Equality run amok!

[j2k4]

Here is another view on the current school-of-thought:

Equality Run Amok

Joseph Sobran

September 21, 2004

In a recent column I made an observation about the vocal “gay community” that may bear amplification.

On the one hand, these advocates tell us — us presumptive “straights” — that people’s “sexual orientation” should be of no concern to us.

Then they turn around and tell us that their “orientation” is the most important thing in the world to them — the very source of their “identity” and a matter of “pride.”

So it should matter to us not at all, though it means everything to them. But isn’t what a man considers an all-important fact about himself something other people should take into account when dealing with him?

Serious Christians consider their religion the most important thing in their lives, the defining fact of their existence. They don’t say non-Christians should regard this as a trivial fact about them. That would be nonsense.

Furthermore, the “gays” (as distinct from quiet homosexuals) make demands on the rest of us that require us to take notice of them — such as their current clamor for redefining marriage to include same-sex unions, a change whose ramifications, for all of us, would be vast and unpredictable. We are still supposed to regard their “orientation” as insignificant to us?

Such minorities — “gays” being only one example — want it both ways. They complain about the way they’re perceived, as if they’d prefer to be invisible; then they try to create new, highly visible, and of course totally favorable perceptions of themselves. They want to supplant “negative stereotypes” with what they call “positive images,” which are usually far more unrealistic than the old stereotypes.

The “color-blind” liberalism of the last generation insisted that ethnic differences shouldn’t matter. The “civil rights” era taught us, with endless and eloquent propaganda, that “race” was an utterly unscientific concept, even though it was transpiring that racial distinctions weren’t just social conventions; some diseases struck blacks but not whites, Jews but not non-Jews. All the neat little lessons about “skin color” were ignoring deep mysteries of human nature.

Other complications arose too, making these subjects hopelessly confusing to anyone who had believed the propaganda. Dissent — mere critical analysis of minority claims — was presumed to spring from bigotry, a presumption that made public discussion almost futile. “Affirmative action” and Zionism made you wonder what the slogans of democracy and equality really meant. Were some groups exempt from the principle of equal rights and equal treatment under the law? What about the idea that “double standards” were bad?

Then there was sex — or rather, as it was now often called, “gender.” The two sexes had always been regarded as pretty obviously different — seriously different. But suddenly they weren’t. The feminism of the last generation all but denied la difference. At least when la difference was to the disadvantage of women; when equality worked against women, it was another story. Police, the military, and other institutions lowered their standards so men wouldn’t monopolize the jobs.

Far from simplifying everything, as “progressive” rhetoric had promised, equality created a chaos of new rules, laws, and anomalous exceptions, as when “transsexuals” got into the act. (Only a liberal can believe that a man becomes a woman by having himself surgically mutilated — as if sex is defined by genitalia alone.)

It was often apparent that what “minorities” were after was not equality, but privileged treatment. Or, in a word, power.

The blandly abstract language of equality usually conceals specific interests. Civil rights, it’s now clear to everyone, means certain black interests; nobody takes it to mean anything else. When whites hear about a new “civil-rights measure,” they don’t imagine it means their rights are going to be protected; on the contrary, they know instantly that it means further violations of their privacy, freedom of association, property rights, access to jobs, and so forth.

Sexual orientation likewise means certain homosexual interests; it doesn’t cover, say, guys with a thing for blondes, even if this happens to be a source of “identity” and “pride” for them; the government doesn’t yet cater to the “blonde-loving community.”

The seemingly universal principle nearly always turns out to mean what's good for very specific groups. The seemingly simple principle can wind up bringing havoc to law and clear thought. One superfluous principle, however noble or innocuous it sounds, can eventually undermine an entire way of life.

Joseph Sobran

[vidcc]

Google does not constitute reason or truth; think for yourself.


:) ............

[Busyman]

That article is mostly bullshit.

It makes a few good points (like uh 2 or something).

A gay wants to be treated with equality. That article is saying the gay person makes a big deal that they are gay. No, they make a big deal because they are treated unequally because they are gay. The article is full of bullshit spin.

Apply the same to racism.

I do like the points about police and military regarding women and also regarding transexuals.

At Verizon if you can't pass pole climbing then you can't be a telecom technician. Very simple. There is no women's pole climbing test because there's no women's specific pole to climb. It's about safety. Can't pass the test?.....then you do not have what is required to do the job.

The Olympics are now allowing transexuals provided they follow certain requirements or guidelines. I think the requirement has to do with the length of time after surgery and length of hormone therapy. That is BULLSHIT!!!

There is a separation of gender in sports for a reason. It offers a level paying field due to strength and physiological differences. Hormone therapy and a knife do not change one's chromosomes (XX, XY and variations thereof). Also this hormone therapy effectively amounts to drugging.....something that the Olympics is not to keen on.

[j2k4]

B-

I think the main (indeed the only) focus of the column is to point up the fact that an honest discussion of such subjects is impossible, and to attempt same is considered presumptively racist/sexist/homophobic.

[Busyman]

B-

I think the main (indeed the only) focus of the column is to point up the fact that an honest discussion of such subjects is impossible, and to attempt same is considered presumptively racist/sexist/homophobic.
The reason I said the article is bullshit is because it points out the obvious but makes it seem trivial. Almost like, "Don't be this way and expect to get this out of it."


On the one hand, these advocates tell us — us presumptive “straights” — that people’s “sexual orientation” should be of no concern to us.

Then they turn around and tell us that their “orientation” is the most important thing in the world to them — the very source of their “identity” and a matter of “pride.”

In most instances "blankblankblank" shouldn't be a concern to us. When one is discriminated against because of being "blankblankblank" then it is a concern.

Honest discussion is easy.

The reason, I for one, am against gay marriage, for instance, is it skews what marriage is for children.

The more something is accepted, the more it is embraced.
If a lifestyle is accepted it is easier to embrace as well.

I don't agree with crazy laws like the sodomy law because that is in the privacy of their own home. Kids don't have to see it.

When I start seeing books like "Kenny Has Two Fathers" in middle school then the school board can go fuck themselves.

All this is coming from a man with no kids, mind you, and I don't have an optimistic view of the world.
I personally think a strong family foundation is the only thing that can weather the upcoming storm that is...life in the future. Money doesn't hurt either).

[j2k4]

Honest discussion is easy...?

Maybe here, between us, but we are not the major media.

If you ever see it, please let me know. ;)

'Night, B.

[manker]

I liked Busyman's points here, nothing unusual there. Right up until the part where gay marriage was mentioned. Surely if one is championing equality by citing examples of pole climbing and the like then gay marriage is just the other side of the coin.

What is there logically, not legally, to stop gay people getting married. Why should anyone be against it. There is nothing wrong with two people that love each other committing themselves in whichever way they choose. To hark 'Think of the children' is a cop out because as stated the children will see no wrong in it if it's accepted by their peers and their parents. Of course that isn't the case at the moment due to prejudice but it doesn't mean we should perpetuate this notion.

I fail to see why we should educate, nay indoctrinate, our children into thinking that there is something inherently wrong with gay people such that they shouldn't be allowed to marry. If my son turned out to be gay then I would rather him going through school knowing he was a little different to most other kids in the sense that a ginger haired kid or a really tall boy knows he's a little different but he has the same basic opportunities, rather than knowing he's different because the law says so.

Black, white, short, tall, gay, blonde. Pure genetics, no need for different rules.

Lastly, what the hell is wrong with Kenny having two Fathers. One of my nieces has two Fathers; one natural, one adopted. She has a Mother too, lucky her. If her Mother dies then she would still have two Fathers who probably hate each other but she loves them both so they would be responsible, in some way, for bringing her up. Yet somehow this is more acceptable than a kid, who would otherwise be in an orphanage, having two male parents under the same roof that love each other. Bullshit.

[Busyman]

I do understand me not going along with gay marriage doesn't jibe with my more liberal views.
The first thing is I don't think homosexuality is natural. People may say it is because it happens in nature but the primary function of sex is procreation.

Second, I would rather scrap government recognized marriages altogether than say 2 men can marry. Marriage is a religious joining in my eyes. Government needs to figure out where this supposed separation between church and state is. Churches should also be taxed.

"Kenny Has Two Fathers" has nothing to do with what you are talking about. I think you knew that seeing that the subject had to do with gay marriage. Obvious. I don't want that shit taught or handed out in middle schools. Damn!!

You mentioned genetics. Homosexuality is a choice that involves one's feelings. I can't choose to be white unless I bleach my skin. If homosexuality is genetic then chronic lying is as well.

Again,

The more something is accepted, the more it is embraced.
If a lifestyle is accepted it is easier to embrace as well.

...and children are influenced more easily than adults.

[vidcc]

Busy
I remember in the past you suggesting that homosexuality can be learnt.

Is there anyway you could be turned into a homosexual because of society accepting homosexuality as equal?

Is there any way whatsoever that someone could turn you gay?


If the answer is no:

What makes you think that anyone else could be turned gay?

The genetic arguement holds little grounds with me... yes we are male or female but that doesn't control thought. To me it is a sexual preference just like a preference for thin/fat/blonde/brunettes etc. with hetrosexuals.

@j2
I think the main (indeed the only) focus of the column is to point up the fact that an honest discussion of such subjects is impossible, and to attempt same is considered presumptively racist/sexist/homophobic.
Well the attempt to discuss isn't considered (in my opinion) racist/sexist/homophobic but the attempt to deny equal rights certainly is.

[manker]

It wouldn't bother me if the 'Kenny has two Fathers' book was handed out at school. At least if the kids had read something along those lines it would cut out the playground equivalent of 'omg wtf you got two Dads, freak'. Since, presumably, Kenny would be portrayed as a regular kid who liked video games and soccer.

My two Fathers analogy was maybe a bit clumsy as I was too emotive but I meant to convey that having two Fathers (one substituting the Mother) as part of a nuclear family is somehow perceived to be less socially acceptable and probably more dysfunctional than a broken home. This is clearly rubbish.

This part:

The more something is accepted, the more it is embraced.
If a lifestyle is accepted it is easier to embrace as well.
...and children are influenced more easily than adults.Is my point in the main, we should try to encourage our kids to accept homosexuality as we encourage them to accept other variants in society. We don't ask them to emulate fat kids, we just implore them not to poke fun at them, and it should be the same regarding gay folk. If this was prevalent among parents then this lifestyle will become more accepted and therefore easier to embrace.

Homosexuality is not an option, unless you are talking of the act of copulation itself rather than the hardwired feelings and emotions. People are born gay, simple fact. You cannot choose to be gay, hetero or bisexual. You either want to hit someone, or ya don't. Thus it has to be natural, I guess also the primary function of sex isn't procreation, it's recreation. Up until recently procreation was the exact thing I was trying to avoid.

For this reason, of an individual's inability to choose their sexual preference, homosexuals shouldn't be treated with distain, indeed they should be afforded the same rights, restrictions and privileges as the rest of society. Bar none.

[vidcc]

well said manker. I've been slow on this one because we've mostly covered it all before time and again and i've come down to the simple point of equality is a right not an exclusive club for some.... especially in a country that spouts freedom and liberty.









now before i get another carebear tag....crawl back to the lounge you came from :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Busyman]

Homosexuality is not hard-wired and it has not been proven to be.
I like the contrast of black. I don't know why. I just do.
It's my preference.
Something in my lifetime led that to be so. It could be that I liked the black car outside or liked nighttime. Who the hell knows?

Do I think I could turn gay?
Hell no.

Are there others that thought the same way and had same-sex sex?
Absofuckinglutely.

There are to many varations of the sexual scale for any of you to generalize gay and straight. You don't have a fucking clue.

A person that has one gay sex encounter in their lifetime..are they gay or straight?

wanker the primary function of sex is procreation but admittedly that's my logical reasoning.....

What happens during sex...you come. Now whether you meant for it to be on someone's face or in your hand, that's not the function of semen.

[manker]

Well that's the thing, I'm not generalising, I specifically included bi-sexual to intimate that. Of course sexuality is too complex to catagorise but for the purpose of clarity it is sometimes necessary to make a lucid point. If you're suggesting, which I think you are, that people somehow decide to become homosexual then again I call bullshit. Kids are born with a predisposition or a leaning to feel sexual attraction toward males or females or some combination of both, this will later manifest itself. They can deny this and conform with society but this is not natural, it is denying their true desires.

You speak of proof to the contrary, so demonstrate it.

With regard to the primary function of sex logically being to procreate, I'm going to humour you and follow the logical theme; having sex if your primary wont is to procreate, that's logical ergo to have sex without procreation being the uppermost reason in your mind, that's illogical.

That looks ridiculous now, doesn't it.

Besides, my whole reason for posting initially - which fell by the wayside - is that marriage is fine should some person decide to commit themselves in that way to some other person. I don't feel the need to do so but if others want to it's fine by me. Just because some person has a predisposition to feel a need to commit themselves to a person of the same gender, the law should not preclude them from doing so.

It's only fair.



@ vidcc -- Ok, I'm crawling back there now :lol:

[vidcc]

New Rule: Politics is about compromises. Really stupid compromises.

That's how we got such laws as... Blacks are 3/5 of a person. Slaves are property, unless they make it to Ohio. Interning the Japanese, but not the Germans. Slaughtering the Indians, but letting the ones who survive run the Keno parlors. Porn, but not hardcore porn. Booze, and then no booze, and then booze again. But no pot. Except medical marijuana. Which is legal to possess, but illegal to obtain. And my favorite; you can't have stem cells, except the ones we already have.

Now in this spirit, I would like to offer a few compromise suggestions for the knotty issue we face today: same sex marriage.

Why not this? It's okay to be gay, if you're already gay, but no new gays. We'll grandfather you in if you're already an organ grinder, but that's it. Or, how about, let gays marry, but come out against gay mortgages?

Or, maybe the answer to this is as plain as the nose in my lap. With both sides so set, one being all for gay marriage, and the other completely against it, how about we just let the lesbians marry?

I mean, come on, marriage is a chick thing, anyway. It is. Monogamy and marriage were invented by women and the church as a way to address female insecurity, and to stamp out oral sex as we know it. And don't give me some line about how two women can't reproduce. As long as David Crosby is alive and can swallow a Viagra, that's not a problem.

Plus, let's face it. When people talk about homosexuality being unnatural, and abomination, they're not talking about the women.

No, no, they're talking about the men. Nobody seems to find anything so abominable about Britney Spears tonguing Madonna. Or Gina Gershon in bed with Jennifer Tilly. Or anything else on the third shelf of my "library."

No, in America, when a man puts something in another man, it had better be a bullet.

So isn't it time both sides compromised a little on this issue? The statistics tell us that anywhere from 2-10% of people in America are gay. Although it seems higher at my bath house.

So look, conservatives, I know you're sincere. I know you think you're doing God's work. But in a hundred years, people traveling by jet pack to Mars are not going to be tripping on gay marriage. The whole issue is just going to be a joke. On you.

So my advice is simple: They're here, they're queer, get bored with it.

Bill Maher

[Busyman]

@ manker- Can you decide that your favorite color is blue?

I never said one would just up and decide to be homosexual.

When I was younger my favorite color was blue (it really was) now it's black.

I like wearing it, it's the color of my car, etc.

The reason I said some of haven't a clue is because there are folks that "change up" everyday but you have your heads stuck so far up news media that logic is out the window.

What about the woman who all her life was attracted to men, had a sexual encounter at 35 years old and switched to women?

Is she bisexual or homosexual?

If you wanker had sex with a guy one time are you gay?

In both of these cases is there the presence of the infamous "gay gene" or is it the bisexual gene? :blink: :lol:

If a man convinces their girlfriend to have a threesome with another woman she just might like it and won't mind being with a woman again. She might choose to dabble every once in awhile with women or switch completely.

It's her choice.

I don't want the choice to be an easier choice for children.

Also wanker I never said primary want regarding sex. I said primary function.
You can think the primary function of sex is to open assholes up wider but it doesn't change what is wanker.
Just like the primary function of the rectum is to store shit. :lol: :lol: :P

I did say this before but if gays are to marry then:

Prostitution should be legal
Polygamy should be legal as well and one should be able to have multiple man/woman combinations. :lol: :lol:

"Hey this is Jack who is married to John, Jill, Jason, Kim, Mary, Ste........"

Hell, we could have universal healthcare if everyone would join in the fun. :dry:

[Rat Faced]

As long as no ones getting hurt, i cant see why people shouldnt be allowed to do what the hell they want, without discrimination of any type :(

[Biggles]

Prostitution is legal in many countries

Given the ease of divorce, don't we have serial polygamy?

In a number of cultures multiple relationships (both male and female) do occur.

None of these things are absolutes.

We may, as a culture, choose not to do these things, but there no external objective moral reason for doing so. It is simply a choice and one that might change over the years.

[Busyman]

As long as no ones getting hurt, i cant see why people shouldnt be allowed to do what the hell they want, without discrimination of any type :(
Okay I'll bite.

That sounds reeeeaally reeeaally good...on paper.

But since you said it:

Come to :01: :cool: FreeWorld!!!!! :cool: :01: where we have legalized all forms of.....


Prostitution
Gambling
Euthanasia
Polygamy
Drug use
Beastiality
Predatory Loans
Abortions
Cloning
and more!!!!!!!

[vidcc]

I always enjoy the posts that say....well if we let this happen we might as well go the whole hog..... i have to admit usually with gay unions it goes along the lines of...well if we let homosexuals marry what's next...legalise peadophiles?.
A very often used tactic...put something bad in the same sentence so that even though the orator isn't calling homosexuals child molesters the connection is somehow made.

[Busyman]

I always enjoy the posts that say....well if we let this happen we might as well go the whole hog..... i have to admit usually with gay unions it goes along the lines of...well if we let homosexuals marry what's next...legalise peadophiles?.
A very often used tactic...put something bad in the same sentence so that even though the orator isn't calling homosexuals child molesters the connection is somehow made.
Hmph...neither was I.
You went off the spectrum with that one. :dry:

[spinningfreemanny]

As long as no ones getting hurt, i cant see why people shouldnt be allowed to do what the hell they want:(

Blatent show of a society with no grasp of morality or decency if RF was ruler of the world...

Do you honestly think that this can happen with no consequences?

[ruthie]

Blatent show of a society with no grasp of morality or decency if RF was ruler of the world...

Do you honestly think that this can happen with no consequences?

One's beliefs about morality and decency are subjective.
For instance, Bush's code of morality and decency is total bullshit,,,in my subjective opinion.
I believe in the right for gays to marry if they so desire, I believe in abortion rights, I believe there should be no church and state, I don't think there should be mandatory minimum sentences, etc.

[Rat Faced]

Morality is not Universal.

You cannot interpret the Morals of another country, with your own values.

[JONNO_CELEBS]

The reason, I for one, am against gay marriage, for instance, is it skews what marriage is for children.
.
:blink: So in that respect, you're against a man and a woman who are unable to have children, getting married?

That's gotta be the single most pathetic line of text I think I've ever read:rolleyes:

By your logic, people get married to have kids?:blink:
I know tons of people been married for years with no kids.
You basically just showed yourself as a homophobic :) Congratulations, your white pointy hat and lil cape will be posted to you forth with :)

As for the rest of the topic......I discriminate only in retaliation, otherwise, previding no one gets hurt, Each to their own :)

Jonno :cool:

[manker]

OK, I've made what points I wanted to and see no particular reason to add to them but I'm perplexed. The reason I posted was because I wanted to speak against the assertion that gay marriage is a bad thing, I asked for justification of that.

However nothing was added after the initial 'Think of the children' plea, which was pretty much dealt with. I've read a lot of rhetoric mumbling about whatever next and the primary function of sex, which is very interesting at some level I'm sure, just not to me in this context -- Basically intimating that legalising gay marriage has some sort of relevance to legalising prostitution and the like or that gay people should not be allowed to marry because they have sex purely for enjoyment is, frankly, ludicrous. The depth of feelings the individuals have for each other surely supersedes all other issues.

I also completely disagree that people choose to be homosexual. Do you really think that a 12 year old kid just starting puberty is going to buck the trend and decide to become gay when all of his friends are talking about pussy in the schoolyard. It is quite the opposite, in the main that kid will deny his true feelings for many years before finally admitting to, firstly, himself and then others that he is gay. He will probably even try to make himself fancy girls but ultimately this will be unsuccessful because he prefers men. Everyone already knows that though, it's common sense but following is that people do not choose to be gay.

Busyman, why are yours and my feelings for the opposite sex worth so much more than that of a gay man or woman's such that we're allowed to commit ourselves in the eyes of the law but they should not.

[JONNO_CELEBS]

Why should this discussion even take place?

It's 2004 , the year 2004!!..like the 21st century and stuff :rolleyes:
People's hang ups and worry's about people in love (I refuse to catorgorise) would be better directed at those blowing each other up, raping people, slitting throats, hurting, maiming, killing.......Most of those acts are by people who have no love, so a man/woman who loves someone of the same sex is worse than these people?
Give me a break, wake up and smell what you shoval at people BM, I say if you disciminate against 1, then you must do it to all who are different from you, that would make you a very lonely individual.

Jonno :cool:

[manker]

Jonno, I'm only using words like gay or straight to prevent my allusions becoming clumsy, I pointed that out earlier in the thread. I don't wish to pigeon-hole anyone yet it gets very vague when one refers to people with a predisposition to be sexually attracted to individuals of the same gender as well as experiencing other, less well defined, feelings of sexual attraction toward individuals of the opposite gender as such, rather than using a less accurate one word description, like gay.

I find it makes my point a lot clearer if I use the terms 'gay', 'straight' and 'bisexual' in a loose sense. No offence was meant :)

[JONNO_CELEBS]

I was'nt actually having a go at you :)

I meant , why catagorise at all?
Gay, straight, Bi, whatever, all those fall into 1 catagory.........Human Beings :)

Besides.....the word "Gay" means "Happy" :)
It has merely been twisted to mean something else in a derogatory way, originally because people said about being Homosexual makes a man all light headed and fancy free, therefore "Happy", hence the expression "Gay"
I always thought it was a derogatory term, one that was originally started to take the piss and be nasty.

Jonno :cool:

[Busyman]

:blink: So in that respect, you're against a man and a woman who are unable to have children, getting married?

That's gotta be the single most pathetic line of text I think I've ever read:rolleyes:

By your logic, people get married to have kids?:blink:
I know tons of people been married for years with no kids.
You basically just showed yourself as a homophobic :) Congratulations, your white pointy hat and lil cape will be posted to you forth with :)

As for the rest of the topic......I discriminate only in retaliation, otherwise, previding no one gets hurt, Each to their own :)

Jonno :cool:
Maybe we can strike your whole post as pathetic.

1. No one said anything about people getting married only in order to have kids. I'm talking about how kids view marriage. If you bother to read the other parts of the post you would get something called context.

2. I'm black and don't hate.
so forget that pointy hat and cape.

3. I'm not homophobic in the least. When I started working at Verizon, me and a friend of mine at work found out another fella we befriended was in the movie Paris Is Burning but we didn't give a shit.

If I was homophobic I wouldn't have gay male acquaintances.
I would tell them all to go fuck themselves (pun intended).
If I was homophobic I would have agreed with Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court when he blasted other justices saying they signed on to a "gay agenda" when they struck down that ludicrous sodomy law.
I don't think gays should have to deal with workplace discrimination.

Everything doesn't necessarily work
"as long no one gets hurt".

Many folks say gays are born and don't choose this route. I say they choose it as much as one chooses their favorite color. You like what you like.
The one's that try to change their lifestyle and kill themselves over it and all that shit had mental problems. I say if you are comfortable being with a man over a woman that's you preference. Mine is tall, thick black women or to put it lightly AMAZONS!!!. Some folks like to be choked while having sex. You like what you like and I've seen it all.

My main concern is really just children. I don't want anymore influences on their little decisions and views.


Besides.....the word "Gay" means "Happy"
It has merely been twisted to mean something else in a derogatory way, originally because people said about being Homosexual makes a man all light headed and fancy free, therefore "Happy", hence the expression "Gay"
I always thought it was a derogatory term, one that was originally started to take the piss and be nasty.

If anything, "gay" wasn't meant to be derogatory, it was meant to sugar coat (pun intended) the overall lifestyle.
I know folks offended by the term black man and even African-American.

I guess everyone has something to jump about. :dry:

[lynx]

Just to set the record straight, the term "gay" is an acronym. It means "Good As You".

[vidcc]

Hmph...neither was I.
You went off the spectrum with that one. :dry:
who said you did?

Did i quote you?

[Busyman]

who said you did?

Did i quote you?
It doesn't matter. Your post was right after mine and it alluded to similar points.
It ain't rocket science.

What do I say now?...

I never said you said I did? :blink:

Semantics 101

[Biggles]

Okay I'll bite.

That sounds reeeeaally reeeaally good...on paper.

But since you said it:

Come to :01: :cool: FreeWorld!!!!! :cool: :01: where we have legalized all forms of.....


Prostitution
Gambling
Euthanasia
Polygamy
Drug use
Beastiality
Predatory Loans
Abortions
Cloning
and more!!!!!!!



I believe it was St Augustine that said "Love God and do as you like"

There is a subtle catch to such a simple statement and RF echoed it in his piece. Freedom to hurt others is not in the spirit of the game. So predatory loans are out for starters. :lol:

[JONNO_CELEBS]

@Busyman......Ah, I realised I read your post wrong, apologies for that :)

Altho I'm not sure about......


My main concern is really just children. I don't want anymore influences on their little decisions and views.
Why would that matter? I know quite a few kids who grew up with 2 women and a couple with 2 men, surely the 2 parent figures splitting up is much worse?
I'm sorry I don't see the logic in your argument.
The only thing would be the other kids picking on the child, but you only have to have glasses and they do that.



Many folks say gays are born and don't choose this route. I say they choose it as much as one chooses their favorite color. You like what you like.

You're wrong, trust me, you're wrong :)

Jonno :cool:

[Busyman]

@Busyman......Ah, I realised I read your post wrong, apologies for that :)

Altho I'm not sure about......


Why would that matter? I know quite a few kids who grew up with 2 women and a couple with 2 men, surely the 2 parent figures splitting up is much worse?
I'm sorry I don't see the logic in your argument.
The only thing would be the other kids picking on the child, but you only have to have glasses and they do that.


You're wrong, trust me, you're wrong :)

Jonno :cool:

Where's the proof? You being gay is not proof either.

[JONNO_CELEBS]

I'm not gay :) Don't make assumptions.

You have no proof of what you say and you're in the minority :)

Jonno :cool:

[Busyman]

I'm not gay :) Don't make assumptions.

You have no proof of what you say and you're in the minority :)

Jonno :cool:
Ok then, you have sex with men and women.

I have logic and you have what..a study of a homosexual gene or something? :dry:

I have no problem with being the minority. I often am on this forum.

[JONNO_CELEBS]

lol, you're funny, No I don't have whatever it was you said, I do know how I feel, I also know that no one can help how they feel, nor can control their feelings, therefore it is genetic, descions are made in judgement.
If it's in your genes then you have no discion to make except that of how to act on the feeling.
You don't have to be homosexual to love someone of the same sex.

Jonno :cool:

[Busyman]

lol, you're funny, No I don't have whatever it was you said, I do know how I feel, I also know that no one can help how they feel, nor can control their feelings, therefore it is genetic, descions are made in judgement.
If it's in your genes then you have no discion to make except that of how to act on the feeling.
You don't have to be homosexual to love someone of the same sex.

Jonno :cool:

So you know in your heart that your feelings are genetic. :dry:

Uhhhh....no.

I don't discount your feelings whatsoever but that sounds ridiculous.

Hey do you also know when your feeling a pain in your leg it's Hepatitis? :blink: :blink: :blink:

You said yourself that you go where there's a hole. I knew you were being funny but I got your point (not literally).

[manker]

Where's the proof? You being gay is not proof either.
Actually, the onus is on you since you did say earlier in the thread that you had some proof to back up your odd colour preference/sexuality congruence notion.

Sad to say that appears to have evaporated, along with your argument.

[Busyman]

Actually, the onus is on you since you did say earlier in the thread that you had some proof to back up your odd colour preference/sexuality congruence notion.

Sad to say that appears to have evaporated, along with your argument.
Do you mean this

Homosexuality is not hard-wired and it has not been proven to be.

I was never asked to prove it wasn't hard-wired. I said it hasn't been proven. So the anus is not on me. :lol: :lol:

I just used the logic that it is all preference. I'm sure some fellas in jail would have preffered a woman but nevertheless they reverted men.

If anything my argument is condensed...... not evaporated just because you say so. :dry:

[manker]

:lol:

Yes I see what you mean, I'm sure it wasn't that when I read it the yesterday, but likely I'm in error.

Anyway, this logic you speak of is all over the place. How about the logic which says a 13 year old kid, every 13 year old kid in the UK, will do all he can to fit in. This includes being attracted to women. So by your logic there should be no gay men in the UK except for those that decide to turn gay all of a sudden when they've left school.

This is what I mean when I say your argument has evaporated, it doesn't make sense.

Besides. I was asking why you opposed gay marriage, by persuing this nature Vs nurture line it's as if you're justifying yourself by saying 'They choose to be gay, therefore we shouldn't let them marry'. Well, That's madness too. Is this what you mean :blink:

Or is it because of the kiddies.

You're saying we should not allow gay people to marry so we can teach kids from a very early age that gay people are different from us straight folk. So different that even the government won't officially recognise their relationships.

Or what?

What is your reason for opposing some adults getting married but not others.

When you break it down to it's constituents - two people in love who want to commit themselves to each other in a potentially permanent, completely legal sense - denying some that right smacks of discrimination.

[JONNO_CELEBS]

So you know in your heart that your feelings are genetic. :dry:

Uhhhh....no.

I don't discount your feelings whatsoever but that sounds ridiculous.

Have you ever fallen in love with someone you can't have or can't be with?
Can you control your feelings?

Likes and dislikes are genetic, what you like is uncontrolable, if you like something you can't just decide you don't like it, you can pretend, but deep down you know you like it, same as dislike, these are all emotions, not choices!
You do not "Choose" to like something or someone, you are drawn to it/them naturally, you have no control, are you getting my point yet? :frusty:

Also agree with Manker :) (yes I know, don't faint)

Jonno :cool:

[Busyman]

:lol:

Yes I see what you mean, I'm sure it wasn't that when I read it the yesterday, but likely I'm in error.

Anyway, this logic you speak of is all over the place. How about the logic which says a 13 year old kid, every 13 year old kid in the UK, will do all he can to fit in. This includes being attracted to women. So by your logic there should be no gay men in the UK except for those that decide to turn gay all of a sudden when they've left school.

This is what I mean when I say your argument has evaporated, it doesn't make sense.

That's your evaporated analogy not mine. :huh: That 13 year-old kid's preference is what? We don't really know because he's still developing emotionally and even then it can change.


Besides. I was asking why you opposed gay marriage, by persuing this nature Vs nurture line it's as if you're justifying yourself by saying 'They choose to be gay, therefore we shouldn't let them marry'. Well, That's madness too. Is this what you mean :blink:

Or is it because of the kiddies.

You're saying we should not allow gay people to marry so we can teach kids from a very early age that gay people are different from us straight folk. So different that even the government won't officially recognise their relationships.

Or what?

What is your reason for opposing some adults getting married but not others.

When you break it down to it's constituents - two people in love who want to commit themselves to each other in a potentially permanent, completely legal sense - denying some that right smacks of discrimination.
Homosexuality is not natural. It goes against the very nature of sexuality and procreation. What people do in the comfort of their home is their business. Just don't ask the government recognize and for that matter condone it.

I will admit that if I wasn't thinking about the greater influence it will have on children I probably would be totally cool with it.

[manker]

Setting all else aside, I think that this is where we will disagree.

I want (my) children to think of homosexuals as regular people. You want (your) children to think of homosexuals as unnatural.

Each to his own. :dry:

[JONNO_CELEBS]

That's your evaporated analogy not mine. :huh: That 13 year-old kid's preference is what? We don't really know because he's still developing emotionally and even then it can change.

So you're saying you would'nt want "Him" (for some reason it's male) to see 2 people of the same sex in love in case it makes him a poof? , man that's so USA 60's :lol:
Ok, fair enough, you made your point :)
When you catch up with evolution and the 21st century let me know :)
We will welcome you to the modern age, mean while......what's it like living in the dark ages? :rolleyes:

Jonno :cool:

[spinningfreemanny]

One's beliefs about morality and decency are subjective.
For instance, Bush's code of morality and decency is total bullshit,,,in my subjective opinion.
I believe in the right for gays to marry if they so desire, I believe in abortion rights, I believe there should be no church and state, I don't think there should be mandatory minimum sentences, etc.


Morality is not Universal.

You cannot interpret the Morals of another country, with your own values.

BAM!...
There's your "right and wrong are subjective" group, folks...

Now we can go 'round and 'round with the whole 'Hitler has his moral code, was he right?' deal but we will spin useless circles and no matter how important the concept of right and wrong is in our society you will never admit it...in a rather pitiful attempt at open mindedness you sacrifice kids and culture because there is no connection with morality and evil (because everyone knows that evil is just perception and everything's just different, not evil nor good)... :o

excuse me; I think I just induced myself to vomit...

(there's a great talk station here in Phoenix called KFYI; every friday two hosts, Liddy and Hill, have a P.C. friday for an hour and induce nausea for entertainment...boy is it ever entertaining.)

[spinningfreemanny]

Ruthie;

You are hearby crowned as queen 'loony lib' due to your exquisite and impressive display of insanity. Rat Faced, give her your Burger King crown; go on, give it up... :lol:

[DirtyDan]

If some(one)(thing)(boy)(girl) is raised to obtain its food by hunting animals, say, rabbits, then they would think nothing of it when they reached an AGE OF REASON, because they would know nothing different. If they were raised to respect and play with the animals, then telling them to kill them would raise an eyebrow, hurt feelings, etc. because there would be an aquired instinct or liking to that thing. My dog licks himself. Was he born to be attracted to himself? Or was the lack of others of his kind what drove him to ermm... Explore this? The same would apply if one were raised to kill their own kind. Simply compare old cultures: they have obvious differences in what they believe to be right or wrong. So who is to say that one is born homosexual? If I say "I was born to kill people" Or "I was born a habitual liar" Or "I was born to have sex with animals", should I be given the right to do so? Or should I have counseling for obviously either

1. Being born into an environment which influenced me to be this way (the example)

Or

2. I was born with some genetic retardation, which renders me irresponsible for my actions

In that case, I hold homosexuals either born into CONDITIONS that made them attracted to the same sex, or born with a genetic disorder. Past that, you are argueing morals, and thats way more complicated. So shoot me

[Biggles]

BAM!...
There's your "right and wrong are subjective" group, folks...

Now we can go 'round and 'round with the whole 'Hitler has his moral code, was he right?' deal but we will spin useless circles and no matter how important the concept of right and wrong is in our society you will never admit it...in a rather pitiful attempt at open mindedness you sacrifice kids and culture because there is no connection with morality and evil (because everyone knows that evil is just perception and everything's just different, not evil nor good)... :o

excuse me; I think I just induced myself to vomit...

(there's a great talk station here in Phoenix called KFYI; every friday two hosts, Liddy and Hill, have a P.C. friday for an hour and induce nausea for entertainment...boy is it ever entertaining.)


:o Have you tried anything for your delicate condition. Milk of Magnesia is good.

What are they that are held as common values amongst most peoples and most times? Murder, theft, violence, exploitation, again and again appear as traits and behaviour people hate - if at least amongst themselves.

I think you will have little difficulty in agreeing with Ruthie and RF on these. It is evil to kill and it is evil to exploit the poor and oppressed. By comparison, what consenting individuals do in a bedroom is a triviality, a distraction from the real ailments afflicting the world. It sometimes seems to me that the obsession with other peoples' sexuality as opposed to whether Nike should be employing 8 year olds to glue shoes together is a deliberate diversionary tactic.

Never mind capitalist exploitation there are some nekkid people over there - get the pitch forks! :w00t: (Note: totally gratuitous prod in the capitas - merely because it was funny)



I have no interest in political correctness - it all too often falls into the same witch hunt mentality of that which it seeks to dislodge. To label things like homosexuality as evil merely reflects one tradition. It is, however, a value judgement rather than a reasoned argument. Moral relativism has its place (with the appropriate caveats) and it is sophistry to lurch to the extremes to try and counter it. There is no comparison between Ruthie's compassion and Hitler or Pol Pot or any other lunatic ruling by fear and the gun. After your Milk of Magnesia and a settled tummy you would see that. :)

[spinningfreemanny]

:o Have you tried anything for your delicate condition. Milk of Magnesia is good.

What are they that are held as common values amongst most peoples and most times? Murder, theft, violence, exploitation, again and again appear as traits and behaviour people hate - if at least amongst themselves.

I think you will have little difficulty in agreeing with Ruthie and RF on these. It is evil to kill and it is evil to exploit the poor and oppressed. By comparison, what consenting individuals do in a bedroom is a triviality, a distraction from the real ailments afflicting the world. It sometimes seems to me that the obsession with other peoples' sexuality as opposed to whether Nike should be employing 8 year olds to glue shoes together is a deliberate diversionary tactic.

Never mind capitalist exploitation there are some nekkid people over there - get the pitch forks! :w00t: (Note: totally gratuitous prod in the capitas - merely because it was funny)



I have no interest in political correctness - it all too often falls into the same witch hunt mentality of that which it seeks to dislodge. To label things like homosexuality as evil merely reflects one tradition. It is, however, a value judgement rather than a reasoned argument. Moral relativism has its place (with the appropriate caveats) and it is sophistry to lurch to the extremes to try and counter it. There is no comparison between Ruthie's compassion and Hitler or Pol Pot or any other lunatic ruling by fear and the gun. After your Milk of Magnesia and a settled tummy you would see that. :)

Milk of Magnesia huh? I just had that in a chemistry test today; had to find the equilibrium constant, all the while wondering what the hell is Milk of Magnesia?...I digress

The comparison of Ruthie's compassion and Hitler is by no means a comparison of scope, it is though of what absolute moral relativism ultimately leads to. To compare murder and exploitation to moral failure is not as trivial as thought; I'm a firm believer that a moral atmosphere is the first dissuasion to such things

a moral vaccum will quickly leave us wondering why our Rome is burning...

Now, I am not advocating anti-sodomy laws; I am though advocating that government should not expressly endorse such a thing (as Busyman has stated)...

First thing we've agreed to EVER :)

[vidcc]

ok government (at any level) should not endorse..... As long as they don't deny either.

You can argue with hypocritical notions forever, the fact is that equal rights are being denied, But i guess that's ok as long as it's someone elses equal rights.

Seems these right wing viewpoints clash with the constant bragging that we are "FREE"

[Rat Faced]

Do you get anything i say manny?

Ethics and Morals are not universal.... even in your own bloody country.

Just look at the way Prostitution is treated in say Nevada v Utah....

How much different then in a totally different Culture/Religious background/World View?

[ruthie]

Ruthie;

You are hearby crowned as queen 'loony lib' due to your exquisite and impressive display of insanity. Rat Faced, give her your Burger King crown; go on, give it up... :lol:
Manny..yer pretty funny. Your view of morality is yours. Do you think what you deem moral and decent is the same for everyone else? There are not lots of little manny's running around, identical to you.
I, subjectively you might say, find your judgement of other people's sexuality
indecent. I find no morality in your belief that a government, let alone an individual has any right to dictate their own moral code onto someone else. I find it all narrowminded, judgemental, and self-righteous. Of course, this is my subjective opinion. Live and let live, bro, and be joyous that there are all kinds of people out there in love.

[Rat Faced]

Manny..yer pretty funny. Your view of morality is yours. Do you think what you deem moral and decent is the same for everyone else? There are not lots of little manny's running around, identical to you.
I, subjectively you might say, find your judgement of other people's sexuality
indecent. I find no morality in your belief that a government, let alone an individual has any right to dictate their own moral code onto someone else. I find it all narrowminded, judgemental, and self-righteous. Of course, this is my subjective opinion. Live and let live, bro, and be joyous that there are all kinds of people out there in love.

An It Harm None, Do What You Will

:01: :01:

[Busyman]

ok government (at any level) should not endorse..... As long as they don't deny either.

You can argue with hypocritical notions forever, the fact is that equal rights are being denied, But i guess that's ok as long as it's someone elses equal rights.

Seems these right wing viewpoints clash with the constant bragging that we are "FREE"
Then truly separate church and state.

Marriage used to be a religious joining.

There should be no tax breaks for churchs. The Church of Scientology had been trying to get classifid as a "church" for years and they are charlatans.
*end rant*

Just because something "no gets hurt" doesn't make it right.

tbh I firmly believe gays will be able to marry in America.
The world is going to shit and this is a pile on.


Again the gay marriage holds true also for:

Prostitution
Gambling
Euthanasia
Polygamy
Drug use
Beastiality
Predatory Loans
Abortions
Cloning

[Rat Faced]

Its only fairly recently that "marriage" has even been there for commoners in the UK....

So to say that it is a religious joining, when common folk only started doing it a few hundred years ago, is laughable.

Especially the numbers, even today, that only have a civil ceremony.

As to your "list"... I'd agree on a personal level with some and not others.

Despite being heartbroken once by a former Fiancee having an Abortion, without my even knowing she was pregnant, which was very traumatic... even now, i still say that it is a womans body, and she should have the right to choose.

[ruthie]

There should absolutely be seperation of church and state, and church should be paying taxes.
As far as your concerns about children raised by gay couples....worry not. They are probably better adjusted children, as tolerance would be a natural environment for them to grow up in a nd learn in that household.
Parenting isn't easy. it makes no difference if you're male or female. there are plenty of troubled children that grow up in heterosexual households.
Learning to except people for who they are seems to be a heavy lesson for alot of people.

[Rat Faced]

We're gonna have to share that Burger Crown manny was on about at this rate ruthie :rolleyes:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[ruthie]

Well, my loony liberal queendom has lots of room too. :D

[Rat Faced]

http://www.buckeroozorro.com/Zorro-MHW-10-02-p1a-web.jpg

[Busyman]

There should absolutely be seperation of church and state, and church should be paying taxes.
As far as your concerns about children raised by gay couples....worry not. They are probably better adjusted children, as tolerance would be a natural environment for them to grow up in a nd learn in that household.
Parenting isn't easy. it makes no difference if you're male or female. there are plenty of troubled children that grow up in heterosexual households.
Learning to except people for who they are seems to be a heavy lesson for alot of people.
I said nothing of homosexuals raising children and tolerance to the lifestyle is not what I'm talking about.
I for one am tolerant of the lifestyle.
Folks seem to equate not being for gay marriage to homophobia.

[spinningfreemanny]

There should absolutely be seperation of church and state, and church should be paying taxes.

aren't churches non-profit? They are not allowed campaign contributions and they have no wares.

What about salvation army? and other church sponsored shelters, such as soup kitchens and mens homes? I would like to explore your insanity a little more Ruthie; morbid curiosity, if you will...

Don't worry RF, I'll make a glittery crown for you too...

[ruthie]

aren't churches non-profit? They are not allowed campaign contributions and they have no wares.

What about salvation army? and other church sponsored shelters, such as soup kitchens and mens homes? I would like to explore your insanity a little more Ruthie; morbid curiosity, if you will...

Don't worry RF, I'll make a glittery crown for you too...
Manny...your poor mother. Under Bush and his faith initiative based programs, money is going where it shouldn't. the Bush campaign has asked for pastors to give the campaign team lists of church members so they (Bushies) may attempt to sway them. Bushies have asked ministers, rabbis, etc. to preach their bullshit from the pulpit and tell them they need to vote for Bush. Give me a break. Wanna explore my... what you term insanity? (subjective opinion, of course)? I believe you are curious about my politics and other beliefs.
Ask away, Manny.
let me add too, Bush is attempting to pass rules, reinterpret them, and ignore them, all to fit his fundamentalist ideology. What a bunch of bullshit.

[vidcc]

i've long been for complete seperation of church and state. I think that the church has no place dictating political ethics upon a society that isn't completely religious.
That said my case holds more water if churches are not taxed... tax them and they have the right to ask for their views to be listened to in policies.
On the other hand i think that by not taxing churches i am being forced as a non believer to subsidise something i disagree with.... by conservative logic isn't that "unamerican"?
It was interesting in the debate last week when that woman asked for assurance that not one tax dollar would go to finance an abortion...meaning she didn't want any of her tax paying for something she doesn't believe in...well what if we could all ask for our tax to not be used for things we disagree with?...like the Iraq war.

if you are against gay marriage...just don't marry someone of the same sex

[spinningfreemanny]

Manny...your poor mother. Under Bush and his faith inititive based programs, money is going where it shouldn't. the Bush campaign has asked for pastors to give the campaign team lists of church members so they (Bushies) may attempt to sway them. Bushies have asked ministers, rabbis, etc. to preach their bullshit from the pulpit and tell them they need to vote for Bush. Give me a break. Wanna explore my what you term insanity? (subjective opinion, of course)? I believe you are curious about my politics and other beliefs.
Ask away, Manny.
let me add too, Bush is attempting to pass rules, reinterpret them, and ignor them, all to fit his fundamentalist ideology. What a bunch of bullshit.

Hey, don't feel sorry for me...

not to offend, but it seems to me that you've been (probably voluntarily) duped by propaganda (if not the maker of it). Also, ironicly, you didn't answer one of my questions, though you tell me to ask...:blink:

BTW, what was Kerry doing speaking at a Baptist church yesterday? :o

[spinningfreemanny]

On the other hand i think that by not taxing churches i am being forced as a non believer to subsidise something i disagree with.... by conservative logic isn't that "unamerican"?

You disagree with feeding and sheltering homeless people? :blink:

[ruthie]

Hey, don't feel sorry for me...

not to offend, but it seems to me that you've been (probably voluntarily) duped by propaganda (if not the maker of it). Also, ironicly, you didn't answer one of my questions, though you tell me to ask...:blink:

BTW, what was Kerry doing speaking at a Baptist church yesterday? :o
Let me answer a few of your questions. Shelters, soup kitchens, etc. are all cool with me. What isn't cool is that some of them preach to the people who go for services. There are many substance abuse programs (in-patient) that are religious based programs. Bush, pushing his faith based inititative programs also, amazingly made it possible for places like these to discriminate and ask potential employees their religion, etc.
Propaganda....don't believe it, don't push it on others. I don't blindly follow other people, and I question everything. then, I research it for myself, as I believe in my responsibility to educate myself.
You tell me...what was kerry doing there? If you've followed any of my posts, you would know I am not thrilled with Kerry either, and think he also exhibits some undesirable qualities.
Curious...what is your age?

[3RA1N1AC]

You disagree with feeding and sheltering homeless people? :blink:
when you put it that way... O_o

along the same lines of reasoning:
http://www.terra.com.mx/galeria_de_fotos/images/49/097311.jpg
what? you got a problem with dogs? are you a dog-hater? VOTE NIXON.

[vidcc]

You disagree with feeding and sheltering homeless people? :blink:
do you ever listen to yourself...what twisted logic came to bring you to that conclusion?
i disagree with religious groups in civil politics.
i disagree with the church being tax exempt.

[Busyman]

Propaganda....don't believe it, don't push it on others. I don't blindly follow other people, and I question everything. then, I research it for myself, as I believe in my responsibility to educate myself.
You tell me...what was kerry doing there? If you've followed any of my posts, you would know I am not thrilled with Kerry either, and think he also exhibits some undesirable qualities.
Curious...what is your age?
You sound like me. :lol: :lol:
I don't see the problem in either candidate speaking at a church. It is a voting demographic. ;)
Kerry is a stuffed shirt but at least he is intelligent.

Manny is 19, Hank btw is 22. I needn't say anything more. :)

You disagree with feeding and sheltering homeless people?Republican spin. No one's impressed. :dry:

[ruthie]

You sound like me. :lol: :lol:
I don't see the problem in either candidate speaking at a church. It is a voting demographic. ;)
Kerry is a stuffed shirt but at least he is intelligent.

Manny is 19, Hank btw is 22. I needn't say anything more. :)
Republican spin. No one's impressed. :dry:

LOL. Enough said. Those damned young republicans and their spin. ROFL

[spinningfreemanny]

do you ever listen to yourself...what twisted logic came to bring you to that conclusion?
i disagree with religious groups in civil politics.
i disagree with the church being tax exempt.

Churches are tax exempt because they are non profit...

They are subsidized because they perform social necessities, thats it. in dissagreeing in subsidizing such a thing you can assume that you dissagree with that thing..

come on vid, you've known me long enough to know that I don't actually believe that you don't agree with homeless shelters (unless you see that as "civil politics")...It's a sarcastic way of making you reexplain your arguement.

I see taxing churches as an easy way to suppress religious freedom in the U.S., thats just me...but I think most politicians come to this conclusion, which is why this is a non-issue, so I'm not going to vehemently oppose such nuttiness that has become the norm of the left this past year...

To me, it seems that my age is taken as a means to unjustify my ideas, instead of confronting them... Can't it be said that as a 19 year old I have some perspectives that you are unable to achieve also?
Hey, you guys should be excited; how many conservative college sophmores who know their stuff do you meet? :01:

[Busyman]

Churches are tax exempt because they are non profit...

They are subsidized because they perform social necessities, thats it. in dissagreeing in subsidizing such a thing you can assume that you dissagree with that thing..

come on vid, you've known me long enough to know that I don't actually believe that you don't agree with homeless shelters (unless you see that as "civil politics")...It's a sarcastic way of making you reexplain your arguement.

I see taxing churches as an easy way to suppress religious freedom in the U.S., thats just me...but I think most politicians come to this conclusion, which is why this is a non-issue, so I'm not going to vehemently oppose such nuttiness that has become the norm of the left this past year...

To me, it seems that my age is taken as a means to unjustify my ideas, instead of confronting them... Can't it be said that as a 19 year old I have some perspectives that you are unable to achieve also?
Hey, you guys should be excited; how many conservative college sophmores who know their stuff do you meet? :01:
I make no assumptions due to you being a teen *cough*. When I talk to a college sophomore that knows their stuff I'll let know.

The Church Of Scientology is not non-profit. Our government just caved in. Many church's are fake (probably most).

All non-profit organizations should have oversight.
If they are non-profit and no one is skimming then there's nothing to worry about. :shifty:

[vidcc]

I make money to raise my family...i am non profit...i am taxed

Our house is to live in...it's non profit...that's taxed

Our cars are to get us to where we need to be...non profit...taxed

I make purchases of essential items... taxed

The church doesn't just raise money to "feed the homeless"

Please explain how taxing the church is "suppressing religious freedom in the U.S".... I am taxed...am i being suppressed?

Now to help you understand i must point out i am talking about "the church". I am not talking about belief in God.

To me, it seems that my age is taken as a means to unjustify my ideas, instead of confronting them... Can't it be said that as a 19 year old I have some perspectives that you are unable to achieve also?
Hey, you guys should be excited; how many conservative college sophmores who know their stuff do you meet?
I know this wasn't directed at me...i don't take your age as an excuse to poo poo your views....however sometimes we discuss subjects upon which you have no personal experience... you had to look up the cost of health insurance for example as you haven't had to take care of yourself yet.
theory is very different from reality

[Busyman]

I make money to raise my family...i am non profit...i am taxed

Our house is to live in...it's non profit...that's taxed

Our cars are to get us to where we need to be...non profit...taxed

I make purchases of essential items... taxed

The church doesn't just raise money to "feed the homeless"

Please explain how taxing the church is "suppressing religious freedom in the U.S".... I am taxed...am i being suppressed?

Now to help you understand i must point out i am talking about "the church". I am not talking about belief in God.

I know this wasn't directed at me...i don't take your age as an excuse to poo poo your views....however sometimes we discuss subjects upon which you have no personal experience... you had to look up the cost of health insurance for example as you haven't had to take care of yourself yet.
theory is very different from reality

Your house is not non-profit.

Your car is only taxed depending on where you live. Virginia springs to mind. They call it personal property tax. :dry:

[vidcc]

Your house is not non-profit.

Your car is only taxed depending on where you live. Virginia springs to mind. They call it personal property tax. :dry:
It's non profit in the fact that it's an essential item to live in...if i sell it for more than i bought it for then it is profit...as an abode it is not

But to your points... what is good to tax me for is good to tax the church for. The church owns land, buildings etc. The church runs tv and radio stations to put out their message. The church lobbies politicians.

[Busyman]

It's non profit in the fact that it's an essential item to live in...if i sell it for more than i bought it for then it is profit...as an abode it is not

But to your points... what is good to tax me for is good to tax the church for. The church owns land, buildings etc. The church runs tv and radio stations to put out their message. The church lobbies politicians.

Okay I'll bite. Forget about the fact you live in the home but your home appreciates in value as does stock.

I agree about taxing church's in that people make money from it.

[vidcc]

Okay I'll bite. Forget about the fact you live in the home but your home appreciates in value as does stock.

I agree about taxing church's in that people make money from it.
Actually this is another state by state example..


so why don't we get rebates when the housing market goes down? A home is only worth what someone will pay for it.

My house will appreciate but not all houses do, a lot depends on the standard of construction and condition of the house...also the location...in many areas to demolish and reconstruct is the only economic option.

[j2k4]

But to your points... what is good to tax me for is good to tax the church for. The church owns land, buildings etc....

Then in order to achieve the equivalence you crave, I propose the government cease taxing you.

Don't let your secularism make nonsense of your posting, vid.

[vidcc]

But to your points... what is good to tax me for is good to tax the church for. The church owns land, buildings etc....

Then in order to achieve the equivalence you crave, I propose the government cease taxing you.

Don't let your secularism make nonsense of your posting, vid.
much as i find tax annoying i know it is essential. I don't enjoy paying it, but without it we wouldn't have the things we need.
just one example....Where would our homeland security be?...we need that to protect us all...church included. So if the church enjoys the protection why shouldn't it ante up like the rest of us.

remember as i have already pointed out i am talking about "the church", meaning human based practices of worship methods.......not God.

[Busyman]

much as i find tax annoying i know it is essential. I don't enjoy paying it, but without it we wouldn't have the things we need.
just one example....Where would our homeland security be?...we need that to protect us all...church included. So if the church enjoys the protection why shouldn't it ante up like the rest of us.

remember as i have already pointed out i am talking about "the church", meaning human based practices of worship methods.......not God.
...and without taxes, how would our politicians pocket all that PAC money. :lol:

[j2k4]

much as i find tax annoying i know it is essential. I don't enjoy paying it, but without it we wouldn't have the things we need.
just one example....Where would our homeland security be?...we need that to protect us all...church included. So if the church enjoys the protection why shouldn't it ante up like the rest of us.

remember as i have already pointed out i am talking about "the church", meaning human based practices of worship methods.......not God.

You miss the point.

Your tax contribution also funds the foreign aid and other things done overseas in the name of the USA that are ostensibly the cause of the terrorism which makes Homeland Security necessary.

A chicken/egg thing, really.

[vidcc]

You miss the point.

Your tax contribution also funds the foreign aid and other things done overseas in the name of the USA that are ostensibly the cause of the terrorism which makes Homeland Security necessary.

A chicken/egg thing, really...


isn't that my point?...where would that contradict me thinking churches should be taxed?

i gave one example...i don't have to delve into the "knock on" effect.
As a tax payer i have to accept that my money isn't always used as i wish. I made this point on another thread where the woman wanted a promise that not one tax dollar would go to pay for an abortion...well we can't have it our way all the time. seems to me that churches enjoy that nasty thing... "positive discrimination"

[j2k4]

..


isn't that my point?...where would that contradict me thinking churches should be taxed?

i gave one example...i don't have to delve into the "knock on" effect.
As a tax payer i have to accept that my money isn't always used as i wish. I made this point on another thread where the woman wanted a promise that not one tax dollar would go to pay for an abortion...well we can't have it our way all the time. seems to me that churches enjoy that nasty thing... "positive discrimination"

It would seem that you are afflicted with a sense of fatalism where your taxes are concerned, vid.

Why do you feel so helpless?

There is nothing stopping your objection.

As was recalled here recently:

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing..."

I assume you could be counted upon to summon an argument against any attempt to (for example) withdraw tax monies used to make abortion available to a single mother who could not afford same.

Would you support a massive government-funded campaign to promote abstinence (rather than condoms) among school children?

Or would you "accept" that, with regard to this question, you can't "have it your way"?

Do you attempt to influence the political process with anything apart from, or in addition to, your vote?

Would a self-respecting Jennifer Government groupie do it for real?

[vidcc]

It would seem that you are afflicted with a sense of fatalism where your taxes are concerned, vid.

Why do you feel so helpless?

There is nothing stopping your objection.

As was recalled here recently:

"All that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing..."

I assume you could be counted upon to summon an argument against any attempt to (for example) withdraw tax monies used to make abortion available to a single mother who could not afford same.

Would you support a massive government-funded campaign to promote abstinence (rather than condoms) among school children?

Or would you "accept" that, with regard to this question, you can't "have it your way"?

Do you attempt to influence the political process with anything apart from, or in addition to, your vote?

Would a self-respecting Jennifer Government groupie do it for real?
Not at all...I accept the fact that in a democracy we have to accept that we can't have it all our own way.

How could i possibly seek to deny tax spending on things i disagree with if i want spending on things i like but others don't? I live in reality and the word of the day is "compromise"...without it society would cease to function.

[j2k4]

Sounds like politics to me.

[vidcc]

As it's slow in here i will expand



I assume you could be counted upon to summon an argument against any attempt to (for example) withdraw tax monies used to make abortion available to a single mother who could not afford same.

yes i would argue against it..i already have


Would you support a massive government-funded campaign to promote abstinence (rather than condoms) among school children?
I wouldn't support it if it ignored condoms etc. Texas has a program of sorts along those lines and it has one of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the country.
Yes promote abstinence...but the fact is that teenagers DO have sex... and if they do they should know how to do it as safely as possible.
One thing i learnt pretty quickly as a parent that the best way to get a child to do something is to tell them not to.:lol:


Or would you "accept" that, with regard to this question, you can't "have it your way"? already ansered with the need for compromise



Do you attempt to influence the political process with anything apart from, or in addition to, your vote?

I am not a political activist, but i do use my vote.
On the odd occasions i have had contact with people in politics (at various levels) i do put them on the spot if the opportunity arises.

[j2k4]

You are engaging in a type of activism merely by being here, vid.

Why bother trying to change my mind, if you couldn't be bothered to pester your representatives?

They are not in any way exceptional other than that they are unusually thick-headed.

I have enlightened a few of them; maybe you should try it.

[Rat Faced]

Religions should be taxed, based on exactly the same criteria of any other company.

Those that say that its a non-profit making enterprise, please explain to me how all these TV preachers are millionaires, the Catholic Church has so much wealth, What the Latter Day Saints spend their Tithes on etc etc etc...

Sorry, they should be audited and taxed accordingly.... no one says that the Clerics shouldnt live, but to buy Gold Candlesticks, while their flocks are starving isnt my idea of non-profit...

[spinningfreemanny]

Well... they keep tax free status because the money is purely based on donations. There is no requirement for service or wares.
Hell, I'm as pissed at these televangelists being millionares and driving beamers as the rest; it's pure extortion, but this does not portray religious America as a whole.

[Rat Faced]

Well... they keep tax free status because the money is purely based on donations. There is no requirement for service or wares.
Hell, I'm as pissed at these televangelists being millionares and driving beamers as the rest; it's pure extortion, but this does not portray religious America as a whole.

Most of a Waitress' or Taxi Drivers income is based upon Donations (Tips)... Guess what?

They're taxed...

[spinningfreemanny]

again...

There is no requirement for service or wares.

and they are individual persons, well a church is not: more corporate.

[Rat Faced]

again...

There is no requirement for service or wares.

Then why have them?

No one makes you tip a waitress, no one makes you give to a Church...

Same principle.

If they are actually non-profit, then their books willl show they are. However, i wouldnt class Liimo's and Gold Candlesticks as Tax deductable
:rolleyes:

Edit: After Mannies edit..


and they are individual persons, well a church is not: more corporate.

And Corporations shouldnt be taxed? :rolleyes:

[spinningfreemanny]

well, wouldn't they be taxed on limos and gold candlesticks accordingly?

[Rat Faced]

If they were taxed...which currently they arent.

HAvent you read the thread? :unsure:

[spinningfreemanny]

And Corporations shouldnt be taxed? :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]


misspoke,..my mistake...

I ment that they're more of an entity, not such as a individual. They church is usually made up of its fellow members, and is considered such. Well sure busnesses can pass on taxes to consumers, churches can't.

[spinningfreemanny]

If they were taxed...which currently they arent.

HAvent you read the thread? :unsure:

no, there are such things as sales tax and such that the church would be paying if they want such products.

[spinningfreemanny]

Then why have them?

No one makes you tip a waitress, no one makes you give to a Church...

Same principle.

If they are actually non-profit, then their books willl show they are. However, i wouldnt class Liimo's and Gold Candlesticks as Tax deductable


If you think having any equity cancels out being non profit; then surely no one would qualify

[Rat Faced]

The books would show if there was a profit element.

For example; if a Charity takes in money, and only pays wages and accumulates money, then its making a profit..

If it pays out to whatever it was set up to help, then that would not be a profit.

The Churches are no different: IF they are making a profit, they should pay taxes accordingly, if they arent they shouldnt. They should be audited, like any other organisation.

[manker]

If the Church is treated as a charity or a non profit organisation then the employees of the church are still taxed. At least they are in the UK via Pay As You Earn.

I've not brushed up on the conceptual framework recently but I would imagine that a similar system is operated in the U.S. Therefore the wages that these TV preachers earn would be taxed as they are profiting directly from their activities. However, I imagine that in congruence with our taxation laws here their expenses would not be taxable, this could feasibly include a multitude of luxuries.

So, in essence those charities that wish to pay their employees vast sums of money for their services do actually get taxed, leaving the charities which actually use their funds for the purposes the donors would appreciate the most, tax free.

I think this is fair in concept although as I've hinted there are many ways to abuse the system. Of course, such abuses are evident throughout entire sphere of tax collection.

[spinningfreemanny]

This is all for moot though... If you want to open up the idea of taxing churches, prepare for the line between church and state to be abolished, because then churches would need representation in government. (as vid has stated).

[spinningfreemanny]

If the Church is treated as a charity or a non profit organisation then the employees of the church are still taxed. At least they are in the UK via Pay As You Earn.

I've not brushed up on the conceptual framework recently but I would imagine that a similar system is operated in the U.S. Therefore the wages that these TV preachers earn would be taxed as they are profiting directly from their activities. However, I imagine that in congruence with our taxation laws here their expenses would not be taxable, this could feasibly include a multitude of luxuries.

So, in essence those charities that wish to pay their employees vast sums of money for their services do actually get taxed, leaving the charities which actually use their funds for the purposes the donors would appreciate the most, tax free.

I think this is fair in concept although as I've hinted there are many ways to abuse the system. Of course, such abuses are evident throughout entire sphere of tax collection.


wow...good point manker...thats what happends...(my father is a minister)

[Rat Faced]

This is all for moot though... If you want to open up the idea of taxing churches, prepare for the line between church and state to be abolished, because then churches would need representation in government. (as vid has stated).

Correction.

They stick their mits in anyway, and lobby already.

If they wish to do this, they should be paying taxes...like all the Corporations do, and individuals.

[spinningfreemanny]

Correction.

They stick their mits in anyway, and lobby already.

If they wish to do this, they should be paying taxes...like all the Corporations do, and individuals.

anybody or person has the right to lobby government...

but if they are to make campaign contributions and the such, then they should be taxed.

[vidcc]

@ j2
By not being a political activist i don't go on marches and i don't go to court to "make policy"
I don't sit at my computer writing my congress "person" /senator.

but i do

On the odd occasions i have had contact with people in politics (at various levels) i do put them on the spot if the opportunity arises. I've been to both the republican and the democrat campaign offices in my town and given them a hard time.... after all the only time a politician is interested in mine or your views is when he/she needs your vote.

I don't spend my life lobbying because i don't have any particular "special interests" or agenda that i feel i have the right to force upon others.

Non commercial lobbyists often appear to be groups that want to stop someone elses freedoms

[manker]

Correction.

They stick their mits in anyway, and lobby already.

If they wish to do this, they should be paying taxes...like all the Corporations do, and individuals.
RF, They have to adhere to strict guidelines in order to maintain their non-profit status. This often includes paying tax via other channels.

If their profit level is either 'substantial' or above 10% of their income then they lose their 'special status' and have to pay tax. Investing in property and gold candlesticks does not affect this as they are examples of capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure.

Again, this is subject to abuse via creative accounting and plain fraud, but the point is that the system is in place such that these charities cannot make vast sums of money without paying the taxman.

[Rat Faced]

RF, They have to adhere to strict guidelines in order to maintain their non-profit status. This often includes paying tax via other channels.

If their profit level is either 'substantial' or above 10% of their income then they lose their 'special status' and have to pay tax. Investing in property and gold candlesticks does not affect this as they are examples of capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure.

Again, this is subject to abuse via creative accounting and plain fraud, but the point is that the system is in place such that these charities cannot make vast sums of money without paying the taxman.

Isnt that what ive been saying should happen?


:blink:

The Tax Free position being argued is that in the US...

I know our tax rules...i work for em :unsure:

[manker]

Isnt that what ive been saying should happen?


:blink:

The Tax Free position being argued is that in the US...

I know our tax rules...i work for em :unsure:
It would be very similar in the US.

That's my point. It probably is happening as you'd wish it - to a certain extent. I don't know the US tax rules on this particular point but in general ours and their tax system is based on the same principles. Some people laugh at the conceptual framework but it has had the effect of a certain amount of homogenisation with the UK and US tax systems in the past 10 years or more.

I'd be really surprised if the TV preachers weren't taxed, likewise the charities not having to adhere to certain rules to maintain their status. Plus the candlesticks and property investments could never be used to lower the profits in a revenue sense in any western country that I'm aware of.

[scroff]

Just my two cents, since I'm here reading ruthies brilliance...

The Catholic Church is worth over $100,000,000,000... They should be taxed, at least property tax. About fifteen years ago the property the Church owned along the Hudson River in Upstate New York in just my area was worth over $9,000,000. That should be taxed. It would lower the local tax burden on all the people in the surrounding towns, a very charitable action, if you ask me. A priests minimal "income" shouldn't.

...and, as RF has already pointed out, they do have representation. Every Christian religion in the US does. Half the country thinks the US is some kind of divine intervention. Every other major speech includes some reference to god. God bless America, In god we trust.

Jerry Falwell Ministries is classified by the IRS as a non-profit organization, making it exempt from paying federal income taxes on the money they collect from followers... reported at $12.4 million for the year ending June 30, 2003. That, even more than the Catholic Church's holdings, should be taxed. Especially since Falwell, in his Falwell Confidential, expresses unabashed support for Bush and extols his sheep to follow his lead.

To take it even further (perhaps I can steal the liberal loonie crown from RF and Ruthie) religion is a farce and all "churches" should be taxed. What ever happened to rich men and eyes of needles and all that shit? Matthew 19:24

[ruthie]

why, thank you honey. As usual, I appreciate your brilliance.

[spinningfreemanny]

Just my two cents, since I'm here reading ruthies brilliance...

The Catholic Church is worth over $100,000,000,000... They should be taxed, at least property tax. About fifteen years ago the property the Church owned along the Hudson River in Upstate New York in just my area was worth over $9,000,000. That should be taxed. It would lower the local tax burden on all the people in the surrounding towns, a very charitable action, if you ask me. A priests minimal "income" shouldn't.

...and, as RF has already pointed out, they do have representation. Every Christian religion in the US does. Half the country thinks the US is some kind of divine intervention. Every other major speech includes some reference to god. God bless America, In god we trust.

Jerry Falwell Ministries is classified by the IRS as a non-profit organization, making it exempt from paying federal income taxes on the money they collect from followers... reported at $12.4 million for the year ending June 30, 2003. That, even more than the Catholic Church's holdings, should be taxed. Especially since Falwell, in his Falwell Confidential, expresses unabashed support for Bush and extols his sheep to follow his lead.

To take it even further (perhaps I can steal the liberal loonie crown from RF and Ruthie) religion is a farce and all "churches" should be taxed. What ever happened to rich men and eyes of needles and all that shit? Matthew 19:24

well I'll be amiss if I didn't think that this is ruthie's other half

tis true?

if not then truly; you are made for each other (sorry B :) )

[Biggles]

Taxing religions is probably a non-starter. Any accountant worth his salt could produce an operating statement for a non-profit making organisation showing there is no surplus to tax. Remember it is not income that is taxed but profit.

Having said that, people like the Bakers in the US did a pretty good job in trying to blur the lines and bring most if not all tele-evangelism into disrepute.

Is it just me or have we digressed from J2's original homily on the spread of political correctness?

Edit: added the word no as that was my original intent.

[vidcc]

Taxing religions is probably a non-starter. Any accountant worth his salt could produce an operating statement for a non-profit making organisation showing there is surplus to tax. Remember it is not income that is taxed but profit.

Having said that, people like the Bakers in the US did a pretty good job in trying to blur the lines and bring most if not all tele-evangelism into disrepute.

Is it just me or have we digressed from J2's original homily on the spread of political correctness?
It will never happen here...too many people of faith

[Biggles]

Vidcc

Perhaps, and many faiths do use their surplus for worthy causes, taxation of which would not be desireable. It is, however, less agreeable to see such funds used to build flash follies and expensive cars for the charismatic leader/guru of the relevant cult/faith.

I was taken with the debate I saw on Yahoo regarding Halloween/Samhain. As it falls on a Sunday this year it is apparently causing a little (although presumably minor) ruckus in some US States. Most of the contributions were surprisingly balanced a well informed. It was pleasing to see.

[ruthie]

well I'll be amiss if I didn't think that this is ruthie's other half

tis true?

if not then truly; you are made for each other (sorry B :) )

tis true. Scroff is my love. :wub:

[Busyman]

tis true. Scroff is my love. :wub:
ShitBergerFlickel!!!:angry:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[ruthie]

Lol.

[scroff]

There are other ways to tax. Like I said, paying property tax would be a real good start. And nutjobs like Falwell and Pat Robertson need to be "re-assessed" as a for profit organization. If they have to re-write the tax code to do it... so be it.

Oh, yea....

Sorry B...

Ok, I'll shut up now (at least in this thread)