Good Lord

[jparker22]

I see what you are saying but your logic is a little flawed. Say 2 men marry. Man 1 pays $10,000 per year in taxes and Man 2 pays $10,000 per year as well. If they marry, they will not pay $20,000 in taxes...maybe they will only pay $18,000. So the government loses $2,000 here.

Trust me, the government will make up that difference somewhere by raising taxes.

Again, I know its not very popular to look at it from a purely financial standpoint...but it's necessary in the type of country we live in.

I do not trust your math on this issue.
Say each earns $40000 per year.
Single person pays $6558 in taxes.
Married file seperately $6558 in taxes.
Married file joint $13115, a grand total difference of $1 in favor of the taxpayer

If each person earns $80000 per year each.
Single person pays $16732in taxes.
Married file seperately $17102 in taxes.
Married file joint $34,204 a grand total difference of $740 in favor of the government

 

[htownclone]

My response was a very pointed way of discrediting any "if you don't like something then leave" sentiment. You did qualify your statement in the original post, but it was there.

As far as the principles this country was founded upon, it is not difficult to be cynical and say one of those principles was that white property owners were superior to everyone else. The constitution even treats the slaves as 3/5ths of a person. Some principles prevelant at the founding of this country were/are in need of change.

tigershoops31 summed up my point fairly well. I didn't say at all that minorities should leave. I'm saying people with minority "views" who don't like our country and think we should change our structure to benefit them are ridiculous.

Can't say "under God" in the pledge. They want to take "In God we trust" off money. These are just a few examples of how people with minority "views" are being so radical in changing things the majority believe in or agree with.

The bottom line is you can't please all the people all the time. Not everyone will be happy with everything. Does it make more sense to please 99% of citizens who believe one thing or the 1% of people who believe something else?

 

[jbhtexas]

Kyle - my guess is you are pretty young. Nothing in the gay lobby has been done by a democratic process. Matter of fact, the gay marriage issue was handled by the democratic process and was rejected overwhelmingly.

No only that, the gay lobby is just downright deceitful. Do they openly discuss the 40% STD rate among gay men? Do they openly discuss what happens to many gay men once they catch an STD, how they are ostracized by the "community"? I see all kinds of prime time network shows depicting the gay lifestyle as wonderful, loving, and carefree, but I haven't seen one yet deal with the downside.

Volunteer for a ministry that works with these disparaged folks and listen to their stories. It ain't like "Will and Grace"...it's more like "you can't provide us sex because of your STD and you don't have alot of money, so see ya!" Honestly, as a Christian, the issue of homosexuality wasn't really on my radar until I had the opportunity to work in a mercy ministry. The destruction wrought by the gay lifestyle is heartbreaking. I simply can't stand by while it continues.

I'm sure other people have different experiences, but this is mine. When the gay lobby starts some honest discussion, then maybe I'll listen. Until then, I will consider them nothing more than political hacks trying to further an agenda.

 

[cycloneworld]

You mean there are flaws in a document written over 200 years ago that make it hard to relate to present time? This couldn’t be possible with a book written over 1000 years ago, could it?

Where are the flaws in the constitution?

 

[cybsball20]

No only that, the gay lobby is just downright deceitful. Do they openly discuss the 40% STD rate among gay men? Do they openly discuss what happens to many gay men once they catch an STD, how they are ostracized by the "community"? I see all kinds of prime time network shows depicting the gay lifestyle as wonderful, loving, and carefree, but I haven't seen one yet deal with the downside.

Volunteer for a ministry that works with these disparaged folks and listen to their stories. It ain't like "Will and Grace"...it's more like "you can't provide us sex because of your STD and you don't have alot of money, so see ya!" Honestly, as a Christian, the issue of homosexuality wasn't really on my radar until I had the opportunity to work in a mercy ministry. The destruction wrought by the gay lifestyle is heartbreaking. I simply can't stand by while it continues.

I'm sure other people have different experiences, but this is mine. When the gay lobby starts some honest discussion, then maybe I'll listen. Until then, I will consider them nothing more than political hacks trying to further an agenda.

So gay men just have about the same STD rate as college students...

 

[clonebbear]

So gay men just have about the same STD rate as college students...

Where are you getting this info from?

 

[jbhtexas]

So gay men just have about the same STD rate as college students...

My post wasn't about the STD rate among college students, it was about how the gay lobby portrays the gay lifestyle and fails to mention the downside. The STD rate problems and drinking problems of college students and teenagers are well publicized. I'm sorry you missed the point.

 

[cybsball20]

Last stat I heard in my human sexuality class, and that was 7 years ago was 2 in 5... thats 40% right?

 

[tigershoops31]

Can't say "under God" in the pledge. They want to take "In God we trust" off money. These are just a few examples of how people with minority "views" are being so radical in changing things the majority believe in or agree with.

The way things are going we may as well just cancel Christmas now, send home the missionaries and Red Cross people that provide aid in third world countries, and bulldoze the inner city soup kitchens. That's what we're looking at next, since it's so offensive. After they had to take down all the Christmas decorations in Lagomarcino because of the one jewish professor who was deeply offended by it, I wanted to call into MTV and tell them how bad they hurt my feelings when they put dudes showering together on television. It really makes you wonder when it's going to get to the point where we have to live in a culture with just white walls, no decorations or designs cause they might offend somebody and nobody willing to say anything cause they'll get in trouble. And then somebody will cry that all of the people in power are on an agenda with the white walls because it has a double meaning, so we'll have to have rainbows on everything. Some crap just burns me...when they take down off the "God" stuff from everything, it's because it demonstrates a Christian belief, and there's no room for belief in government. Never mind that taking it down is demonstrating an Atheist or Agnostic belief, which offends people (and a lot more of them) too.

 

[Kyle]

The bottom line is you can't please all the people all the time. Not everyone will be happy with everything. Does it make more sense to please 99% of citizens who believe one thing or the 1% of people who believe something else?

I put this first because I agree with it.

tigershoops31 summed up my point fairly well. I didn't say at all that minorities should leave. I'm saying people with minority "views" who don't like our country and think we should change our structure to benefit them are ridiculous.

Can't say "under God" in the pledge. They want to take "In God we trust" off money. These are just a few examples of how people with minority "views" are being so radical in changing things the majority believe in or agree with.

I'm one of those people, and I'm not going anywhere. I don't tend to get too up in arms over them because they are relatively minor, but if I had my way we would get rid of all the "God" references.

Correspondingly, why is it such a big deal to the other side? The "under God" in the pledge was not put in until the 1950's. How are you hurt if it is not on the money? As far as why one might care, the pledge of allegiance is an affirmative statement of belief and many schools recite it in class on a regular basis. I don't want my children to have to make an affirmative statement of belief about God. If that phrase is omitted then no one is making an affirmative statement either way regarding the existance of God. If the pledge happened to include "under Allah" I get the feeling many people would be on the other side.

 

[htownclone]

Last stat I heard in my human sexuality class, and that was 7 years ago was 2 in 5... thats 40% right?

I also was told in my multicultural education class that 10% of the population was hermaphrodites(sp). I really doubt 40% is an accurate number. I don't think about half of my friends have STD's. :baffled5wh:

 

[htownclone]

If the pledge happened to include "under Allah" I get the feeling many people would be on the other side.

You see, the difference is, our country wasn't formed by muslims who wanted religious freedom. Nice try though. :dull8ay:

 

[Cyclonepride]

I want to be sure of just what you are saying here, because your posts appear to imply that discrimination against homosexuals is OK and different from discrimination based on race because someone can hide their sexual orientation more easily.

My hope is that your only point is that the magnitude of discrimination against blacks was far greater, and you would no doubt be correct in that point. This certainly doesn't justify the discrimination that does exist against homosexuals though.

No, I am not justifying discrimination in any form. I just think that comparing the civil rights movement with the gay rights movement is not a good comparison. My main problem with the gay rights movement is that noone can discuss the issue in a political forum without either- 1. agreeing completely with them or- 2. Being labeled as a homophobe and a the perpetrator of a hate crime.

Disapproving, feeling that it is immoral, believing it is immoral or speaking about it being immoral is not discrimination. If you fail to allow them their basic rights to pursue their own thing without the risk of losing their job, home or whatever, that is discrimination. Disagreeing with their lifestyle, and talking about that openly should not be a hate crime, which is essentially what they want to see happen.

 

[tigershoops31]

I put this first because I agree with it.


IAs far as why one might care, the pledge of allegiance is an affirmative statement of belief and many schools recite it in class on a regular basis. I don't want my children to have to make an affirmative statement of belief about God. If that phrase is omitted then no one is making an affirmative statement either way regarding the existance of God. If the pledge happened to include "under Allah" I get the feeling many people would be on the other side.

If it's a big deal to your or your child, they don't have to say the "Under God" part. I think that would be less disruptive than trying to get the whole pledge changed and having the ones that want to make that statement throw it in in the middle of everybody else saying "indivisible". I for one am not going around my classroom head hunting for kids that aren't saying "under God" when we say the pledge in the morning. I would think that most teachers would feel the same way.

 

[cycloneworld]

I'm one of those people, and I'm not going anywhere. I don't tend to get too up in arms over them because they are relatively minor, but if I had my way we would get rid of all the "God" references.

Correspondingly, why is it such a big deal to the other side? The "under God" in the pledge was not put in until the 1950's. How are you hurt if it is not on the money? As far as why one might care, the pledge of allegiance is an affirmative statement of belief and many schools recite it in class on a regular basis. I don't want my children to have to make an affirmative statement of belief about God. If that phrase is omitted then no one is making an affirmative statement either way regarding the existance of God. If the pledge happened to include "under Allah" I get the feeling many people would be on the other side.

Why get rid of all of the "God" references?? #1: Almost 80% of the American population believe in the Christian version of God. #2: If that's not enough...we don't say "Under The Christian God" in the pledge or "In The Christian God We Trust" on the money so that can account for any other "god" you believe in. Now you are probably at about 90% of the population. Why should we change ideals that 90% of the population believe in for the 10% that don't?

I don't remember the exact number but gay marriage is opposed by somewhere around 60-70% of the population. Under a democratic society we elect people who share our beliefs. So if the majority of people don't want something, why should we do it?

 

[Angie]

This country was founded on religion/Christianity...not homosexuality.

I normally agree with you, cyworld, but I do think this is something to discuss. The Pilgrims actually came and began a colony to escape religious persecution. True, they were still Christian, and the founding fathers do discuss God, but freedom of religion is also a fundamental part of the Constitution.

There is from a purely financial standpoint. If more same-sex couples are marrying (and I think this would lead to more friend-friend marriages for financial gain...see my earlier posts), the government will lose tax money. In turn, they will raise taxes.

My argument to this would be that we then shouldn't require gays to pay taxes. If they're paying taxes, they should get the same benefits.

 

[CTAClone]

And now we can't even say "Under God" in the pledge.

Would you want to say "Under Allah" if it was in the pledge?

 

[CyGal]

Trust me, the government will make up that difference somewhere by raising taxes.

Perhaps they could start by rolling back all the bush tax cuts for the rich and start trying to take a little better care of the middle and lower class. That could help.

 

[businesscyman]

I'm young relative to people that are older than me. :wink0st: The democratic process includes more than just voting on an issue. In order to be successful one typically has to promote one's ideas through public discourse. Free and open dialoge is vital to a democracy, which is why freedom of speech is so jealously protected in the U.S.

I think the strategy of the gay rights movement has been flawed in some resepects, in that they tried to grab a lot quickly and this prompted a backlash. Currently the movement needs to change people's opinions and lay the groundwork for further change. I think that is the stage things have tended towards right now.

That young thing made me choke on lunch funny stuff. I don't disagree with you on the point of public discourse and this thread is a great example. Would you agree most of the "progress" to date has been judicial fiat which is not democratic (yes I know elected officials appoint judges in most cases) but judges are typically not accountable to anyone unless they are in gross misconduct.

 

[cycloneworld]

Would you want to say "Under Allah" if it was in the pledge?

See my previous post...We don't say "Under The Christian God". The "god" referred to could mean Allah to you if you want.