women to a certain extent, yet are not at all attracted to grown men. So really, it isn't an issue of homosexuals abusing children, but rather of pedophiles abusing children, and of pedophiles often preferring young boys to girls. A lot of priests may have become priests in an effort to supress certain urges, however doing so puts them in a position of power over children that they can easily abuse.

While you may consider people who are attracted to young boys but not men to still be homosexual, the vast majority of homosexuals are not attracted to young boys. Meanwhile, most pedophiles seem to be attracted to youths of both sexes.

Incidentally Dragoon, I believe homophobia is currently classified as a form of mental illness, while homosexuallity is not. There was a study linked in another discussion on the subject, though maybe not on this board, that you might be interested in. They showed pornographic videos to heterosexual men and monitored their sexual response. One group of men was non-homophobic, while the other was extremely homophobic. They were shown straight, lesbian, and gay(male on male) porn. The only group that tended to be arroused by the gay porn were the homophobes.

I believe, psychologists have concluded, for what it's worth, that sexual preference really isn't a choice. While there is no hard science evidence either way, that does not mean that automatically makes it a choice, as there are good reasons to think sexual preference isn't one. This discussion is notably lacking the mention of people who are bisexual, and transgendered, two groups that factor in significantly when discussing sexual preference.

It's also important to note that America is fairly sexually repressed when compared to a number of European nations. If a bisexual or heterosexual person is raised to believe that sexual congress with someone of the same sex is wrong or disgusting, they'll probabllly be less likely to try it. In more sexual progressive societies it is possible for a man to have sexual relationships with men, and still be considered straight. If you aren't attracted to people of the same sex, you are still physically capable of having sex with them, though if you're raised to believe that such an act is disgusting, you're less likely to try it.

There aren't an abnormally high number of homosexuals in prison, it's just that men in prison are restricted in choice of partners, agressive, and horny. When you're desperate enough, a good christian upbringing isn't enough to prevent from sticking your dick in the most gratifying socket. It's the difference between being sexually attracted to people of the same sex(homosexuality, bisexuality), and being willing to have sex with anyone(trisexual?:)).

Also, the reason homosexuals are more promiscuous(if that is the case), is not because they are homosexual, it is because of gay culture itself. If your friends have a lot of sex, chances are you will engage in similar activities.

Trooth
23 Sep 04,, 00:48
There is almost no reputeable scientific proof that sexuality is anything but a concious or suybconcious choice. there is no common genetic trait that marks Homosexuals or hetro sexuals.
You can claim otherwise but until there is proof ( If you have any I'm always open to persuasion)
( BTW if homosexuality is a right then how about pedophilia, necrophilia, and beastiality..., The very laws that establish any sexual prefference as a right would by default make all sexual prefferences a right.im not comparing them to ny of the above but how would you word a law or bill to protect homosexual right without openming a nasty can'o'worms.)


I have never, in my life, woken up in the moring and thought "Hey, today i want to shag girls". This thought has never crossed my mind. And yet, each morning when i wake up, i would like to shag girls and have no interest in men.

Am i weird? Because everyone else is faced with this choice and i am not?

Equally if it was a choice, then those that cannot make a choice would never "deviate". In which case there would be no instances of homosexual behaviour in the animal Kingdom, but of course there are.

As Confed said (another agreement :eek: ) if you were to wake up to make this choice, why would you choose the difficult life? Why would anyone choose a life of discrimination, oppression and perhaps physcail violence? OK, perhaps there are places were it is easier than others, but why would people choose to be gay in Nazi Germany?

Necrophilia isn't legal because the dead aren't consenting. Children aren't allowed to consent by law in most western countries. They are deemed too immature to make a decision themselves without having been led by an adult figure of authority. Animals can't speak, obviously. Hence why the law is there to protect those groups.

I have always thought that gay people are more promiscuous then heterosexual people, but that one of the reasons is that there are fewer of them, therefore it doesn't pay to be as choosy. But i might be slurring them which isn't my intention.

Confed999
23 Sep 04,, 02:01
As Confed said (another agreement :eek: )
Hehe, there aren't many of those, but we seem to agree on the things that count the most.

but that one of the reasons is that there are fewer of them,
Another reason is that it isn't acceptable, in most places, for them to be together permanantly. We're lucky here, in my area there are several places the gays have pretty much taken over, so they can be free to do as they wish without people trying to hurt them. I still think it's sad they can't be open with it, I give places like the Netherlands kudos for their acceptance. Though it still freaks me out to see two guys giving each other kisses.

Trooth
23 Sep 04,, 03:17
Another reason is that it isn't acceptable, in most places, for them to be together permanantly. We're lucky here, in my area there are several places the gays have pretty much taken over, so they can be free to do as they wish without people trying to hurt them. I still think it's sad they can't be open with it, I give places like the Netherlands kudos for their acceptance. Though it still freaks me out to see two guys giving each other kisses.

I have some gay friends and heard the stories that they have gone through, one in particular. No one would choose that. In fact a couple of them behave as straight as the next "man", they just aren't straight. They could easily pass themselves off as straight if chose to. Clearly it isn't a choice.

One of the reasons some straight men get irate about gay men is that they don't know how to handle any advances (should any be made). Therefore they set their minds ready that any gay man is going to be after them which is a situation that is alien as straight men have not had the liife experience of a woman (i.e. learning how to deal with the attention of someone who is physically as strong if not stronger than you). I think a lot of tension stems from that happening. Even if in some cases the straight men might be flattering themselves!

Confed999
23 Sep 04,, 03:40
how to handle any advances
True. I'm flattered when anyone thinks I'm cute. :)

Asim Aquil
23 Sep 04,, 06:30
not at all. The state cannot enforce the 1st table of the law. It can enforce the 2nd.

(the first table deals with god/man relations, the second man/man.)

I could force you to go to church, read the bible, etc. I could not however, force you to become a christian. I could and should however, stop you from sinning inasmuch as I can. So, you can wear phylacteries etc in private and follow the torah. But you cannot kill, steal, lie, commit adultery, disrespect authority, blaspheme.

Thats what the Taliban said.

List
23 Sep 04,, 18:43
One of the reasons some straight men get irate about gay men is that they don't know how to handle any advances (should any be made).

Was it Jerry Seinfeld who had the bit about that? Straight men are afraid of gay men because they think that men can be talked into doing anything, or something to that effect.

Trooth
24 Sep 04,, 00:41
Was it Jerry Seinfeld who had the bit about that? Straight men are afraid of gay men because they think that men can be talked into doing anything, or something to that effect.

I am speaking from personal expierience. The best example was a party where i turned up with a couple of friends. After i had been hit on by several gay blokes and discussed it with a female friend of mind it became all too apparent how badlly deficient i was at dealing with such a situation, whereas how good she would have been (assuming the men had been straight).

Ziska
24 Sep 04,, 03:32
even if people have a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality, that does not make it right. People have genetic predispositions towards violence, for example.

And whether or not you feel that homosexuality is no-one elses business, the bible says it is wrong. As a christian, that is all we have to worry about.

Ray
24 Sep 04,, 20:33
I am speaking from personal expierience. The best example was a party where i turned up with a couple of friends. After i had been hit on by several gay blokes and discussed it with a female friend of mind it became all too apparent how badlly deficient i was at dealing with such a situation, whereas how good she would have been (assuming the men had been straight).

No the gay guys were deficient. ;)

Some of them are really cute and damn good looking. You were in the wrong set of gays company.

LMAO and ROLMAO.

Just to inform you, the historians may title the phase of Cliton's Presidency as:

SEX BETWEEN THE BUSHES - Clintonism and Monica. :tongue:

Trooth
24 Sep 04,, 23:19
even if people have a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality, that does not make it right. People have genetic predispositions towards violence, for example.

Which, generally, isn't consenting.


And whether or not you feel that homosexuality is no-one elses business, the bible says it is wrong. As a christian, that is all we have to worry about.

I don't have a problem with you not wanting them in your club. The club has its rules, after all. Its when you try to extend the club's rules outside of its limits that the problem starts.

Confed999
25 Sep 04,, 01:55
Nice post Trooth.

Ray
25 Sep 04,, 10:52
Ziska,

So good Christains should make homsexuality their business.

What about the illicit sex. That too is a taboo and illicit sex is a bigger hassle (if you wish) than homosexuality.

Let's worry about the bigh hassles first and then go for the small ones.

Donnie
25 Sep 04,, 18:07
the tax code is written to give certain benifits for certain events that society feels is a desirable outcome.

in this case the desired outcome is for procreation, and for those children to be raised in secure households.

unfortunatly if 2 people get married and dont have children they get those same benifits, which is to be able to claim less base deductions (the so called marriage penalty)

however, a married couple with children actual get to save much more on thier taxes then those who do not have children.

so the big break comes to those who are married with children.

now some people say that this is a choice issue, but the woman who cant get pregnant cant get the child tax break even if they want to be pregnant.

saying that gays should have the same tax breaks (or penalties) that married people have because they didnt choose to be gay, would be like saying any woman who WANTS o have children should get the child tax credit regardless of wether or not they CAN have children.

ZFBoxcar
25 Sep 04,, 18:26
saying that gays should have the same tax breaks (or penalties) that married people have because they didnt choose to be gay, would be like saying any woman who WANTS o have children should get the child tax credit regardless of wether or not they CAN have children.

Yes, if it were right in the first place to give people breaks for having children. I believe in greatly reducing taxes accross the board (and something approaching a flat tax rate) but parents or married straight people shouldn't get particular benifits. The "will of society" can do monstrous things. Something being a majority view point does not make it right. Now of course, there is nothing wrong with having children, but we shouldn't base the decision of whether to treat certain people as equals on whether the majority (which still harbours a certain homophobic sentiment) wants to reward parents or not.

Donnie
25 Sep 04,, 18:59
Yes, if it were right in the first place to give people breaks for having children. I believe in greatly reducing taxes accross the board (and something approaching a flat tax rate) but parents or married straight people shouldn't get particular benifits. The "will of society" can do monstrous things. Something being a majority view point does not make it right. Now of course, there is nothing wrong with having children, but we shouldn't base the decision of whether to treat certain people as equals on whether the majority (which still harbours a certain homophobic sentiment) wants to reward parents or not.

i agree with you to a certain point, unfortunatly i do believe that tax incentives often help bring about a desired result, so will always be used.

but saying that i am being rewarded for having children is somewhat of an overstament, its an incentive to be clear, but not much of a reward when factoring cost to raise children, this of course is a choice for most (to have children) however it is also contributing to society in whole, these children will pay for our social security when we are older, and eventualy pay into the system (hopefully) and to allow our country to thrive and grow. so althoug society is rewarding me for having children i am rewarding society with offspring to perpetualy hold our society together.

ZFBoxcar
25 Sep 04,, 19:06
i agree with you to a certain point, unfortunatly i do believe that tax incentives often help bring about a desired result, so will always be used.

Desired result of who though?


but saying that i am being rewarded for having children is somewhat of an overstament, its an incentive to be clear, but not much of a reward when factoring cost to raise children, this of course is a choice for most (to have children) however it is also contributing to society in whole, these children will pay for our social security when we are older, and eventualy pay into the system (hopefully) and to allow our country to thrive and grow. so althoug society is rewarding me for having children i am rewarding society with offspring to perpetualy hold our society together.

I realize that I contradicted my earlier statement in my response to you. I have no problem with incentives to parents. Its incentives for merely getting married (and only for straight people). So I agree with you if you are only talking about for children. The benifits should begin with having children and should end once those children reach a certain age. Of course certain benifits aren't really benifits and are just reasonable, and those ones should be extended to gay couples. But the ones that aren't should only be given for couples with children. And if gay adoption of children ever becomes acceptable/normal, then those benifits should be extended to them (whether gay people should adopt children is a different question altogethor).

Donnie
25 Sep 04,, 19:57
Desired result of who though?)

depends on the situation, it could be the desired result of a society, or an individual, or usualy both.

a company that wishes to relocate his base of operations might look for tax incentives to go to a certain state over another. then they might look for tax incentives within that state to decide what county they will stop at, and then looking at city tax incetives. the incentives help the company, the state, county, city, and of course the employees it hires.

but when talking about what would be federaly desired results? that would be society, and unfortunatly democracy is not perfect, but its the sytem we have to work with.


The benifits should begin with having children and should end once those children reach a certain age.

this sounds like a complicated tax code, i think the one we have is complicated enough


Of course certain benifits aren't really benifits and are just reasonable, and those ones should be extended to gay couples. But the ones that aren't should only be given for couples with children.

again i have a problem with soc sec benifits going to the spouse of a gay couple without a public vote, everyone who works, pays into soc sec, so everyone who pays should have a say where that money goes, its fair that it should go to whoever paid into it, beyond that, it needs to go to a vote.


And if gay adoption of children ever becomes acceptable/normal, then those benifits should be extended to them (whether gay people should adopt children is a different question altogethor).

i dont know if gays should be allowed to raise families (adoptions i should say) or not. not sure if there are any phycological ramifications, i would like to see some studies if there are any, im willing to keep an open mind, but i wouldnt want to voluntarily ofer up americas children for an experiment.

logic
03 Oct 04,, 16:37
Gay marriage and any marriage is a legal concern. since the state recognizes Marriage as a legal union with certian rights and obligations it also offers certian incentives to promote marriage,

such as
1. The ability to file joint tax returns
2. Social security benifits
3. insurance benifits
4. inheritance rights when one partner dies

The debate has been muddied by people saying that Gays and Lesbians are being denied the right to marry. when simply put most anti-gay marriage bills simply define the LEGAL definition of a marriage.
In reality the issue is one of legal not moral standing. civil unions and other avenues are open to gays as well as men and women who wish to form non-standard families. it is just that the state does not recognize them as being the same as a LEGAL marriage.

Dragoon


If we look at the reason for these legal rights, I think that we will find that they all make sense if a married couple has children. From experience, I know that children are very expensive to raise. Joint tax returns make the tax burden a little less, Social Security benefits and inheritance are also very important to define when children are involved. A same-sex marriage, by definition, can not result in children. Therefore, why grant them those rights?

Trooth
03 Oct 04,, 17:30
If we look at the reason for these legal rights, I think that we will find that they all make sense if a married couple has children. From experience, I know that children are very expensive to raise. Joint tax returns make the tax burden a little less, Social Security benefits and inheritance are also very important to define when children are involved. A same-sex marriage, by definition, can not result in children. Therefore, why grant them those rights?

So what you are saying is that the problem is not with same sex marriages, but with the tax and benefit structure?

The solution therefore, would not be to prohibit same sex marriages but to redraft teh tax benefits that are in favour of children to be tied to just that, children, and not marriage.

Confed999
03 Oct 04,, 17:42
Only the poor should get tax breaks. ;)

logic
03 Oct 04,, 22:18
I may be heretical in my thinking, but I think that the government should make keeping families together a huge priority. I'm not sure how that could be done, but I think a great deal of this country's wealth has been squandered on the welfare bureaucracy, the extra education made necessary by, and the cost of extra law enforcement that is a direct result of split up families, and single-parent families.

What would be required would be a top-down realignment in the way people think. It should be stressed throughout life that sometimes an individual's desire for personal pleasure and freedom must be subordinated for the good of their children. I don't think legalizing gay marriage is a way to accomplish this.

Trooth
03 Oct 04,, 22:54
I may be heretical in my thinking, but I think that the government should make keeping families together a huge priority. I'm not sure how that could be done, but I think a great deal of this country's wealth has been squandered on the welfare bureaucracy, the extra education made necessary by, and the cost of extra law enforcement that is a direct result of split up families, and single-parent families.

What would be required would be a top-down realignment in the way people think. It should be stressed throughout life that sometimes an individual's desire for personal pleasure and freedom must be subordinated for the good of their children. I don't think legalizing gay marriage is a way to accomplish this.

Are the two related though? If you are blaming rising crime rates on single parent families then you are either claiming that the children are not getting a proper upbringing (which isn't an issue in gay marriages) or that the unhappy people are the cause of crime. By that token making people who want to get married unhappy because they can't would be leading to an increase in crime?

logic
03 Oct 04,, 23:58
Are the two related though? If you are blaming rising crime rates on single parent families then you are either claiming that the children are not getting a proper upbringing (which isn't an issue in gay marriages) or that the unhappy people are the cause of crime. By that token making people who want to get married unhappy because they can't would be leading to an increase in crime?
Good question. I think the breakup of the nuclear family is just one of many causes of crime these days. The government should become more proactive in keeping the family together. It wouldn't be something that's going to happen overnight. We've been getting ourselves into this mess since 1960, we'll have to take the time, and make the effort to get ourselves out of it.

Trooth
04 Oct 04,, 01:24
Good question. I think the breakup of the nuclear family is just one of many causes of crime these days. The government should become more proactive in keeping the family together. It wouldn't be something that's going to happen overnight. We've been getting ourselves into this mess since 1960, we'll have to take the time, and make the effort to get ourselves out of it.

Perhaps, but the nuclear family was a solution to the problems of certain time. Like having lots of kids so they could work on your farm.

Prodigal Son
04 Oct 04,, 04:58
And whether or not you feel that homosexuality is no-one elses business, the bible says it is wrong. As a christian, that is all we have to worry about.

And whether or not you feel that Judaism is no one elses business, Mein Kampf says it is wrong. As a good Aryan, that is all we have to worry about.

Confed999
04 Oct 04,, 05:31
And whether or not you feel that Judaism is no one elses business, Mein Kampf says it is wrong. As a good Aryan, that is all we have to worry about.
He's allowed to believe it's wrong. I don't see him advocating extermination.

Prodigal Son
04 Oct 04,, 07:57
Originally Posted by Prodigal Son
And whether or not you feel that Judaism is no one elses business, Mein Kampf says it is wrong. As a good Aryan, that is all we have to worry about.


He's allowed to believe it's wrong. I don't see him advocating extermination.

Why? Why is bigotry clothed in the mantle of religion more legitmate than the brand of hate peddled in Mein Kampf?

logic
04 Oct 04,, 11:53
Perhaps, but the nuclear family was a solution to the problems of certain time. Like having lots of kids so they could work on your farm.
Back in the 1960s I threw hay bales on wagons for a neighboring dairy farmer. Their five kids and I could pick up over eighty acres worth of sqaure bales on a good day. At one time all farms in this area were run with family labor. Nowadays it's one farmer, maybe a hired hand, and expensive machinery.

The government-proposed solutions to the ills of today's society generally involve throwing money and bureaucracy at whatever problem the media publicizes. And money and bureaucrats are no substitute for family. In my opinion, until the total tax burden on an average family is reduced to the point where one parent can again afford to stay home and raise the children, children will continue to be raised by day care and television during the most formative years of their lives.

Trooth
04 Oct 04,, 13:37
Back in the 1960s I threw hay bales on wagons for a neighboring dairy farmer. Their five kids and I could pick up over eighty acres worth of sqaure bales on a good day. At one time all farms in this area were run with family labor. Nowadays it's one farmer, maybe a hired hand, and expensive machinery.

The government-proposed solutions to the ills of today's society generally involve throwing money and bureaucracy at whatever problem the media publicizes. And money and bureaucrats are no substitute for family. In my opinion, until the total tax burden on an average family is reduced to the point where one parent can again afford to stay home and raise the children, children will continue to be raised by day care and television during the most formative years of their lives.

But that isn't all about taxation is it? Its also about opportunity. As transport gets better, children want to expand their horizons, leave the farm and move to cities, or travel and so on. The education system is based around the farming seasons in many parts of the world. This was so that the kids could be educated, however education brings a cost (i.e. that kids learn about engineering, science, far off lands and so on). This means you need more hired hands, rather than free family labour. The mechanisation enabled greater productivity still which in turn like in the general industrial revolution of the 18th Century, led to more unemployment (which indirectly was the aim).

In addition to the tax burden, there is also the consumerisation of our society to the extent were we are not happy without a new car every couple of years, we feel deficient if we don't have dolby surround sound TVs, just stereo and so on. The amount of money that is spent on what only a few years ago would have been considered luxeries is enormous. Look at how much money is wasted on mobile phone ringtones! I am in no way saying that people shouldn't be able to spend their money on whatever they want, but obviously it has to be earned which is often why people are working longer hours, paying more for daycare to do it and, increasingly, shortneing their retirement. I am constantly shocked by the amount of personal debt that people feel is acceptable , and how little people have in savings for a "rainy day".

logic
04 Oct 04,, 18:35
In addition to the tax burden, there is also the consumerisation of our society to the extent were we are not happy without a new car every couple of years, we feel deficient if we don't have dolby surround sound TVs, just stereo and so on. The amount of money that is spent on what only a few years ago would have been considered luxeries is enormous. Look at how much money is wasted on mobile phone ringtones! I am in no way saying that people shouldn't be able to spend their money on whatever they want, but obviously it has to be earned which is often why people are working longer hours, paying more for daycare to do it and, increasingly, shortneing their retirement. I am constantly shocked by the amount of personal debt that people feel is acceptable , and how little people have in savings for a "rainy day".
Exactly. And from where does this addiction to consumer items come? Advertising everywhere depicting lifestyles of the rich, famous, thin & white; and selling the credit cards with which people can charge that lifestyle. Many people I know are probably two missed paychecks from being homeless. And to me, that's frightening.

Somehow, people need to be shown the wisdom of restraint, and this is where policy makers must enter the picture. From preschool through post graduate college level, students must be shown how to save money for rainy days. Because rainy days will come. And this restraint needs to be carried over into all aspects of life, including sexual behavior.

Trooth
04 Oct 04,, 18:57
Somehow, people need to be shown the wisdom of restraint, and this is where policy makers must enter the picture. From preschool through post graduate college level, students must be shown how to save money for rainy days. Because rainy days will come. And this restraint needs to be carried over into all aspects of life, including sexual behavior.

Well it is true that my parents generation saved up for things, then bought them, now you get a loan / credit and pay more back. Its bizarre but there you go.

However, i don't think that people's sexuality is particularly a fad as such. Well, certainly things have become less taboo and perhaps that is fashion. But you don't wake up one morning and decide to be gay, or straight or indeed a good animal lover. Its something that you are that you then express.

There was a time when there was something wrong with you if you are left handed. It was either madness or demon spirits depending on your time period. In fact even today there is a thoery that it is brain damage during birth that causes left handedness ....

Children were forced to act right handed, to write, play sports etc with their right hand. It drove some of them literally mad, because it isn't the way left handed people's brains are wired up. Nowawayds we would say that it is mad to behave like this and thankfully society changed (although in some less enlightened part sof the world left-handed oppression continues).

But, even in the "enlightened west" that has created all sorts of oppression of its own, could we envisage a situation were left handers are not allowed to marry for fear of spreading their devience?

Confed999
05 Oct 04,, 01:18
Why? Why is bigotry clothed in the mantle of religion more legitmate than the brand of hate peddled in Mein Kampf?
He's allowed to be a Nazi too, if he wants. One could say you are bigoted against bigots, right? Anything less than being allowed to believe whatever you want, is fascism, or worse.

"We are fighting for the inalienable right of human kind, black or white, Christian or not, left, right or merely indifferent, to be free. Free to raise a family in love and hope. Free to earn a living and be rewarded by your own efforts. Free not to bend your knee to any man in fear. Free to be you so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others. That's what we're fighting for. And that's a battle worth fighting." - PM Tony Blair

Donnie
05 Oct 04,, 14:47
So what you are saying is that the problem is not with same sex marriages, but with the tax and benefit structure?

The solution therefore, would not be to prohibit same sex marriages but to redraft teh tax benefits that are in favour of children to be tied to just that, children, and not marriage.

well, possibly, but the end result is not the only goal, it is the ultimate goal to be sure, but the goal was to promote marriage, marriage altimatley provides the desired envirnment to produce children, the goal wasnt to get people to get married after they have children, but instead to get people to get married so they could provide the incubator needed for the desired family.

are people taking advantage of the tax code? sure, but just because people can take advantage of something doesnt mean everyone should have the same right to take the same advantage. there are tax codes that i cant take advantage of, just like everyone else in the US. theres some we can, and some we cant.

if you change the tax code to what your proposing then you are basicaly promoting out of wedlock pregnancies, (wait till your pregnant to get married) which is not really the desired result. even married couples who cannot have children still provide the proper incubator for adopting children, and such relationships are more likley to result in adoptions.

again the issue of gay adoptions comes to question, but thats a question im not willing to answere at this time, because there is no hard evidence that this is a good incubator. perhaps when canada makes it leagal, then there could be studies done.

logic
05 Oct 04,, 17:18
well, possibly, but the end result is not the only goal, it is the ultimate goal to be sure, but the goal was to promote marriage, marriage altimatley provides the desired envirnment to produce children, the goal wasnt to get people to get married after they have children, but instead to get people to get married so they could provide the incubator needed for the desired family.

are people taking advantage of the tax code? sure, but just because people can take advantage of something doesnt mean everyone should have the same right to take the same advantage. there are tax codes that i cant take advantage of, just like everyone else in the US. theres some we can, and some we cant.

if you change the tax code to what your proposing then you are basicaly promoting out of wedlock pregnancies, (wait till your pregnant to get married) which is not really the desired result. even married couples who cannot have children still provide the proper incubator for adopting children, and such relationships are more likley to result in adoptions.

again the issue of gay adoptions comes to question, but thats a question im not willing to answere at this time, because there is no hard evidence that this is a good incubator. perhaps when canada makes it leagal, then there could be studies done.
I think the tax code should be simplified to the point where people and businesses pay taxes according to what they consume - a national sales tax with no loopholes/deductions/restrictions. With the advent of computerized scanners at just about every point in the manufacturing/distribution/retail structure it wouldn't be that difficult to determine who's consuming and who's saving and exactly how much tax everybody owes. Scrap the income/property/value-added/user-fees/excise/special-interest/bribed politician tax structure and then:

Set up the same kind of indoctrination for children from day care on that the media giants already have. Make it legally binding that for every program, every scene, every word promoting a gay and comsumptive lifestyle, including all advertising; there is exactly equal time showing the virtues af self-reliance and saving in exactly the same time slot. A whole series of how-to's, how to fix a flat tire, how balance a checkbook, how to take something apart, diagnose what's wrong and put it back to gether, how a manufacturing process works. How to add, subtract, divide and multiply without using a calculator. What lessons we can learn from history. All without advertising. This would exercise the creative minds in Mass Media far more than they're being exercised now, but it could be done. Now that would be the ideal, but I'm willing to bargain.

Donnie
05 Oct 04,, 20:08
I think the tax code should be simplified to the point where people and businesses pay taxes according to what they consume - a national sales tax with no loopholes/deductions/restrictions. With the advent of computerized scanners at just about every point in the manufacturing/distribution/retail structure it wouldn't be that difficult to determine who's consuming and who's saving and exactly how much tax everybody owes. Scrap the income/property/value-added/user-fees/excise/special-interest/bribed politician tax structure and then:

Set up the same kind of indoctrination for children from day care on that the media giants already have. Make it legally binding that for every program, every scene, every word promoting a gay and comsumptive lifestyle, including all advertising; there is exactly equal time showing the virtues af self-reliance and saving in exactly the same time slot. A whole series of how-to's, how to fix a flat tire, how balance a checkbook, how to take something apart, diagnose what's wrong and put it back to gether, how a manufacturing process works. How to add, subtract, divide and multiply without using a calculator. What lessons we can learn from history. All without advertising. This would exercise the creative minds in Mass Media far more than they're being exercised now, but it could be done. Now that would be the ideal, but I'm willing to bargain.

i was only saying that useing the existing tax code to say that not allowing gay marriage is not really a valid arguement.

but national sales tax, so that means that if i have 3 children, then everything that i buy to sustain them, cost me even more money than it already does, whereas those who lead self gratifing lives with no children to pay into our future system will eventualy live off this sytem at the cost of my children and thier children.

any tax code would have to leave incentives for having children, fostering our societies perpetual existance has to be the foundation of our society. i hear there are some towns in europe who are actualy paying people to get married. (the intent of course is the same philosophy as our tax code)

Trooth
05 Oct 04,, 20:22
My point was not using the tax code to justify gay marriage, but to say that if it is used as a barrier, what is the reason for it? If the reason is to support those that have children then that should be the focus, not the marriage bit.

I think having children is its own reward. People should not be disadvantaged from having children, but i don't see that the tax structure should really benefit them for doing so.

Children cost money. Of that there is no doubt, but their cost is outweighed by their role in their parents lives. Shoudl single people subsidise those who have kids? etc etc etc

Donnie
05 Oct 04,, 21:01
Children cost money. Of that there is no doubt, but their cost is outweighed by their role in their parents lives. Shoudl single people subsidise those who have kids? etc etc etc

WHAT?!? wait one second here, your assuming that the tax money i pay isnt mine, thats bull $h!+, how is getting a tax credit for having children subsidised? im getting to keep more of MY money, not the money of some single tax payer. thats not subsidizing, i PAY taxes, allot of taxes, even after the credits, i still pay allot of taxes, how do you get that someone is subsidizing my children? please explain because at this moment i feel very offended.

i hear my neighbor say stuff like , "i cant believe i have to pay school tax (property assesment) and i dont even have children, thats just not fair, i think the people with children should be the ones who pay for the school tax, not me." what that crab doesnt understand is that she is 50, in 18 years those same kids she's paying to educate are going to be supporting her crabby a$$.

i dont have a problem paying to raise my children, any tax incentives given doesnt even come close to "reimburment of cost" i never said it did, and i dont expect it to. and i dont ask for a single penny of someone else's money to do raise them, but dont make me pay even MORE sales tax than i already do just because i have more children, thats rediculous.

Donnie
05 Oct 04,, 21:04
My point was not using the tax code to justify gay marriage, but to say that if it is used as a barrier, what is the reason for it? If the reason is to support those that have children then that should be the focus,

as i said the reason is to foster children in a good enviornment, the goal is not to have a bunch of unwed mothers running around with children, (your gonna have them, but thats not we want to promote) promote marriage, and you will promote an icubator for children.

Prodigal Son
05 Oct 04,, 21:44
He's allowed to be a Nazi too, if he wants.

And free to get the social scorn doing so would entail....which is the point I was trying to make. Both ideologies, religious fundamentalism and facism of the Nazi variety, have "holy books" that condemns a particular group of people which leads them to use the state to disenfranchise those groups in various ways. One, very obviously, is not considered legimate, the other is.

We have to be "respectful" of religion, but not of a party that dishes out a similar form of hate. I just don't see the difference between a person using Mein Kampf as justification to eliminate Jews and a person using the Bible to justify persecution of folks who happen to be gay. Religion is somehow given a "pass" in this respect. I don't think that's right.



One could say you are bigoted against bigots, right? Anything less than being allowed to believe whatever you want, is fascism, or worse.

No, of course not. Unlimited freedom is just another form of tyranny.

Trooth
05 Oct 04,, 22:10
WHAT?!? wait one second here, your assuming that the tax money i pay isnt mine, thats bull $h!+, how is getting a tax credit for having children subsidised? im getting to keep more of MY money, not the money of some single tax payer. thats not subsidizing, i PAY taxes, allot of taxes, even after the credits, i still pay allot of taxes, how do you get that someone is subsidizing my children? please explain because at this moment i feel very offended.

i hear my neighbor say stuff like , "i cant believe i have to pay school tax (property assesment) and i dont even have children, thats just not fair, i think the people with children should be the ones who pay for the school tax, not me." what that crab doesnt understand is that she is 50, in 18 years those same kids she's paying to educate are going to be supporting her crabby a$$.

i dont have a problem paying to raise my children, any tax incentives given doesnt even come close to "reimburment of cost" i never said it did, and i dont expect it to. and i dont ask for a single penny of someone else's money to do raise them, but dont make me pay even MORE sales tax than i already do just because i have more children, thats rediculous.

There is no need to get so offended, i only asked a question. My understanding of economics is that the bills are paid now as the costs are incurred now. Unless you are actually paying into some sort of future investment fund your government's spending committments must be met by you, now. Therefore someone must be paying a greater proportion of the tax burden than you if you are saying you receive a tax credit (i.e. the people that don't receive said credit) - unless of course the US is running a budget surplus, or perhaps beautifully crafted balanced budget but if that was the case i doubt the government would be offering the credit. They would just cut taxes to their appropriate amount.

Or, in summary, your crabby neighbour is paying for some of your tax credit, just as your kids will be paying for her crabby retirement. The problem with most tax structures is that they are so ridiculously complicated that you can't actually work out who is paying for what.

A increase in sales tax (or VAT) wasn't my suggestion, by the way.

Donnie
05 Oct 04,, 22:38
There is no need to get so offended, i only asked a question. My understanding of economics is that the bills are paid now as the costs are incurred now. Unless you are actually paying into some sort of future investment fund your government's spending committments must be met by you, now. Therefore someone must be paying a greater proportion of the tax burden than you if you are saying you receive a tax credit (i.e. the people that don't receive said credit)

my idea of subsidizing is the government paying me money to raise my family, (which it does do for some people, its called EIC) and my tax dollars subsidize those families, the government not takeing money from me is not what i consider subsidizing. however yes people who do not have children are being punished for it, because they get to keep less of thier money, but thier money is not subsidizing my family, btw, i am also paying a marriage penalty, which the single guy across the street doesnt pay. i dont believe for a second that means that im subsidizing his single life style, unless he is recieving in benifits more than he's paying in of course.



Or, in summary, your crabby neighbour is paying for some of your tax credit, just as your kids will be paying for her crabby retirement. The problem with most tax structures is that they are so ridiculously complicated that you can't actually work out who is paying for what.

the system is set up to be a form of rewards, incetives are the foundation of the tax code, not saying i agree with the way the tax code is set up, just explaining why they are the way they are, promotion of children within marriage was a key principle, maybe its not anymore, but thats why the exclusion of gays on taxes doesnt constitute any kinda breach of rights in my opinion.


A increase in sales tax (or VAT) wasn't my suggestion, by the way.

yes, i know, i should have clearified that that was directed to logic

Confed999
06 Oct 04,, 02:13
Mein Kampf as justification to eliminate Jews and a person using the Bible to justify persecution of folks who happen to be gay.
It's the "elimination" part that makes that wrong, but remember, with the Neo-Nazi groups many are just sepratists.

a person using the Bible to justify persecution of folks who happen to be gay.
Who is advocating persecution?

No, of course not.
I am. I'm also prejudiced against people who come to a job interview/work with facial piercings. And, I am prejudiced towards redheads. I just try not to let it influence my life. If they aren't hurting anyone, who cares, just keep an eye on 'em to make sure they don't start. If they do hurt someone, make sure the one(s) who did it is held responsible.

my idea of subsidizing is the government paying me money to raise my family,
Don't be offended, but a "tax break" is the government paying money. I personally think it's wrong that a person with no children in the system using resources, pays more than people with children using resources.

Confed999
06 Oct 04,, 03:16
I forgot this bit:

Unlimited freedom is just another form of tyranny.
If everyone had unlimited freedom, it would be anarchy. Instead, one's freedom should stop where another's freedom begins.

Donnie
06 Oct 04,, 16:36
Don't be offended, but a "tax break" is the government paying money. I personally think it's wrong that a person with no children in the system using resources, pays more than people with children using resources.

its a wash for me when you look at the whole picture, children are hardly living off the system, what benifits do they recieve in a middleclass household? the only thing i can think of is an education, everyone goes to school, even if a person ends up never having kids, some people who didnt have kids paid for thier education, what comes around goes around.

when i think of value i also put it in terms of societal value, even if the guy with no kids doesnt car if society exist after he's gone, society as a whole does. children are one of those social concious items, just like senior citizens, or the mentaly handycaped, ect, ect.

maybe this doesnt make sense to you, but it made perfect sense in my head :)

logic
06 Oct 04,, 17:09
^^^ To donnie: Would things be really more expensive? I read that this year Tax Freedom day was somewhere toward the end of May. If there were only a sales tax on every good/service in which money changed hands which would fund all levels of government, there were would be far fewer deductions out of your paycheck. There would also be several other ramifications.

1) People would become far more self sufficient. They would tend more to fix things themselves rather than buy new. This might be a bad thing too in that inexperienced individuals might try to fix the wrong kind of thing. Another aspect would be that people would tend to use something until it was worn completely out, rather than buy new to replace slightly worn goods.

2) There would be a thriving barter economy. I'd fix the glitch in your plumbing in exchange for a week's lawn mowing kind of thing. Barter economy would be probably impossible to keep track of or tax.

3) It would give the computer hackers of the world something new and fun to hack into and try to control.

4) There would be a great incentive to cheat the system. The wealthy would continue to try to avoid paying the taxes on their consumptive lifestyles. In fact, I'd guess that many people would work harder at cheating the system than they would if they just went along with it.

5) Many people would have to go out and find real jobs because lobbying for tax breaks, preparing income taxes, and writing up new tax laws every year would be a thing of the past.

I could go on, but that's the point. It would be different, and I feel it would be a more just system than that which we have.

Confed999
07 Oct 04,, 02:10
the only thing i can think of is an education
Road use, parks, child services, child safety, and the myriad other things the government does for the kids.

maybe this doesnt make sense to you, but it made perfect sense in my head
I think people who use the system more, should pay more. They certainly shouldn't get "tax breaks", either way. That makes real sense. The only people I think should get tax breaks are the poor, actually.

Donnie
07 Oct 04,, 02:27
Road use, parks, child services, child safety, and the myriad other things the government does for the kids.


well my kids dont drive, the only park around here is a private sponsord one open to the public, and children services i dont need, im not sure about child safty if you mean the people who check products? what quacks, we didnt have them when i was a kid, and i seemed to come out fine (maybe not) but i can pretty much say that my children arnt benifiting much from the "system", but society at large benifits from my children, i spend more money into the economy, just ask those damn school book orderform companies that keep sending crap home with my children. but i guess with the flat tax id be poor anyway, so then you wouldnt feel so bad offering me assistance :)

Confed999
07 Oct 04,, 02:47
well my kids dont drive
No, you drive them. ;) They need food and clothing right? That is driven to the stores. I could go on, but I think you'll get my point.

children services i dont need,
You never know.

i spend more money into the economy,
Unless you were planning on hiding the extra income under your bed, it would have still gone into the economy. ;)

you wouldnt feel so bad offering me assistance :)
If you needed help, I would be more than happy to do all I can.

nexissdawg
07 Oct 04,, 13:09
Same sex marriges shouldnt be banned. Im not gay, but this country is all about the freedom of the americans. First you take out the ten commandments, then the govt takes out "under god" in the pledge of allegiance. Its bull. The govt is going to fall and the athiest and communist will prevail. Ne1 that feels that i am not correct i want to talk to them personally and she why they feel that im wrong. when revolution breaks out, will ne of u fight next to me to try to save our nation. Thanks for your time. :frown: :mad:

Donnie
07 Oct 04,, 18:16
No, you drive them. ;) They need food and clothing right? That is driven to the stores. I could go on, but I think you'll get my point..

yes, yes, but most of that comes from state and county money, mostly from gas tax, state and county sales tax, and state income tax (no child credit there), i also pay more gas tax because i run kids all over the place, the more i use the road the more in taxes i pay for that road. my kids surley dont get me any breaks there.


Unless you were planning on hiding the extra income under your bed, it would have still gone into the economy. ;)

if i didnt have kids id probably be saving the money, id have a smaller (cheeper) car too, maxing out on my 401k, ira's, savings, (of course as bad as my 401k did this past year, i would have been a couple grand ahead of i HAD kept the money under my matress) ive already had to push retirment back 10 years.


If you needed help, I would be more than happy to do all I can.

thanks, dont need it yet, ill let you know after they pass a flat tax :)

Trooth
07 Oct 04,, 23:37
How are those countries that have been running a flat tax system getting on? Anyone got any experience of it?

ZFBoxcar
07 Oct 04,, 23:50
I believe Russia instituted a flat tax system a few years ago (set at 17%) and tax revenue shot up 63%.

Confed999
08 Oct 04,, 01:26
yes, yes, but most of that comes from state and county money, mostly from gas tax, state and county sales tax, and state income tax (no child credit there), i also pay more gas tax because i run kids all over the place, the more i use the road the more in taxes i pay for that road. my kids surley dont get me any breaks there.
You get the breaks in your income taxes. ;)

if i didnt have kids id probably be saving the money, id have a smaller (cheeper) car too, maxing out on my 401k, ira's, savings
Saving it, and investing it, puts it into the economy.

ill let you know after they pass a flat tax
It won't pass, but I still bet you would be better off than you are now. Especially if health coverage is your only concern.

Donnie
08 Oct 04,, 01:52
You get the breaks in your income taxes. ;).

oy, circle of fate.


Saving it, and investing it, puts it into the economy.

not if its under my matress :) (remember my 401k sucked)


It won't pass, but I still bet you would be better off than you are now. Especially if health coverage is your only concern.

not my only concern, but the biggest, i didnt see what the actual tax would be does 12% sound right?

what is the tax free portion of a 65,000 a year for family of 5 turn into?

Confed999
08 Oct 04,, 02:05
oy, circle of fate.
Yep, that's how it works though.

not if its under my matress
Yep, that's what I said.

remember my 401k sucked
Allmost every 401k sux. Invest yourself, if you have the time. Just remember to be diverse, and bet on things for morons, they allmost allways do well.

what is the tax free portion of a 65,000 a year for family of 5 turn into?
What is the current poverty level for a family of 5?

How much do you pay in federal income tax, medicaid and social security? You would get to keep all of that money, and spend it on healthcare if you wish. Your company wouldn't be paying any taxes, or doubling of your payments on social security, so continuing insurance wouldn't be much of in comparison. Also, you wouldn't be paying taxes on the money you invest, increasing your stake, and speeding your retirement.

Donnie
09 Oct 04,, 19:50
What is the current poverty level for a family of 5?.

22,030, im around 50,000 without m spouse working


How much do you pay in federal income tax, medicaid and social security?.

7500


You would get to keep all of that money, and spend it on healthcare if you wish.

my healthcare is tax free at the moment, but under a flat tax plan i would be paying tax on it, not sure what that tax would be yet. but with no taxes, and asuming my employer would keep paying 1/2 of the health coverage even without the tax incentive to do so, would be around.

3500 a year for the plan and around

1300 for deductables, copays, and out of pocket expense.

8300 total if my boss doesnt decide to keep the plan, assuming i can keep the same rate (unlikley)


Your company wouldn't be paying any taxes, or doubling of your payments on social security, so continuing insurance wouldn't be much of in comparison.

well i gave both numbers.


Also, you wouldn't be paying taxes on the money you invest, increasing your stake, and speeding your retirement.

i dont currenly invest other than 401k, and some stocks ive had forever, plus a couple ira's, except for the stock, its all tax free right now anyway.

but if you could figure what the tax % would be for the flat tax, i didnt see it at the site, it might help.

Confed999
09 Oct 04,, 21:49
its all tax free right now anyway.
Those are low yield retirement accounts, is why they're "tax free". You still paid Social Security tax, though, and Medicaid tax on the IRAs, not sure about the rules on a 401k anymore, I gave up on them.

but if you could figure what the tax % would be for the flat tax, i didnt see it at the site, it might help.
23% ;) Rebates would be about $422.41/month.

Donnie
09 Oct 04,, 22:00
Those are low yield retirement accounts, is why they're "tax free". You still paid Social Security tax, though, and Medicaid tax on the IRAs, not sure about the rules on a 401k anymore, I gave up on them.

23% ;) Rebates would be about $422.41/month.

ouch.

but i got the loop-hole already figured out, ill just buy my stuff in canada :)

Confed999
09 Oct 04,, 22:40
ouch.
You should read the whole bill. It's end user, new prouducts only. Thus no purchasing to create the products would be taxed, lowering most prices by 20% or more. There would be no tax on used items either. So, if it works as advertized, even with the sales tax it would cost you more to buy the same product from Cancada without sales tax...

Donnie
09 Oct 04,, 23:06
You should read the whole bill. It's end user, new prouducts only. Thus no purchasing to create the products would be taxed, lowering most prices by 20% or more. There would be no tax on used items either. So, if it works as advertized, even with the sales tax it would cost you more to buy the same product from Cancada without sales tax...

ah, now i get it, but since canada is americas largest trading partner arnt they going to be buying US goods at the discounted price? thereby passing on those savings?

Confed999
09 Oct 04,, 23:23
ah, now i get it, but since canada is americas largest trading partner arnt they going to be buying US goods at the discounted price? thereby passing on those savings?
After adding their profit margins, shipping, and overhead. Technically you're still supposed to pay sales tax too, though most of us do not. ;)

Donnie
11 Oct 04,, 18:32
After adding their profit margins, shipping, and overhead. Technically you're still supposed to pay sales tax too, though most of us do not. ;)

the store buys the same product from the same maufacturer, the wholesale cost of goods should be the same for canada and the US, this would mean an increase in exports, and a decrease on imports. so we would just import our exports. (sure we'll pay the sales tax, right ;) )

before i go to far down this path, arnt all raw materials already tax free? so we would just be talking about corperate incometax savings right?

Prodigal Son
12 Oct 04,, 20:35
It's the "elimination" part that makes that wrong, but remember, with the Neo-Nazi groups many are just sepratists.

You've got to be kidding. I suppose Al-Qaeda is "just" a militant group too -- or that the Klu Klux Klan is "just" a social club.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Prodigal Son
a person using the Bible to justify persecution of folks who happen to be gay.


Who is advocating persecution?


Try being gay in Laramie, Wyoming.



I am. I'm also prejudiced against people who come to a job interview/work with facial piercings. And, I am prejudiced towards redheads. I just try not to let it influence my life. If they aren't hurting anyone, who cares, just keep an eye on 'em to make sure they don't start. If they do hurt someone, make sure the one(s) who did it is held responsible.

Which is exactly the point of view NOT taken by many religious groups -- especially fundamentalists. They WANT to take folks' choices away -- do away with the Redhead's choice to be a redhead or the prospective employee's right to wear an ear ring because it immoral or otherwise evil.

I just don't get it -- Nazis are reviled, but if you have a religious group spewing out obvious nonsense it gets a pass because it's "scripture." Ridiculous. Why does belief in an invisible man in the sky get you a pass but not belief in a Fuehrer?

Confed999
13 Oct 04,, 01:40
You've got to be kidding. I suppose Al-Qaeda is "just" a militant group too -- or that the Klu Klux Klan is "just" a social club.
So you're saying none are just seperatists? Sorry, I know of ones who are. You can't lump everyone into one group, no matter how you feel about it.

Try being gay in Laramie, Wyoming.
This isn't Laramie, it's the WAB.

do away with the Redhead's choice to be a redhead
I was talking about the ones with no choice. Mmmmmmmmm, pale, freckled, redheads....

the prospective employee's right to wear an ear ring because it immoral or otherwise evil.
It's not professional, and it's yucky, no job for them!

I just don't get it -- Nazis are reviled, but if you have a religious group spewing out obvious nonsense it gets a pass because it's "scripture."
You can be religious, athiest, nazi or communist, as long as you don't hurt anyone else. That's freedom...

porsteamboy
14 Oct 04,, 01:50
even if people have a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality, that does not make it right. People have genetic predispositions towards violence, for example.

And whether or not you feel that homosexuality is no-one elses business, the bible says it is wrong. As a christian, that is all we have to worry about.
Someone on this board is gay! Give me a kiss and I'll tell you who it is! ;)