quote:

---

Originally posted by bill1967:
Stogie--

1. "I'm trying to be more Christ-like. But it's hard with all the goddamn rednecks."

That's was a joke. Ha ha. You of all people here should've got it. I thought it was pretty funny.

2. I thought O Man really did have a point.

3. I'll put my working class creds up against yours any day.

4. I bet you a cigar that you use the Lord's name in vain at least as much as I do on annual basis.

5. I _said_ I meant def. #2, or that I was leaning that way, which doesn't disparage Southerners. Not necessarily anyway.

6. I've got a problem with bigots not poor people or Southerners, and I don't appreciate when people cloak their bigotry in religion, especially one whose main theme (if you go by the New Testament) of love and tolerance is exactly the opposite of the fear and intolerance that spawned those anti-gay marriage laws.

7. Watch out with that butt cleavage talk. Someone might think you're checking my butt out. You sexy beast.

---

Nice back peddeling Bill!
Working class creds, what does that have to do with anything and the part about using gods name in vane. Who said I didnt use gods name in vane, I never did so dont put words in peoples mouths. Oh! Almost forgot have a nice day Bill! I'll smoke a cigar for ya.

quote:

---

Originally posted by O Man:
dragoman...married people pay higher taxes than two single people living togther, everything else being equal..

---

Actually the Bush tax cuts eliminated the "marriage penalty" so this is not true anymore.

quote:

---

.married people with children pay lower taxes than married people without children because they have more dependants...you single people are the ones getting the subsidy on income taxes.

---

So what? Having a child is a personal choice, and I don't feel that I should pay more because of someone else's personal choice.

I'm a libertarian, and I believe that you need to take responsibility for yourself. Have a kid, fine, but do it with the knowledge that that is a burden that you are taking on, not the rest of society. Why should single people pay more? They are less of a burden, use less public facilities and other "services" that taxes pay for, and are forced to pay more in taxes than those with kids.

quote:

---

If you own property and have no children in school, then you are subsidizing public education in most states, just as it was subsidized for your by your parents peers..

---

So lets keep doing it because that's the way its always been done? Good liberal answer, but it doesn't address the issue. Yes, I resent paying property taxes to pay for schools if I don't have any kids going to those schools. What if I choose to put my kids in private school? Why should I pay for public schools anyway? Again, its a system biased against single and child-less people.

quote:

---

.surely we don't want to limit education and reinvestment in the next generation that will need to make money to pay our SS benefits, the ultimate inter-generational subsidy?

---

Abolish Social Security for all I care. My retirement plans do not include SS at all, because I'm pretty sure in 45 years it will be gone. If you are responsible and plan for your retirement, you don't need it.

As as for education being an "investment in the future" or some such, show me some hard numbers. When the most costly schools in the country are graduating only about 1/2 the students (most inner-city schools are expensive because teachers don't want to work there), I'd say that investment is not producing a good return.

I realize the need to pay taxes, and even agree that money spent on education is beneficial to society as a whole. But the way it is spent needs to be evaluated, and overhauled.

dragoman

drago...you make a valid argument to a point, but reason that families get the subsidy is becasue society does not value single people as highly (in genral) becasue they contribute less to society. Married people with families are the bedrock of every society that values stability and savings. These are the people who buy more homes, cars, etc that create jobs and growth...single people tend to be less productive workers (too many distractions) with high turnover rates. They are more likely to be incarcerated, they are more likely to committ crimes...in this sense, they incur real costs...society didn't just decide that it valued married with children over singles without becasue it felt like discriminating against singles; it knows that singles eventually have children, that children are the basis for future growth and that there is a vested interest in raising and protecting them...if you don't believe me, look at biology and tell me one species that is not geared toward procreation at all costs. There is a word for a species that doesn't try to protect and nurture its young. The word is extinct.

It is the matter of what you accept or not accept, rather than right or wrong.

You closest friend can be like your family member, but not your "family". He didn't share the same bloodline, nor did he become your family through ceremony.

I guess I am just too stubborn.....:P

quote:

---

...but reason that families get the subsidy is becasue society does not value single people as highly (in genral) becasue they contribute less to society. ...single people tend to be less productive workers (too many distractions) with high turnover rates. ..if you don't believe me, look at biology and tell me one species that is not geared toward procreation at all costs. There is a word for a species that doesn't try to protect and nurture its young. The word is extinct.

---

OMan -- You're generally correct, but a couple of holes in your agrument:

1) Single people are generally MORE productive to employers, not less. They can devote 100% of their time to building companies, climbing corporate ladders, etc. Marriage usually comes after you're established, not before, though greater promotions and authority are usually reserved for married folks. I don't doubt the crime statistics and such though about singles -- unmarried males are the overwhelming culprits in any society.

2) If there is such a strong drive to procreate and spread the species, nobody is going to need government help to make a family.

I do understand your point that from the government perspective it is better to give incentives for keeping family units together than to "dis-incent" them.

But I'm not sure just abolishing all government benefits (as drago suggests) tied to marital status is actually a "dis-incentive" -- I'd argue it just sets the playing field more level, and with less tax burdens and social engineering going on, people would overall be better off.

Of course I'm biased because I'm a single guy and a homeowner with 0 kids. One thing that I learned from my friend the police officer is that crime rates skyrocket when the schools are closed -- so to me, paying taxes for schools is more about keeping the kids occupied and out of mischief (and thus protecting my property) than it is about me getting my money's worth for a low-quality government education.

Masher...if you are in a workaholic position like investment banking or law, you have a point on giving 100%, although I know plenty of family guys/gals in these professions. There was a recent "big book" done on this and found that married people have higher incomes after adjusting for education, age and field. Whether the reason is that more stable people (and hence more productive and better paid) are likely to have greater success in finding a mate or if marriage leads to more stability and hence higher productivity and income, I'm not sure. Common sense would tell me its a bit of the chicken and a bit of the egg.

I'd like to modify my species example to societal, i.e., a society that invests in its offspring (skills training, stability of upbringing, etc) is likely to be more successful over the long run than one that does not. You can look at the breakdown of inner city families, under a very hostile environment and poor investment (money spent on schools doesn't mean its well spent), as a key part of many of the inner city problems of crime, blight, etc. People have lots of children becasue a few won't survive to bear more children (innate biology at work?). Compare that with more affluent suburbs that spend up the wazu on education and infrastructure. All these kids go to college. Of course its a bit more complicated, but you get my point.

Of course, my vested interest as a father of three is obvious...

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_stogemiester:

Nice back peddeling Bill!
Working class creds, what does that have to do with anything and the part about using gods name in vane. Who said I didnt use gods name in vane, I never did so dont put words in peoples mouths. Oh! Almost forgot have a nice day Bill! I'll smoke a cigar for ya.

---

Stogie--

I didn't realize I was back peddling. I thought you were mistaken and had gone off half cocked.

My mistake.

You know, Stogie, if you can't post here intelligently, maybe you shouldn't post.

=)

quote:

---

Originally posted by bill1967:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the_stogemiester:

Nice back peddeling Bill!
Working class creds, what does that have to do with anything and the part about using gods name in vane. Who said I didnt use gods name in vane, I never did so dont put words in peoples mouths. Oh! Almost forgot have a nice day Bill! I'll smoke a cigar for ya.

---

Stogie--

I didn't realize I was back peddling. I thought you were mistaken and had gone off half cocked.

My mistake.

You know, Stogie, if you can't post here intelligently, maybe you shouldn't post.

=)

---

Not half cock, I got a whole one!

OK all you militant homosexuals! Did you know that you can legally have a "civil union" drawn up by a competant lawyer? You want to be "married?" I wish I was a lawyer, specializing in divorce! Sorry, but IMHO gays have much more "emotional baggage" than the rest of us! I'm sure the lawyers are dancing in the streets,and counting their projected fortunes!

Brian, my younger brother and his partner have been together for 15 years, how long have you been "married"? Hell, my parent's marriage didn't even last that long. I've only been with my wife for 9 years, married almost 6 of it.

Emotional baggage ain't the domain of the homosexual.

Alan

I'm in the court against the gay lifestyle, as I have religious belief that view it as wrong. I still love the sinner, and am not going to tell you what to do, and if your convictions don't agree with mine, I'm not going to shove my beliefs down your throat. Jesus, my lord, teaches me to love my fellow man.
That's my belief, and mine alone. I'm sure that their are many thing I do, that all don't agree with. After all, I am a die-hard American that believes in the capitalistic society we fight so hard to protect. This alone bring hatred from masses from other countries.
I wont protest against you, I wont tell you how to live your life, and as far as marriage is concerned, I believe everyone should have equal rights. I don't have the answers, but I'm for equal rights...
Marrage needs to be be defined differantly in a legal sense. I think if you choose, you should be allowed to get married to another human, but *my* definition of marrage can still differ from yours.
The problem can be solved by not drawing the line so black and white.
Does that mean I condone homosexuality? Absolutly not. My beliefs and views haven't changed, and nothing has been taken from me.
Get married, and be happy.

Briandzed

Militant? VERY! homosexual? NEGATIVE!

I have and I am willing to fight for the rights of the citizens of the United States even if I don't agree with or like their choice of lifestyle.

I wonder why people are so judgemental of others especialy the people that claim to be good christians. The Bible tells us that we should not judge others. If homosexuality is a sin then that is between them and God and is not for me to judge.

Marrage is not just a religous union. There are people that believe there is no God that get married. People of all different religions get married. If homesexuals want to get married that is for them to decide not you or me.

Most of you and I think it is wrong when countries like Afghanistan that have leaders and laws that take their extreme religious views and force them on their citizens. Making women cover their faces in public is just one example.

Our government has too many issues like the War in Iraq, the war on Terrorism, improving the education system, the budget, just to name a few, than to waste their time and our money trying to make laws that prevent homosexuals from getting married.

Peter,

There is nothing in your comments that is other than common sense and great comments.

Just think what could be accomplished in our country and in the world if & when people stop judging other people and making rules as to what they can and cannot do.

This is a really good discussion.

Ron

Thank you Ron and others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by aholsber:
Rogers, I take it you are from the school of “homosexuality is learned”? I disagree with your statement that “there is no way a child can come from such a situation well adjusted......” how many not so well adjusted come from families where there are male and female role models?

---

Alan where did I state that homosexuality is a learned behaviour?? I certaintly do not believe that.... Yes you are correct, many screwed up kids come from families with a mom and a dad... However, your statement does not diffuse my point that such an environment is not ideal in which to raise children....unfortunately, society, especially children are not as accepting as we would like them to be....think of what a child will go through at school when his 2 dads show up to his school play......its just unnecessary to drag kids into such a relationship......

Surely this is an unfortunate situation. I have many gay friends and most have told me how they wish they were born straight, as their lives would have been so much easier.....its as tough situation but what can u do?

MrR

I think kids from such unions would be alright if society would stop judging them automatically.

I can't believe that just because a kid has two dads or two moms, he will automatically be screwed up. Kids are more resilient than that. Kids get screwed up when everyone they meet, from kids to adults, start sneering when they hear the kid has two men or women at home.

It is a free country, and homosexuality is not illegal. People are free to do what they want, as long as they don't impinge on anyone else's freedoms (ie privacy of your own home).

Once the social issue is gone, you will probably see most of the people in the next generation asking "what's the big deal?" about this.

Someone said that married people are more stable and productive. What about the statistics that show gay men are more productive, wealthier, and generally have a higher level of happiness?

Families are families, no matter if they are gay or straight.

Me personally? I don't agree with homo-sexuality, and feel uncomfortable around them. That's my honest feeling. But I also don't want to refuse the right of being linked to someone you love to anyone, regardless of their sex.

dragoman

There's nothing to keep one of Heather's two mommies from going to the sperm bank, making a withdrawal, and delivering a baby 9 mos later. One of Billy's two dads could pay some money to a surrogate and father his own child. Surely you guys wouldn't ask children services to take away either baby? How is that different from adoption? A child needs a home. Better a home with two gay people, or a home with people of a different race, than no home.

I agree, gay people are born that way. It would be an insnane person to choose a lifestyle that is loathed and discriminated against by a large part of society.

Ok, had to chime in here.

Let's take things to extremes. If everyone was gay (ignore artificial means) the entire world would die out in one generation. It seems to me that this behavior is wrong.

Second, almost everyone, is saying as long as it makes people happy and doesn't effect others then have at it. Doesn't it affect us? We are discussing it now? If someone marries their horse doesn't that effect me? My son comes home and asks why Billy's Dad is a horse. Ok, extreme example: Bob and Sue want to have kids just to sell them on the black market. Bob and Sue are happy. Adopting parents are happy. Does that make it right? We are such a 'feel good' society. What if Bob and Sue were teens and did not tell anyone about the baby and just buried it in the back yard?

There are a set of moral standards that we all have. I think each of us should evaluate where we get our standard from. I don't think "People are free to do what they want, as long as they don't impinge on anyone else's freedoms (ie privacy of your own home)." cuts it. There are many times I feel this society is like the frog in hot water. The water is slowly getting hotter until we are cooked. If we had just jumped into the morality we have today (boiling water) we would be much more upset about things.

I will get off my soapbox now and get out my cigar to listen to all my hate mail.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dragoman:
I think kids from such unions would be alright if society would stop judging them automatically.

I can't believe that just because a kid has two dads or two moms, he will automatically be screwed up. Kids are more resilient than that. Kids get screwed up when everyone they meet, from kids to adults, start sneering when they hear the kid has two men or women at home.

It is a free country, and homosexuality is not illegal. People are free to do what they want, as long as they don't impinge on anyone else's freedoms (ie privacy of your own home).

Once the social issue is gone, you will probably see most of the people in the next generation asking "what's the big deal?" about this.

Someone said that married people are more stable and productive. What about the statistics that show gay men are more productive, wealthier, and generally have a higher level of happiness?

Families are families, no matter if they are gay or straight.

Me personally? I don't agree with homo-sexuality, and feel uncomfortable around them. That's my honest feeling. But I also don't want to refuse the right of being linked to someone you love to anyone, regardless of their sex.

dragoman

---

Well put, Dragoman. Unfortunately, society as a whole takes a long time to adapt to changes. It's not that long ago that children born out of wedlock were labeled as "bastards" and were not subject to the same laws of parental responsibility and inheritance. Same idea with the acceptance of interracial marriage. Acceptance continues to grow.