View Full Version : Discussion: Gay Rights II
Kelly
12-06-2008, 01:27 PM
That's not true at all... lol look at Donald Trump, look at all the republicans who run oil companies... Conservative people are usually some of the richest and spend the most... sure some save, but republicans spend quite alot, its just typically on themselves.
Not exactly true.....do a simple google, and you'll find that on average conservative republicans give more (charitable giving) than liberal democrats, and on average liberal democrats have a higher income.
I can't remember the book, but it was highlighted on a philanthropy website I was reading awhile back. It gives some specific numbers in the book. I don't have time to research it, but I think a simple google would suffice.
Kelly
12-06-2008, 01:27 PM
That's not true at all... lol look at Donald Trump, look at all the republicans who run oil companies... Conservative people are usually some of the richest and spend the most... sure some save, but republicans spend quite alot, its just typically on themselves.
Not exactly true.....do a simple google, and you'll find that on average conservative republicans give more (charitable giving) than liberal democrats, and on average liberal democrats have a higher income.
I can't remember the book, but it was highlighted on a philanthropy website I was reading awhile back. It gives some specific numbers in the book. I don't have time to research it, but I think a simple google would suffice.
StorminNorman
12-06-2008, 01:42 PM
id side with republicans on economical issues if we weren't in an economic crisis in some ways because of them. :o, republicans tend to believe in "why share the wealth?" which is fine and dandy to a degree, but not when all thats happening is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
Except that the economic crisis has nothing to do with Republicans. The bank crisis came when Democrats wanted banks to make risky loans.
StorminNorman
12-06-2008, 01:42 PM
id side with republicans on economical issues if we weren't in an economic crisis in some ways because of them. :o, republicans tend to believe in "why share the wealth?" which is fine and dandy to a degree, but not when all thats happening is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
Except that the economic crisis has nothing to do with Republicans. The bank crisis came when Democrats wanted banks to make risky loans.
StorminNorman
12-06-2008, 01:42 PM
id side with republicans on economical issues if we weren't in an economic crisis in some ways because of them. :o, republicans tend to believe in "why share the wealth?" which is fine and dandy to a degree, but not when all thats happening is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
Except that the economic crisis has nothing to do with Republicans. The bank crisis came when Democrats wanted banks to make risky loans.
BlackLantern
12-06-2008, 02:01 PM
Banks being pressured into lending to low income and high risk individuals as to appear "fair"....People applying for loans falsifying their incomes and then defaulting on loans...you can blame the banks/loan companies all you want, but a good chunk of this falls on the public
BlackLantern
12-06-2008, 02:01 PM
Banks being pressured into lending to low income and high risk individuals as to appear "fair"....People applying for loans falsifying their incomes and then defaulting on loans...you can blame the banks/loan companies all you want, but a good chunk of this falls on the public
BlackLantern
12-06-2008, 02:01 PM
Banks being pressured into lending to low income and high risk individuals as to appear "fair"....People applying for loans falsifying their incomes and then defaulting on loans...you can blame the banks/loan companies all you want, but a good chunk of this falls on the public
XpunkRocker
12-06-2008, 02:10 PM
most of it falls on the banks, in my opinion. A lot people who were applying for loans didn't know any better, and they didn't know what they were doing. Basically, they would ask for a $100,000 loan and get a $300,000 loan. And by doing that, it puts the idea in their head that they can afford it.
what i am trying to say is the banks know more about finances and money managment, the people don't. most people go to college and never learn anything about money. they study art, literature, science, and everything else, but they know nothing about loans and money. in a way, i think the banks took advantage of people's ignorance. and i don't think they expected the housing bubble to burst as soon as it did.
Except that the economic crisis has nothing to do with Republicans. The bank crisis came when Democrats wanted banks to make risky loans.
actually.... it was a clinton administration AND a republican congress did all that jazz ;)
XpunkRocker
12-06-2008, 02:10 PM
most of it falls on the banks, in my opinion. A lot people who were applying for loans didn't know any better, and they didn't know what they were doing. Basically, they would ask for a $100,000 loan and get a $300,000 loan. And by doing that, it puts the idea in their head that they can afford it.
what i am trying to say is the banks know more about finances and money managment, the people don't. most people go to college and never learn anything about money. they study art, literature, science, and everything else, but they know nothing about loans and money. in a way, i think the banks took advantage of people's ignorance. and i don't think they expected the housing bubble to burst as soon as it did.
Except that the economic crisis has nothing to do with Republicans. The bank crisis came when Democrats wanted banks to make risky loans.
actually.... it was a clinton administration AND a republican congress did all that jazz ;)
XpunkRocker
12-06-2008, 02:10 PM
most of it falls on the banks, in my opinion. A lot people who were applying for loans didn't know any better, and they didn't know what they were doing. Basically, they would ask for a $100,000 loan and get a $300,000 loan. And by doing that, it puts the idea in their head that they can afford it.
what i am trying to say is the banks know more about finances and money managment, the people don't. most people go to college and never learn anything about money. they study art, literature, science, and everything else, but they know nothing about loans and money. in a way, i think the banks took advantage of people's ignorance. and i don't think they expected the housing bubble to burst as soon as it did.
Except that the economic crisis has nothing to do with Republicans. The bank crisis came when Democrats wanted banks to make risky loans.
actually.... it was a clinton administration AND a republican congress did all that jazz ;)
GAY MARRIAGE: OUR MUTUAL JOY
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653
The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: "The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition."
To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. "Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.
If the bible doesn't give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, of course—specifically sex between men. Sex between women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. In its entry on "Homosexual Practices," the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, "possibly because it did not result in true physical 'union' (by male entry)." The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?
GAY MARRIAGE: OUR MUTUAL JOY
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653
The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: "The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition."
To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. "Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.
If the bible doesn't give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, of course—specifically sex between men. Sex between women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. In its entry on "Homosexual Practices," the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, "possibly because it did not result in true physical 'union' (by male entry)." The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?
GAY MARRIAGE: OUR MUTUAL JOY
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653
The argument goes something like this statement, which the Rev. Richard A. Hunter, a United Methodist minister, gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in June: "The Bible and Jesus define marriage as between one man and one woman. The church cannot condone or bless same-sex marriages because this stands in opposition to Scripture and our tradition."
To which there are two obvious responses: First, while the Bible and Jesus say many important things about love and family, neither explicitly defines marriage as between one man and one woman. And second, as the examples above illustrate, no sensible modern person wants marriage—theirs or anyone else's —to look in its particulars anything like what the Bible describes. "Marriage" in America refers to two separate things, a religious institution and a civil one, though it is most often enacted as a messy conflation of the two. As a civil institution, marriage offers practical benefits to both partners: contractual rights having to do with taxes; insurance; the care and custody of children; visitation rights; and inheritance. As a religious institution, marriage offers something else: a commitment of both partners before God to love, honor and cherish each other—in sickness and in health, for richer and poorer—in accordance with God's will. In a religious marriage, two people promise to take care of each other, profoundly, the way they believe God cares for them. Biblical literalists will disagree, but the Bible is a living document, powerful for more than 2,000 years because its truths speak to us even as we change through history. In that light, Scripture gives us no good reason why gays and lesbians should not be (civilly and religiously) married—and a number of excellent reasons why they should.
If the bible doesn't give abundant examples of traditional marriage, then what are the gay-marriage opponents really exercised about? Well, homosexuality, of course—specifically sex between men. Sex between women has never, even in biblical times, raised as much ire. In its entry on "Homosexual Practices," the Anchor Bible Dictionary notes that nowhere in the Bible do its authors refer to sex between women, "possibly because it did not result in true physical 'union' (by male entry)." The Bible does condemn gay male sex in a handful of passages. Twice Leviticus refers to sex between men as "an abomination" (King James version), but these are throwaway lines in a peculiar text given over to codes for living in the ancient Jewish world, a text that devotes verse after verse to treatments for leprosy, cleanliness rituals for menstruating women and the correct way to sacrifice a goat—or a lamb or a turtle dove. Most of us no longer heed Leviticus on haircuts or blood sacrifices; our modern understanding of the world has surpassed its prescriptions. Why would we regard its condemnation of homosexuality with more seriousness than we regard its advice, which is far lengthier, on the best price to pay for a slave?
Timstuff
12-08-2008, 05:26 AM
That's not true at all... lol look at Donald Trump, look at all the republicans who run oil companies... Conservative people are usually some of the richest and spend the most... sure some save, but republicans spend quite alot, its just typically on themselves.
You may find this interesting.
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
Timstuff
12-08-2008, 05:26 AM
That's not true at all... lol look at Donald Trump, look at all the republicans who run oil companies... Conservative people are usually some of the richest and spend the most... sure some save, but republicans spend quite alot, its just typically on themselves.
You may find this interesting.
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
Timstuff
12-08-2008, 05:26 AM
That's not true at all... lol look at Donald Trump, look at all the republicans who run oil companies... Conservative people are usually some of the richest and spend the most... sure some save, but republicans spend quite alot, its just typically on themselves.
You may find this interesting.
http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm
CaptainClown
12-08-2008, 08:00 AM
Donating money = a good tax write off.
CaptainClown
12-08-2008, 08:00 AM
Donating money = a good tax write off.
CaptainClown
12-08-2008, 08:00 AM
Donating money = a good tax write off.
The Senator
12-08-2008, 01:14 PM
Proposition 8: The Musical
Starring John C. Reilly and Jack Black
HrM2UPoWFtE
Jesus
The Bible says a lot of interesting things
Like...you...can... stone your wife
Or sell your daughter into slavery!
Christian
Well, we ignore those verses!
Jesus
Well then friend it seems to me
You pick and choose!
Christians
We pick and choose!
Perhaps the most accurate portrayal of fundamentalist Christians ever. I never thought I'd appreciate Jack Black, but he makes an excellent Jesus.
The Senator
12-08-2008, 01:14 PM
Proposition 8: The Musical
Starring John C. Reilly and Jack Black
HrM2UPoWFtE
Jesus
The Bible says a lot of interesting things
Like...you...can... stone your wife
Or sell your daughter into slavery!
Christian
Well, we ignore those verses!
Jesus
Well then friend it seems to me
You pick and choose!
Christians
We pick and choose!
Perhaps the most accurate portrayal of fundamentalist Christians ever. I never thought I'd appreciate Jack Black, but he makes an excellent Jesus.
The Senator
12-08-2008, 01:14 PM
Proposition 8: The Musical
Starring John C. Reilly and Jack Black
HrM2UPoWFtE
Jesus
The Bible says a lot of interesting things
Like...you...can... stone your wife
Or sell your daughter into slavery!
Christian
Well, we ignore those verses!
Jesus
Well then friend it seems to me
You pick and choose!
Christians
We pick and choose!
Perhaps the most accurate portrayal of fundamentalist Christians ever. I never thought I'd appreciate Jack Black, but he makes an excellent Jesus.
Timstuff
12-08-2008, 02:55 PM
Donating money = a good tax write off.
Spending tax dollars on social programs =/= giving to charity
Even if the government eliminated tax writeoffs for charities, I think that conservatives would still give more. The reason that I believe there is such a deficit between liberals and conservatives when it comes to charity, is because liberals view the government to be a massive, mandatory charity. Rather than actually give to charity, they simply try to get the government to spend more money on nanny-state policies.
Timstuff
12-08-2008, 02:55 PM
Donating money = a good tax write off.
Spending tax dollars on social programs =/= giving to charity
Even if the government eliminated tax writeoffs for charities, I think that conservatives would still give more. The reason that I believe there is such a deficit between liberals and conservatives when it comes to charity, is because liberals view the government to be a massive, mandatory charity. Rather than actually give to charity, they simply try to get the government to spend more money on nanny-state policies.
Timstuff
12-08-2008, 02:55 PM
Donating money = a good tax write off.
Spending tax dollars on social programs =/= giving to charity
Even if the government eliminated tax writeoffs for charities, I think that conservatives would still give more. The reason that I believe there is such a deficit between liberals and conservatives when it comes to charity, is because liberals view the government to be a massive, mandatory charity. Rather than actually give to charity, they simply try to get the government to spend more money on nanny-state policies.
The Senator
12-08-2008, 05:08 PM
Spending tax dollars on social programs =/= giving to charity
Even if the government eliminated tax writeoffs for charities, I think that conservatives would still give more. The reason that I believe there is such a deficit between liberals and conservatives when it comes to charity, is because liberals view the government to be a massive, mandatory charity. Rather than actually give to charity, they simply try to get the government to spend more money on nanny-state policies.
Christian conservatives give more money to charity because their congregations tend to guilt trip them into donating money. I've seen it happen at the three Christian churches I formerly attended, so I don't really consider this to be an ignorant generalization on my part.
I doubt that Christian conservatives would give more money to charity if they weren't told to plop a few bucks into a collection plate, tithe box, etc. every weekend
The Senator
12-08-2008, 05:08 PM
Spending tax dollars on social programs =/= giving to charity
Even if the government eliminated tax writeoffs for charities, I think that conservatives would still give more. The reason that I believe there is such a deficit between liberals and conservatives when it comes to charity, is because liberals view the government to be a massive, mandatory charity. Rather than actually give to charity, they simply try to get the government to spend more money on nanny-state policies.
Christian conservatives give more money to charity because their congregations tend to guilt trip them into donating money. I've seen it happen at the three Christian churches I formerly attended, so I don't really consider this to be an ignorant generalization on my part.
I doubt that Christian conservatives would give more money to charity if they weren't told to plop a few bucks into a collection plate, tithe box, etc. every weekend
The Senator
12-08-2008, 05:08 PM
Spending tax dollars on social programs =/= giving to charity
Even if the government eliminated tax writeoffs for charities, I think that conservatives would still give more. The reason that I believe there is such a deficit between liberals and conservatives when it comes to charity, is because liberals view the government to be a massive, mandatory charity. Rather than actually give to charity, they simply try to get the government to spend more money on nanny-state policies.
Christian conservatives give more money to charity because their congregations tend to guilt trip them into donating money. I've seen it happen at the three Christian churches I formerly attended, so I don't really consider this to be an ignorant generalization on my part.
I doubt that Christian conservatives would give more money to charity if they weren't told to plop a few bucks into a collection plate, tithe box, etc. every weekend
BlackLantern
12-08-2008, 05:12 PM
There's a reason things like $200 a plate fundraisers are held...it's to guilt the haves into donating to charity
BlackLantern
12-08-2008, 05:12 PM
There's a reason things like $200 a plate fundraisers are held...it's to guilt the haves into donating to charity
BlackLantern
12-08-2008, 05:12 PM
There's a reason things like $200 a plate fundraisers are held...it's to guilt the haves into donating to charity
Timstuff
12-09-2008, 09:16 AM
Christian conservatives give more money to charity because their congregations tend to guilt trip them into donating money. I've seen it happen at the three Christian churches I formerly attended, so I don't really consider this to be an ignorant generalization on my part.
I doubt that Christian conservatives would give more money to charity if they weren't told to plop a few bucks into a collection plate, tithe box, etc. every weekend
The collection plate at a church is not typically considered a charity, because it usually goes directly towards the maintanance of the church and keeping food on the staff's plates. Most churches I have been to usually have separate collections for projects, and on top of that many Christians I've known seek out charities outside of the Church. Maybe it's partially because the Church I currently attend does not pressure people into making offerings or tithes, but I think it's inaccurate to say that Christians only give more to charity in the form of offerings and tithes to churches. Also, I think it's inaccurate to say that it's only Christian conservatives who are giving more, because there are a lot of wealthy non-Christian conservatives who have philanthropic desires that they express through charity donations.
Timstuff
12-09-2008, 09:16 AM
Christian conservatives give more money to charity because their congregations tend to guilt trip them into donating money. I've seen it happen at the three Christian churches I formerly attended, so I don't really consider this to be an ignorant generalization on my part.
I doubt that Christian conservatives would give more money to charity if they weren't told to plop a few bucks into a collection plate, tithe box, etc. every weekend
The collection plate at a church is not typically considered a charity, because it usually goes directly towards the maintanance of the church and keeping food on the staff's plates. Most churches I have been to usually have separate collections for projects, and on top of that many Christians I've known seek out charities outside of the Church. Maybe it's partially because the Church I currently attend does not pressure people into making offerings or tithes, but I think it's inaccurate to say that Christians only give more to charity in the form of offerings and tithes to churches. Also, I think it's inaccurate to say that it's only Christian conservatives who are giving more, because there are a lot of wealthy non-Christian conservatives who have philanthropic desires that they express through charity donations.
Timstuff
12-09-2008, 09:16 AM
Christian conservatives give more money to charity because their congregations tend to guilt trip them into donating money. I've seen it happen at the three Christian churches I formerly attended, so I don't really consider this to be an ignorant generalization on my part.
I doubt that Christian conservatives would give more money to charity if they weren't told to plop a few bucks into a collection plate, tithe box, etc. every weekend
The collection plate at a church is not typically considered a charity, because it usually goes directly towards the maintanance of the church and keeping food on the staff's plates. Most churches I have been to usually have separate collections for projects, and on top of that many Christians I've known seek out charities outside of the Church. Maybe it's partially because the Church I currently attend does not pressure people into making offerings or tithes, but I think it's inaccurate to say that Christians only give more to charity in the form of offerings and tithes to churches. Also, I think it's inaccurate to say that it's only Christian conservatives who are giving more, because there are a lot of wealthy non-Christian conservatives who have philanthropic desires that they express through charity donations.
Kelly
12-09-2008, 11:35 AM
The money in the plate, unless an envelope is used will not be used as a tax write off for churchgoers. Those that use it as a write off are giving an enormous amount of money.
Most of your megachurches today, like my church, never talk about the tithe. Tithing sermons are usually done in the smaller churchs still because their entire livelyhood stems from the money in the plate. The larger churches have everything from TV advertising, to music CD's, books, videos, etc......
I worked for a large church during college, and I can assure you those people that are tithing are giving a good amount of money in other areas as well.
Most of your food distribution, clothing distribution, housing accomodations etc, in the cities of the US are from churches through the faith based initiative.........and that is coming from money that is over and above the tithe.
Kelly
12-09-2008, 11:35 AM
The money in the plate, unless an envelope is used will not be used as a tax write off for churchgoers. Those that use it as a write off are giving an enormous amount of money.
Most of your megachurches today, like my church, never talk about the tithe. Tithing sermons are usually done in the smaller churchs still because their entire livelyhood stems from the money in the plate. The larger churches have everything from TV advertising, to music CD's, books, videos, etc......
I worked for a large church during college, and I can assure you those people that are tithing are giving a good amount of money in other areas as well.
Most of your food distribution, clothing distribution, housing accomodations etc, in the cities of the US are from churches through the faith based initiative.........and that is coming from money that is over and above the tithe.
Kelly
12-09-2008, 11:35 AM
The money in the plate, unless an envelope is used will not be used as a tax write off for churchgoers. Those that use it as a write off are giving an enormous amount of money.
Most of your megachurches today, like my church, never talk about the tithe. Tithing sermons are usually done in the smaller churchs still because their entire livelyhood stems from the money in the plate. The larger churches have everything from TV advertising, to music CD's, books, videos, etc......
I worked for a large church during college, and I can assure you those people that are tithing are giving a good amount of money in other areas as well.
Most of your food distribution, clothing distribution, housing accomodations etc, in the cities of the US are from churches through the faith based initiative.........and that is coming from money that is over and above the tithe.
'CALLING IN GAY DAY' THE LATEST PROP 8 PROTEST
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/08/calling-in-gay-latest-pro_n_149434.html
Some same-sex marriage supporters are urging people to "call in gay" Wednesday to show how much the country relies on gays and lesbians, but others question whether it's wise to encourage skipping work given the nation's economic distress. Organizers of "Day Without a Gay" _ scheduled to coincide with International Human Rights Day and modeled after similar work stoppages by Latino immigrants _ also are encouraging people to perform volunteer work and refrain from spending money.
Sean Hetherington, a West Hollywood comedian and personal trainer, dreamed up the idea with his boyfriend, Aaron Hartzler, after reading online that a few angry gay-rights activists were calling for a daylong strike to protest California voters' passage last month of Proposition 8, which reversed this year's state decision allowing marriage.
The couple thought it would be more effective and less divisive if people were asked to perform community service instead of staying home with their wallets shut. Dozens of nonprofit agencies, from the National Women's Law Center in Washington to a Methodist church in Fresno collecting food for the homeless, have posted opportunities for volunteers on the couple's Web site.
'CALLING IN GAY DAY' THE LATEST PROP 8 PROTEST
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/08/calling-in-gay-latest-pro_n_149434.html
Some same-sex marriage supporters are urging people to "call in gay" Wednesday to show how much the country relies on gays and lesbians, but others question whether it's wise to encourage skipping work given the nation's economic distress. Organizers of "Day Without a Gay" _ scheduled to coincide with International Human Rights Day and modeled after similar work stoppages by Latino immigrants _ also are encouraging people to perform volunteer work and refrain from spending money.
Sean Hetherington, a West Hollywood comedian and personal trainer, dreamed up the idea with his boyfriend, Aaron Hartzler, after reading online that a few angry gay-rights activists were calling for a daylong strike to protest California voters' passage last month of Proposition 8, which reversed this year's state decision allowing marriage.
The couple thought it would be more effective and less divisive if people were asked to perform community service instead of staying home with their wallets shut. Dozens of nonprofit agencies, from the National Women's Law Center in Washington to a Methodist church in Fresno collecting food for the homeless, have posted opportunities for volunteers on the couple's Web site.
'CALLING IN GAY DAY' THE LATEST PROP 8 PROTEST
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/08/calling-in-gay-latest-pro_n_149434.html
Some same-sex marriage supporters are urging people to "call in gay" Wednesday to show how much the country relies on gays and lesbians, but others question whether it's wise to encourage skipping work given the nation's economic distress. Organizers of "Day Without a Gay" _ scheduled to coincide with International Human Rights Day and modeled after similar work stoppages by Latino immigrants _ also are encouraging people to perform volunteer work and refrain from spending money.
Sean Hetherington, a West Hollywood comedian and personal trainer, dreamed up the idea with his boyfriend, Aaron Hartzler, after reading online that a few angry gay-rights activists were calling for a daylong strike to protest California voters' passage last month of Proposition 8, which reversed this year's state decision allowing marriage.
The couple thought it would be more effective and less divisive if people were asked to perform community service instead of staying home with their wallets shut. Dozens of nonprofit agencies, from the National Women's Law Center in Washington to a Methodist church in Fresno collecting food for the homeless, have posted opportunities for volunteers on the couple's Web site.
Scarlet spidey
12-09-2008, 03:02 PM
Christian conservatives give more money to charity because their congregations tend to guilt trip them into donating money. I've seen it happen at the three Christian churches I formerly attended, so I don't really consider this to be an ignorant generalization on my part.
I doubt that Christian conservatives would give more money to charity if they weren't told to plop a few bucks into a collection plate, tithe box, etc. every weekendI'm an agnostic conservative and I donate.:o
Scarlet spidey
12-09-2008, 03:02 PM
Christian conservatives give more money to charity because their congregations tend to guilt trip them into donating money. I've seen it happen at the three Christian churches I formerly attended, so I don't really consider this to be an ignorant generalization on my part.
I doubt that Christian conservatives would give more money to charity if they weren't told to plop a few bucks into a collection plate, tithe box, etc. every weekendI'm an agnostic conservative and I donate.:o
Scarlet spidey
12-09-2008, 03:02 PM
Christian conservatives give more money to charity because their congregations tend to guilt trip them into donating money. I've seen it happen at the three Christian churches I formerly attended, so I don't really consider this to be an ignorant generalization on my part.
I doubt that Christian conservatives would give more money to charity if they weren't told to plop a few bucks into a collection plate, tithe box, etc. every weekendI'm an agnostic conservative and I donate.:o
XpunkRocker
12-09-2008, 03:32 PM
there are 4 reasons why people donate to charity
1) They have a personal experience relating to the issue, therefore want to make a difference
2) They are human and like doing good deeds
3) To generate good PR
4) Tax right offs
When companies donate to charity, it is usually 3 and 4. when individuals donate, it is 1, 2, and 4. If it is the middle class, it is usually just 1 and 2.
I also find a lot of those people who pay like $200 a plate for a fundraiser, do it for networking as well i find. When it is $200 a plate, you know the people there will have money and will be "important." so just being there will be a good networking site. but i have seen this slip since the economy is doing bad.
XpunkRocker
12-09-2008, 03:32 PM
there are 4 reasons why people donate to charity
1) They have a personal experience relating to the issue, therefore want to make a difference
2) They are human and like doing good deeds
3) To generate good PR
4) Tax right offs
When companies donate to charity, it is usually 3 and 4. when individuals donate, it is 1, 2, and 4. If it is the middle class, it is usually just 1 and 2.
I also find a lot of those people who pay like $200 a plate for a fundraiser, do it for networking as well i find. When it is $200 a plate, you know the people there will have money and will be "important." so just being there will be a good networking site. but i have seen this slip since the economy is doing bad.
XpunkRocker
12-09-2008, 03:32 PM
there are 4 reasons why people donate to charity
1) They have a personal experience relating to the issue, therefore want to make a difference
2) They are human and like doing good deeds
3) To generate good PR
4) Tax right offs
When companies donate to charity, it is usually 3 and 4. when individuals donate, it is 1, 2, and 4. If it is the middle class, it is usually just 1 and 2.
I also find a lot of those people who pay like $200 a plate for a fundraiser, do it for networking as well i find. When it is $200 a plate, you know the people there will have money and will be "important." so just being there will be a good networking site. but i have seen this slip since the economy is doing bad.
The Senator
12-09-2008, 06:32 PM
2) They are human
Yes, that accounts for 100% of those who donate to charity... unless, of course, animals have learned how to manipulate money these days...
The Senator
12-09-2008, 06:32 PM
2) They are human
Yes, that accounts for 100% of those who donate to charity... unless, of course, animals have learned how to manipulate money these days...
The Senator
12-09-2008, 06:32 PM
2) They are human
Yes, that accounts for 100% of those who donate to charity... unless, of course, animals have learned how to manipulate money these days...
XpunkRocker
12-09-2008, 06:35 PM
maybe i should have chosen my words better since it is difficult to see what i implied. what i SHOULD have said is "they are humane." not much of a difference... just one letter. but i hope that clarified it. if it didn't, i will be happy to clarify it for you :)
XpunkRocker
12-09-2008, 06:35 PM
maybe i should have chosen my words better since it is difficult to see what i implied. what i SHOULD have said is "they are humane." not much of a difference... just one letter. but i hope that clarified it. if it didn't, i will be happy to clarify it for you :)
XpunkRocker
12-09-2008, 06:35 PM
maybe i should have chosen my words better since it is difficult to see what i implied. what i SHOULD have said is "they are humane." not much of a difference... just one letter. but i hope that clarified it. if it didn't, i will be happy to clarify it for you :)
Kelly
12-09-2008, 06:36 PM
Yes, that accounts for 100% of those who donate to charity... unless, of course, animals have learned how to manipulate money these days...
My dogs give in their own way to the SPCA as ambassadors in parades.....:o And let me tell ya, they can bring in the money when they shake their little asses down the street and put on a show....lol
But I believe what he meant by that was......................"being human" can equate to "being compassionate"....at least in some of us.
Kelly
12-09-2008, 06:36 PM
Yes, that accounts for 100% of those who donate to charity... unless, of course, animals have learned how to manipulate money these days...
My dogs give in their own way to the SPCA as ambassadors in parades.....:o And let me tell ya, they can bring in the money when they shake their little asses down the street and put on a show....lol
But I believe what he meant by that was......................"being human" can equate to "being compassionate"....at least in some of us.
Kelly
12-09-2008, 06:36 PM
Yes, that accounts for 100% of those who donate to charity... unless, of course, animals have learned how to manipulate money these days...
My dogs give in their own way to the SPCA as ambassadors in parades.....:o And let me tell ya, they can bring in the money when they shake their little asses down the street and put on a show....lol
But I believe what he meant by that was......................"being human" can equate to "being compassionate"....at least in some of us.
SentinelMind
12-09-2008, 06:39 PM
I work in a low socioeconomic income district.....and I have to say, they do have problems saving, or even having a mindset to save. Now mind you they don't have alot of money to save, but when you "automatically" turn to the government at every turn, then there is a need for a paradigm change. I'm all for helping the poor, but I don't like throwing my money into a black hole of neverending mindset of the "government will take care of me, even if I do nothing"......it works both ways. I believe that the best way for a person to move from one socioeconomic stage to another, or even a country to do so, is through education. When you have parents that do not care what their child is doing, or how their child is doing in school, then you have a child thats going to grow up looking for the easiest way out, and both hands out because the chain has not been broken, it has only added a link.
:up:
SentinelMind
12-09-2008, 06:39 PM
I work in a low socioeconomic income district.....and I have to say, they do have problems saving, or even having a mindset to save. Now mind you they don't have alot of money to save, but when you "automatically" turn to the government at every turn, then there is a need for a paradigm change. I'm all for helping the poor, but I don't like throwing my money into a black hole of neverending mindset of the "government will take care of me, even if I do nothing"......it works both ways. I believe that the best way for a person to move from one socioeconomic stage to another, or even a country to do so, is through education. When you have parents that do not care what their child is doing, or how their child is doing in school, then you have a child thats going to grow up looking for the easiest way out, and both hands out because the chain has not been broken, it has only added a link.
:up:
SentinelMind
12-09-2008, 06:39 PM
I work in a low socioeconomic income district.....and I have to say, they do have problems saving, or even having a mindset to save. Now mind you they don't have alot of money to save, but when you "automatically" turn to the government at every turn, then there is a need for a paradigm change. I'm all for helping the poor, but I don't like throwing my money into a black hole of neverending mindset of the "government will take care of me, even if I do nothing"......it works both ways. I believe that the best way for a person to move from one socioeconomic stage to another, or even a country to do so, is through education. When you have parents that do not care what their child is doing, or how their child is doing in school, then you have a child thats going to grow up looking for the easiest way out, and both hands out because the chain has not been broken, it has only added a link.
:up:
XpunkRocker
12-09-2008, 06:58 PM
But I believe what he meant by that was......................"being human" can equate to "being compassionate"....at least in some of us.
exactly. just take the noun i said and make it into a verb. but i will try to be more carefull next time.
XpunkRocker
12-09-2008, 06:58 PM
But I believe what he meant by that was......................"being human" can equate to "being compassionate"....at least in some of us.
exactly. just take the noun i said and make it into a verb. but i will try to be more carefull next time.
XpunkRocker
12-09-2008, 06:58 PM
But I believe what he meant by that was......................"being human" can equate to "being compassionate"....at least in some of us.
exactly. just take the noun i said and make it into a verb. but i will try to be more carefull next time.
cerealkiller182
12-09-2008, 10:29 PM
Anyone watch the Daily Show?
JOn Stewart totally owned Huckabee on the subject.
cerealkiller182
12-09-2008, 10:29 PM
Anyone watch the Daily Show?
JOn Stewart totally owned Huckabee on the subject.
cerealkiller182
12-09-2008, 10:29 PM
Anyone watch the Daily Show?
JOn Stewart totally owned Huckabee on the subject.
Anyone watch the Daily Show?
JOn Stewart totally owned Huckabee on the subject.
Looks like I'll be trying to catch a repeat then! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif
Anyone watch the Daily Show?
JOn Stewart totally owned Huckabee on the subject.
Looks like I'll be trying to catch a repeat then! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif
Anyone watch the Daily Show?
JOn Stewart totally owned Huckabee on the subject.
Looks like I'll be trying to catch a repeat then! http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon14.gif
Holiday
12-10-2008, 12:55 AM
Anyone watch the Daily Show?
JOn Stewart totally owned Huckabee on the subject.
Owned indeed. Huckabee went back to the same ridiculous arguments that a lot of those who oppose gay marriage have.
And that's the second time in two nights I've heard someone on national tv say they believe being gay was a lifestyle choice. It's pathetic.
Holiday
12-10-2008, 12:55 AM
Anyone watch the Daily Show?
JOn Stewart totally owned Huckabee on the subject.
Owned indeed. Huckabee went back to the same ridiculous arguments that a lot of those who oppose gay marriage have.
And that's the second time in two nights I've heard someone on national tv say they believe being gay was a lifestyle choice. It's pathetic.
Holiday
12-10-2008, 12:55 AM
Anyone watch the Daily Show?
JOn Stewart totally owned Huckabee on the subject.
Owned indeed. Huckabee went back to the same ridiculous arguments that a lot of those who oppose gay marriage have.
And that's the second time in two nights I've heard someone on national tv say they believe being gay was a lifestyle choice. It's pathetic.
cerealkiller182
12-10-2008, 08:35 AM
loved how Stewart called religion more of a lifestyle choice than homosexuality and religion has more legal rights than they do. Huckabee followed that up by saying "yeah but we dont burn people at the stakes. Ex-squeeze me!
Huckabee: We shouldnt redefine marriage
Stewart: <shpeel about how marriage had been redefined before>
Huckabee: We shouldnt redefine marriage
:whatever: open and shut case i guess.
I paraphrased but most of those words were said
cerealkiller182
12-10-2008, 08:35 AM
loved how Stewart called religion more of a lifestyle choice than homosexuality and religion has more legal rights than they do. Huckabee followed that up by saying "yeah but we dont burn people at the stakes. Ex-squeeze me!
Huckabee: We shouldnt redefine marriage
Stewart: <shpeel about how marriage had been redefined before>
Huckabee: We shouldnt redefine marriage
:whatever: open and shut case i guess.
I paraphrased but most of those words were said
cerealkiller182
12-10-2008, 08:35 AM
loved how Stewart called religion more of a lifestyle choice than homosexuality and religion has more legal rights than they do. Huckabee followed that up by saying "yeah but we dont burn people at the stakes. Ex-squeeze me!
Huckabee: We shouldnt redefine marriage
Stewart: <shpeel about how marriage had been redefined before>
Huckabee: We shouldnt redefine marriage
:whatever: open and shut case i guess.
I paraphrased but most of those words were said
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465224,00.html
Jman, what do you think about this?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465224,00.html
Jman, what do you think about this?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465224,00.html
Jman, what do you think about this?
HUCKABEE, STEWART DEBATE GAY MARRIAGE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/10/jon-stewart-mike-huckabee_n_149906.html
(Actual clip included.)
HUCKABEE, STEWART DEBATE GAY MARRIAGE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/10/jon-stewart-mike-huckabee_n_149906.html
(Actual clip included.)
HUCKABEE, STEWART DEBATE GAY MARRIAGE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/10/jon-stewart-mike-huckabee_n_149906.html
(Actual clip included.)
The Senator
12-11-2008, 12:36 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465224,00.html
Jman, what do you think about this?
It is a good concept, but I don't think it works. For one, I don't think it does much if homosexuals refuse to work for one day. Second, I don't think most homosexuals care to miss work solely to protest a ballot initiative in a state most of them don't live in.
I was planning on participating in it, but my job for the semester ended last Friday. Regardless, my boss wouldn't have cared if I took the day off, since my job on campus is fairly easy and doesn't require a lot of time and/ or effort to begin with.
The Senator
12-11-2008, 12:36 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465224,00.html
Jman, what do you think about this?
It is a good concept, but I don't think it works. For one, I don't think it does much if homosexuals refuse to work for one day. Second, I don't think most homosexuals care to miss work solely to protest a ballot initiative in a state most of them don't live in.
I was planning on participating in it, but my job for the semester ended last Friday. Regardless, my boss wouldn't have cared if I took the day off, since my job on campus is fairly easy and doesn't require a lot of time and/ or effort to begin with.
The Senator
12-11-2008, 12:36 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,465224,00.html
Jman, what do you think about this?
It is a good concept, but I don't think it works. For one, I don't think it does much if homosexuals refuse to work for one day. Second, I don't think most homosexuals care to miss work solely to protest a ballot initiative in a state most of them don't live in.
I was planning on participating in it, but my job for the semester ended last Friday. Regardless, my boss wouldn't have cared if I took the day off, since my job on campus is fairly easy and doesn't require a lot of time and/ or effort to begin with.
C.F. Kane
12-11-2008, 12:55 PM
I was actually more worried by Huckabee's image for a perfect society. Not that I don't find his ideas on homosexuality offensive, but his concept of a society where everyone follows "the rules" is pretty scary, especially since he never elaborated on who would make "the rules".
C.F. Kane
12-11-2008, 12:55 PM
I was actually more worried by Huckabee's image for a perfect society. Not that I don't find his ideas on homosexuality offensive, but his concept of a society where everyone follows "the rules" is pretty scary, especially since he never elaborated on who would make "the rules".
C.F. Kane
12-11-2008, 12:55 PM
I was actually more worried by Huckabee's image for a perfect society. Not that I don't find his ideas on homosexuality offensive, but his concept of a society where everyone follows "the rules" is pretty scary, especially since he never elaborated on who would make "the rules".
BlackLantern
12-11-2008, 01:05 PM
He did make a point about "hate"...I believe he said just because someone doesn't support gay marriage doesn't make them hateful, it's just conflicting with their beliefs.....I half agree because it ties into acceptance, if you take someone who has it beaten into their heads that gay people are a certain way or that gay marriage is bad....you can't expect years of that programming to suddenly go away....I'm speaking about person to person, not rights or government legislation
BlackLantern
12-11-2008, 01:05 PM
He did make a point about "hate"...I believe he said just because someone doesn't support gay marriage doesn't make them hateful, it's just conflicting with their beliefs.....I half agree because it ties into acceptance, if you take someone who has it beaten into their heads that gay people are a certain way or that gay marriage is bad....you can't expect years of that programming to suddenly go away....I'm speaking about person to person, not rights or government legislation
BlackLantern
12-11-2008, 01:05 PM
He did make a point about "hate"...I believe he said just because someone doesn't support gay marriage doesn't make them hateful, it's just conflicting with their beliefs.....I half agree because it ties into acceptance, if you take someone who has it beaten into their heads that gay people are a certain way or that gay marriage is bad....you can't expect years of that programming to suddenly go away....I'm speaking about person to person, not rights or government legislation
The Senator
12-11-2008, 01:19 PM
I was actually more worried by Huckabee's image for a perfect society. Not that I don't find his ideas on homosexuality offensive, but his concept of a society where everyone follows "the rules" is pretty scary, especially since he never elaborated on who would make "the rules".
Jesus Christ makes the rules. Huckabee said during the 2008 campaign that he feels the Constitution should be amended to reflect "God's law." In other words, there should be amendments where it's alright for men to stone their wives if they lost their virginity before marriage and to sell their daughters into slavery.
The Senator
12-11-2008, 01:19 PM
I was actually more worried by Huckabee's image for a perfect society. Not that I don't find his ideas on homosexuality offensive, but his concept of a society where everyone follows "the rules" is pretty scary, especially since he never elaborated on who would make "the rules".
Jesus Christ makes the rules. Huckabee said during the 2008 campaign that he feels the Constitution should be amended to reflect "God's law." In other words, there should be amendments where it's alright for men to stone their wives if they lost their virginity before marriage and to sell their daughters into slavery.
The Senator
12-11-2008, 01:19 PM
I was actually more worried by Huckabee's image for a perfect society. Not that I don't find his ideas on homosexuality offensive, but his concept of a society where everyone follows "the rules" is pretty scary, especially since he never elaborated on who would make "the rules".
Jesus Christ makes the rules. Huckabee said during the 2008 campaign that he feels the Constitution should be amended to reflect "God's law." In other words, there should be amendments where it's alright for men to stone their wives if they lost their virginity before marriage and to sell their daughters into slavery.
Schlosser85
12-11-2008, 02:44 PM
If Jesus came back tomorrow, the evangelicals would end up stoning him to death.
Schlosser85
12-11-2008, 02:44 PM
If Jesus came back tomorrow, the evangelicals would end up stoning him to death.
Schlosser85
12-11-2008, 02:44 PM
If Jesus came back tomorrow, the evangelicals would end up stoning him to death.
XpunkRocker
12-11-2008, 02:45 PM
if they didnt already
XpunkRocker
12-11-2008, 02:45 PM
if they didnt already
XpunkRocker
12-11-2008, 02:45 PM
if they didnt already
He did make a point about "hate"...I believe he said just because someone doesn't support gay marriage doesn't make them hateful, it's just conflicting with their beliefs.....I half agree because it ties into acceptance, if you take someone who has it beaten into their heads that gay people are a certain way or that gay marriage is bad....you can't expect years of that programming to suddenly go away....I'm speaking about person to person, not rights or government legislation
Huckabee doesn't believe in acceptance though. Despite his comment about 'not supporting gay marriage doesn't make one hateful', he does believe that gays should have to 'make a case' for equal rights. That's not acceptance. That's not tolerance. That's division. And ignorance. Jon Stewart hammered him out of the park on this whole issue.
He did make a point about "hate"...I believe he said just because someone doesn't support gay marriage doesn't make them hateful, it's just conflicting with their beliefs.....I half agree because it ties into acceptance, if you take someone who has it beaten into their heads that gay people are a certain way or that gay marriage is bad....you can't expect years of that programming to suddenly go away....I'm speaking about person to person, not rights or government legislation
Huckabee doesn't believe in acceptance though. Despite his comment about 'not supporting gay marriage doesn't make one hateful', he does believe that gays should have to 'make a case' for equal rights. That's not acceptance. That's not tolerance. That's division. And ignorance. Jon Stewart hammered him out of the park on this whole issue.
He did make a point about "hate"...I believe he said just because someone doesn't support gay marriage doesn't make them hateful, it's just conflicting with their beliefs.....I half agree because it ties into acceptance, if you take someone who has it beaten into their heads that gay people are a certain way or that gay marriage is bad....you can't expect years of that programming to suddenly go away....I'm speaking about person to person, not rights or government legislation
Huckabee doesn't believe in acceptance though. Despite his comment about 'not supporting gay marriage doesn't make one hateful', he does believe that gays should have to 'make a case' for equal rights. That's not acceptance. That's not tolerance. That's division. And ignorance. Jon Stewart hammered him out of the park on this whole issue.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, the evangelicals would end up stoning him to death.
Sad, but true.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, the evangelicals would end up stoning him to death.
Sad, but true.
If Jesus came back tomorrow, the evangelicals would end up stoning him to death.
Sad, but true.
C.F. Kane
12-11-2008, 11:11 PM
Jesus Christ makes the rules. Huckabee said during the 2008 campaign that he feels the Constitution should be amended to reflect "God's law." In other words, there should be amendments where it's alright for men to stone their wives if they lost their virginity before marriage and to sell their daughters into slavery.
Thought so. His vision for America is a nationwide Liberty University.
C.F. Kane
12-11-2008, 11:11 PM
Jesus Christ makes the rules. Huckabee said during the 2008 campaign that he feels the Constitution should be amended to reflect "God's law." In other words, there should be amendments where it's alright for men to stone their wives if they lost their virginity before marriage and to sell their daughters into slavery.
Thought so. His vision for America is a nationwide Liberty University.
C.F. Kane
12-11-2008, 11:11 PM
Jesus Christ makes the rules. Huckabee said during the 2008 campaign that he feels the Constitution should be amended to reflect "God's law." In other words, there should be amendments where it's alright for men to stone their wives if they lost their virginity before marriage and to sell their daughters into slavery.
Thought so. His vision for America is a nationwide Liberty University.
Spider-Bite
12-12-2008, 12:30 PM
Jesus Christ makes the rules. Huckabee said during the 2008 campaign that he feels the Constitution should be amended to reflect "God's law." In other words, there should be amendments where it's alright for men to stone their wives if they lost their virginity before marriage and to sell their daughters into slavery.
Man that is shocking. Really.
Spider-Bite
12-12-2008, 12:30 PM
Jesus Christ makes the rules. Huckabee said during the 2008 campaign that he feels the Constitution should be amended to reflect "God's law." In other words, there should be amendments where it's alright for men to stone their wives if they lost their virginity before marriage and to sell their daughters into slavery.
Man that is shocking. Really.
Spider-Bite
12-12-2008, 12:30 PM
Jesus Christ makes the rules. Huckabee said during the 2008 campaign that he feels the Constitution should be amended to reflect "God's law." In other words, there should be amendments where it's alright for men to stone their wives if they lost their virginity before marriage and to sell their daughters into slavery.
Man that is shocking. Really.
Spider-Bite
12-12-2008, 12:34 PM
there are 4 reasons why people donate to charity
1) They have a personal experience relating to the issue, therefore want to make a difference
2) They are human and like doing good deeds
3) To generate good PR
4) Tax right offs
When companies donate to charity, it is usually 3 and 4. when individuals donate, it is 1, 2, and 4. If it is the middle class, it is usually just 1 and 2.
I also find a lot of those people who pay like $200 a plate for a fundraiser, do it for networking as well i find. When it is $200 a plate, you know the people there will have money and will be "important." so just being there will be a good networking site. but i have seen this slip since the economy is doing bad.
Number 4 never, ever applies. The tax write off is way smaller than what you actually donate. It would be like me offering you a hundred dollars to pay me five dollars. It defeats the purpose.
Spider-Bite
12-12-2008, 12:34 PM
there are 4 reasons why people donate to charity
1) They have a personal experience relating to the issue, therefore want to make a difference
2) They are human and like doing good deeds
3) To generate good PR
4) Tax right offs
When companies donate to charity, it is usually 3 and 4. when individuals donate, it is 1, 2, and 4. If it is the middle class, it is usually just 1 and 2.
I also find a lot of those people who pay like $200 a plate for a fundraiser, do it for networking as well i find. When it is $200 a plate, you know the people there will have money and will be "important." so just being there will be a good networking site. but i have seen this slip since the economy is doing bad.
Number 4 never, ever applies. The tax write off is way smaller than what you actually donate. It would be like me offering you a hundred dollars to pay me five dollars. It defeats the purpose.
Spider-Bite
12-12-2008, 12:34 PM
there are 4 reasons why people donate to charity
1) They have a personal experience relating to the issue, therefore want to make a difference
2) They are human and like doing good deeds
3) To generate good PR
4) Tax right offs
When companies donate to charity, it is usually 3 and 4. when individuals donate, it is 1, 2, and 4. If it is the middle class, it is usually just 1 and 2.
I also find a lot of those people who pay like $200 a plate for a fundraiser, do it for networking as well i find. When it is $200 a plate, you know the people there will have money and will be "important." so just being there will be a good networking site. but i have seen this slip since the economy is doing bad.
Number 4 never, ever applies. The tax write off is way smaller than what you actually donate. It would be like me offering you a hundred dollars to pay me five dollars. It defeats the purpose.
CaptainClown
12-12-2008, 12:37 PM
If Jesus came back tomorrow, the evangelicals would end up stoning him to death.
more or less
CaptainClown
12-12-2008, 12:37 PM
If Jesus came back tomorrow, the evangelicals would end up stoning him to death.
more or less
CaptainClown
12-12-2008, 12:37 PM
If Jesus came back tomorrow, the evangelicals would end up stoning him to death.
more or less
BlackLantern
12-12-2008, 12:40 PM
I've made charitable donations to score brownie points with a girl
BlackLantern
12-12-2008, 12:40 PM
I've made charitable donations to score brownie points with a girl
BlackLantern
12-12-2008, 12:40 PM
I've made charitable donations to score brownie points with a girl
XpunkRocker
12-12-2008, 02:04 PM
Number 4 never, ever applies. The tax write off is way smaller than what you actually donate. It would be like me offering you a hundred dollars to pay me five dollars. It defeats the purpose.
It applies to me. It is crucial, and i have used this technique many times. What you do is your company makes like 300,000 in profit let's say. The government is going to tax you heavily, depending on what the tax brackets are like for you area.
So lets say..... making 300,000 makes you pay 40% in taxes. but, if you made 280,000. you only have to pay thirty. So you take 20,000 and give it to charity. that puts you in a lower bracket, but you still made 300,000. So when you do business with other companies, you can tell them that your company made 300,000. but you only paid taxes as if you made 280,000.
the more you make, the more you're taxed. I am not very good at manipulating the system. It gets complicated because there are so many governments and taxes to go through. the accountant i use usually tells me what the best way to go about it is.
XpunkRocker
12-12-2008, 02:04 PM
Number 4 never, ever applies. The tax write off is way smaller than what you actually donate. It would be like me offering you a hundred dollars to pay me five dollars. It defeats the purpose.
It applies to me. It is crucial, and i have used this technique many times. What you do is your company makes like 300,000 in profit let's say. The government is going to tax you heavily, depending on what the tax brackets are like for you area.
So lets say..... making 300,000 makes you pay 40% in taxes. but, if you made 280,000. you only have to pay thirty. So you take 20,000 and give it to charity. that puts you in a lower bracket, but you still made 300,000. So when you do business with other companies, you can tell them that your company made 300,000. but you only paid taxes as if you made 280,000.
the more you make, the more you're taxed. I am not very good at manipulating the system. It gets complicated because there are so many governments and taxes to go through. the accountant i use usually tells me what the best way to go about it is.
XpunkRocker
12-12-2008, 02:04 PM
Number 4 never, ever applies. The tax write off is way smaller than what you actually donate. It would be like me offering you a hundred dollars to pay me five dollars. It defeats the purpose.
It applies to me. It is crucial, and i have used this technique many times. What you do is your company makes like 300,000 in profit let's say. The government is going to tax you heavily, depending on what the tax brackets are like for you area.
So lets say..... making 300,000 makes you pay 40% in taxes. but, if you made 280,000. you only have to pay thirty. So you take 20,000 and give it to charity. that puts you in a lower bracket, but you still made 300,000. So when you do business with other companies, you can tell them that your company made 300,000. but you only paid taxes as if you made 280,000.
the more you make, the more you're taxed. I am not very good at manipulating the system. It gets complicated because there are so many governments and taxes to go through. the accountant i use usually tells me what the best way to go about it is.
Timstuff
12-13-2008, 09:55 AM
HUCKABEE, STEWART DEBATE GAY MARRIAGE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/10/jon-stewart-mike-huckabee_n_149906.html
(Actual clip included.)
I think that they both did a good job of eloquently making their points without getting petty, and I can understand where Stewart is coming from on the issue. However, my opinion is still that many people have overdramaticized this issue on both sides, and instead of reaching a compromise through political discourse it's turned into a big fight. The real problem here, which I am disappointed that niether Stewart or Huckabee brought up, is that this all started when the courts hrew out the marriage laws California already had and essentially wrote their own. As soon as the courts starts legislating from the bench, it becomes more than just a question over a single issue: it becomes a question of checks and balances.
This was an issue that should have been handled by the legislature, but it turned into a game of ping pong with a live hand grenade between the courts and the voters. The fact of the matter though is that laws are not supposed to be written from the bench, and when California's supreme court took political advantage of what it perceived as vague language in the constitution, it ticked off a lot of people.
Democracy was being threatened by the courts, and while many think it's unfair that this had to be the issue that caused a backlash from voters, something important to remember is the GLBT community is not the only sexual minority who's hopes for marriage were dashed by prop 8. This was an issue that was actually much bigger than marriage or the GLBT movement, and it's really a shame it had to be resolved in such an ugly way. If and when America is ready to accept gay marriage, it should not have to be made legal through an unelected body of officials.
Timstuff
12-13-2008, 09:55 AM
HUCKABEE, STEWART DEBATE GAY MARRIAGE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/10/jon-stewart-mike-huckabee_n_149906.html
(Actual clip included.)
I think that they both did a good job of eloquently making their points without getting petty, and I can understand where Stewart is coming from on the issue. However, my opinion is still that many people have overdramaticized this issue on both sides, and instead of reaching a compromise through political discourse it's turned into a big fight. The real problem here, which I am disappointed that niether Stewart or Huckabee brought up, is that this all started when the courts hrew out the marriage laws California already had and essentially wrote their own. As soon as the courts starts legislating from the bench, it becomes more than just a question over a single issue: it becomes a question of checks and balances.
This was an issue that should have been handled by the legislature, but it turned into a game of ping pong with a live hand grenade between the courts and the voters. The fact of the matter though is that laws are not supposed to be written from the bench, and when California's supreme court took political advantage of what it perceived as vague language in the constitution, it ticked off a lot of people.
Democracy was being threatened by the courts, and while many think it's unfair that this had to be the issue that caused a backlash from voters, something important to remember is the GLBT community is not the only sexual minority who's hopes for marriage were dashed by prop 8. This was an issue that was actually much bigger than marriage or the GLBT movement, and it's really a shame it had to be resolved in such an ugly way. If and when America is ready to accept gay marriage, it should not have to be made legal through an unelected body of officials.
Timstuff
12-13-2008, 09:55 AM
HUCKABEE, STEWART DEBATE GAY MARRIAGE
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/10/jon-stewart-mike-huckabee_n_149906.html
(Actual clip included.)
I think that they both did a good job of eloquently making their points without getting petty, and I can understand where Stewart is coming from on the issue. However, my opinion is still that many people have overdramaticized this issue on both sides, and instead of reaching a compromise through political discourse it's turned into a big fight. The real problem here, which I am disappointed that niether Stewart or Huckabee brought up, is that this all started when the courts hrew out the marriage laws California already had and essentially wrote their own. As soon as the courts starts legislating from the bench, it becomes more than just a question over a single issue: it becomes a question of checks and balances.
This was an issue that should have been handled by the legislature, but it turned into a game of ping pong with a live hand grenade between the courts and the voters. The fact of the matter though is that laws are not supposed to be written from the bench, and when California's supreme court took political advantage of what it perceived as vague language in the constitution, it ticked off a lot of people.
Democracy was being threatened by the courts, and while many think it's unfair that this had to be the issue that caused a backlash from voters, something important to remember is the GLBT community is not the only sexual minority who's hopes for marriage were dashed by prop 8. This was an issue that was actually much bigger than marriage or the GLBT movement, and it's really a shame it had to be resolved in such an ugly way. If and when America is ready to accept gay marriage, it should not have to be made legal through an unelected body of officials.
wiegeabo
12-13-2008, 02:27 PM
The court didn't 'legislate'. It's called judicial review. The court did what it was supposed to do. Use it's checks and balances power on the legislature. Just because the legislature passes a law doesn't mean it's a good or constitutional one. That's why the executive branch still has to sign off on the law, and the courts still have to declare it constitutional.
In the case of gay marriage, the supreme court found that, as the California Constitution was written at the time, banning gay marriage was discriminatory and unconstitutional. So it threw the law out just like it's allowed to. This has gone on since our country was in its infancy. The US Supreme Court has done it many times. Throwing out the 'Separate but Equal' laws in the 50's is another example.
wiegeabo
12-13-2008, 02:27 PM
The court didn't 'legislate'. It's called judicial review. The court did what it was supposed to do. Use it's checks and balances power on the legislature. Just because the legislature passes a law doesn't mean it's a good or constitutional one. That's why the executive branch still has to sign off on the law, and the courts still have to declare it constitutional.
In the case of gay marriage, the supreme court found that, as the California Constitution was written at the time, banning gay marriage was discriminatory and unconstitutional. So it threw the law out just like it's allowed to. This has gone on since our country was in its infancy. The US Supreme Court has done it many times. Throwing out the 'Separate but Equal' laws in the 50's is another example.
wiegeabo
12-13-2008, 02:27 PM
The court didn't 'legislate'. It's called judicial review. The court did what it was supposed to do. Use it's checks and balances power on the legislature. Just because the legislature passes a law doesn't mean it's a good or constitutional one. That's why the executive branch still has to sign off on the law, and the courts still have to declare it constitutional.
In the case of gay marriage, the supreme court found that, as the California Constitution was written at the time, banning gay marriage was discriminatory and unconstitutional. So it threw the law out just like it's allowed to. This has gone on since our country was in its infancy. The US Supreme Court has done it many times. Throwing out the 'Separate but Equal' laws in the 50's is another example.
Handsome Rob
12-13-2008, 03:24 PM
It applies to me. It is crucial, and i have used this technique many times. What you do is your company makes like 300,000 in profit let's say. The government is going to tax you heavily, depending on what the tax brackets are like for you area.
So lets say..... making 300,000 makes you pay 40% in taxes. but, if you made 280,000. you only have to pay thirty. So you take 20,000 and give it to charity. that puts you in a lower bracket, but you still made 300,000. So when you do business with other companies, you can tell them that your company made 300,000. but you only paid taxes as if you made 280,000.
the more you make, the more you're taxed. I am not very good at manipulating the system. It gets complicated because there are so many governments and taxes to go through. the accountant i use usually tells me what the best way to go about it is.
I would double-check with your accountant on that. There's no way that I know of where a deduction can result in a savings greater than the deduction itself. The reason why is that any deduction results in a savings of the income tax liability that money would have originally been subject to. Taxable income is calculated based on a series of tax brackets. The only income taxable at a higher rate is that income that exceeds the ceiling for the rate below it. I'll show you what I mean by using your example.
Taxable income of $300,000 would be taxed in this way:
1) The first $50,000 would be subject to a 15% rate ($7,500)
2) The income between $50,001 and $75,000 would be subject to a 25% rate ($6,250)
3) The income between $75,000 and $300,000 would be taxed at 34% rate ($69,700)
So, you would end up with a tax liability of $90,250. This would leave you with an after tax net income of $209,750.
Now, let's have that $20,000 deduction. Your taxable income drops to $280,000. Your income up to $75,000 would be taxed the same way, only now you would have $205,000 subject to the 34% rate ($280,000 - $75,000).
That would leave you with a tax liability of $83,450. $280,000 - $83,450 = $196,550. This is your after tax net income--$13,200 less than before. So, you gave away $20,000 for a $6,800 savings in your tax liability.
Even if your deduction bumped you into a lower bracket, if wouldn't matter. Let's say your taxable income is $80,000. So, to get into the lower bracket, you donate $10,000 to charity. Before the donation, your tax liability would be $15,450. After giving away $10,000, your tax liability would be $12,500. So, you spend $10,000 for a $2,950 savings on your taxes.
Handsome Rob
12-13-2008, 03:24 PM
It applies to me. It is crucial, and i have used this technique many times. What you do is your company makes like 300,000 in profit let's say. The government is going to tax you heavily, depending on what the tax brackets are like for you area.
So lets say..... making 300,000 makes you pay 40% in taxes. but, if you made 280,000. you only have to pay thirty. So you take 20,000 and give it to charity. that puts you in a lower bracket, but you still made 300,000. So when you do business with other companies, you can tell them that your company made 300,000. but you only paid taxes as if you made 280,000.
the more you make, the more you're taxed. I am not very good at manipulating the system. It gets complicated because there are so many governments and taxes to go through. the accountant i use usually tells me what the best way to go about it is.
I would double-check with your accountant on that. There's no way that I know of where a deduction can result in a savings greater than the deduction itself. The reason why is that any deduction results in a savings of the income tax liability that money would have originally been subject to. Taxable income is calculated based on a series of tax brackets. The only income taxable at a higher rate is that income that exceeds the ceiling for the rate below it. I'll show you what I mean by using your example.
Taxable income of $300,000 would be taxed in this way:
1) The first $50,000 would be subject to a 15% rate ($7,500)
2) The income between $50,001 and $75,000 would be subject to a 25% rate ($6,250)
3) The income between $75,000 and $300,000 would be taxed at 34% rate ($69,700)
So, you would end up with a tax liability of $90,250. This would leave you with an after tax net income of $209,750.
Now, let's have that $20,000 deduction. Your taxable income drops to $280,000. Your income up to $75,000 would be taxed the same way, only now you would have $205,000 subject to the 34% rate ($280,000 - $75,000).
That would leave you with a tax liability of $83,450. $280,000 - $83,450 = $196,550. This is your after tax net income--$13,200 less than before. So, you gave away $20,000 for a $6,800 savings in your tax liability.
Even if your deduction bumped you into a lower bracket, if wouldn't matter. Let's say your taxable income is $80,000. So, to get into the lower bracket, you donate $10,000 to charity. Before the donation, your tax liability would be $15,450. After giving away $10,000, your tax liability would be $12,500. So, you spend $10,000 for a $2,950 savings on your taxes.
Handsome Rob
12-13-2008, 03:24 PM
It applies to me. It is crucial, and i have used this technique many times. What you do is your company makes like 300,000 in profit let's say. The government is going to tax you heavily, depending on what the tax brackets are like for you area.
So lets say..... making 300,000 makes you pay 40% in taxes. but, if you made 280,000. you only have to pay thirty. So you take 20,000 and give it to charity. that puts you in a lower bracket, but you still made 300,000. So when you do business with other companies, you can tell them that your company made 300,000. but you only paid taxes as if you made 280,000.
the more you make, the more you're taxed. I am not very good at manipulating the system. It gets complicated because there are so many governments and taxes to go through. the accountant i use usually tells me what the best way to go about it is.
I would double-check with your accountant on that. There's no way that I know of where a deduction can result in a savings greater than the deduction itself. The reason why is that any deduction results in a savings of the income tax liability that money would have originally been subject to. Taxable income is calculated based on a series of tax brackets. The only income taxable at a higher rate is that income that exceeds the ceiling for the rate below it. I'll show you what I mean by using your example.
Taxable income of $300,000 would be taxed in this way:
1) The first $50,000 would be subject to a 15% rate ($7,500)
2) The income between $50,001 and $75,000 would be subject to a 25% rate ($6,250)
3) The income between $75,000 and $300,000 would be taxed at 34% rate ($69,700)
So, you would end up with a tax liability of $90,250. This would leave you with an after tax net income of $209,750.
Now, let's have that $20,000 deduction. Your taxable income drops to $280,000. Your income up to $75,000 would be taxed the same way, only now you would have $205,000 subject to the 34% rate ($280,000 - $75,000).
That would leave you with a tax liability of $83,450. $280,000 - $83,450 = $196,550. This is your after tax net income--$13,200 less than before. So, you gave away $20,000 for a $6,800 savings in your tax liability.
Even if your deduction bumped you into a lower bracket, if wouldn't matter. Let's say your taxable income is $80,000. So, to get into the lower bracket, you donate $10,000 to charity. Before the donation, your tax liability would be $15,450. After giving away $10,000, your tax liability would be $12,500. So, you spend $10,000 for a $2,950 savings on your taxes.
XpunkRocker
12-13-2008, 05:58 PM
I would double-check with your accountant on that. There's no way that I know of where a deduction can result in a savings greater than the deduction itself. The reason why is that any deduction results in a savings of the income tax liability that money would have originally been subject to. Taxable income is calculated based on a series of tax brackets. The only income taxable at a higher rate is that income that exceeds the ceiling for the rate below it. I'll show you what I mean by using your example.
Taxable income of $300,000 would be taxed in this way:
1) The first $50,000 would be subject to a 15% rate ($7,500)
2) The income between $50,001 and $75,000 would be subject to a 25% rate ($6,250)
3) The income between $75,000 and $300,000 would be taxed at 34% rate ($69,700)
So, you would end up with a tax liability of $90,250. This would leave you with an after tax net income of $209,750.
Now, let's have that $20,000 deduction. Your taxable income drops to $280,000. Your income up to $75,000 would be taxed the same way, only now you would have $205,000 subject to the 34% rate ($280,000 - $75,000).
That would leave you with a tax liability of $83,450. $280,000 - $83,450 = $196,550. This is your after tax net income--$13,200 less than before. So, you gave away $20,000 for a $6,800 savings in your tax liability.
Even if your deduction bumped you into a lower bracket, if wouldn't matter. Let's say your taxable income is $80,000. So, to get into the lower bracket, you donate $10,000 to charity. Before the donation, your tax liability would be $15,450. After giving away $10,000, your tax liability would be $12,500. So, you spend $10,000 for a $2,950 savings on your taxes.
that is the national part. the county has some..... other things. which is why my county has lost so many jobs. the small businesses were taxed to death. my state wasn't much help either. Then there are city taxes as well.
XpunkRocker
12-13-2008, 05:58 PM
I would double-check with your accountant on that. There's no way that I know of where a deduction can result in a savings greater than the deduction itself. The reason why is that any deduction results in a savings of the income tax liability that money would have originally been subject to. Taxable income is calculated based on a series of tax brackets. The only income taxable at a higher rate is that income that exceeds the ceiling for the rate below it. I'll show you what I mean by using your example.
Taxable income of $300,000 would be taxed in this way:
1) The first $50,000 would be subject to a 15% rate ($7,500)
2) The income between $50,001 and $75,000 would be subject to a 25% rate ($6,250)
3) The income between $75,000 and $300,000 would be taxed at 34% rate ($69,700)
So, you would end up with a tax liability of $90,250. This would leave you with an after tax net income of $209,750.
Now, let's have that $20,000 deduction. Your taxable income drops to $280,000. Your income up to $75,000 would be taxed the same way, only now you would have $205,000 subject to the 34% rate ($280,000 - $75,000).
That would leave you with a tax liability of $83,450. $280,000 - $83,450 = $196,550. This is your after tax net income--$13,200 less than before. So, you gave away $20,000 for a $6,800 savings in your tax liability.
Even if your deduction bumped you into a lower bracket, if wouldn't matter. Let's say your taxable income is $80,000. So, to get into the lower bracket, you donate $10,000 to charity. Before the donation, your tax liability would be $15,450. After giving away $10,000, your tax liability would be $12,500. So, you spend $10,000 for a $2,950 savings on your taxes.
that is the national part. the county has some..... other things. which is why my county has lost so many jobs. the small businesses were taxed to death. my state wasn't much help either. Then there are city taxes as well.
XpunkRocker
12-13-2008, 05:58 PM
I would double-check with your accountant on that. There's no way that I know of where a deduction can result in a savings greater than the deduction itself. The reason why is that any deduction results in a savings of the income tax liability that money would have originally been subject to. Taxable income is calculated based on a series of tax brackets. The only income taxable at a higher rate is that income that exceeds the ceiling for the rate below it. I'll show you what I mean by using your example.
Taxable income of $300,000 would be taxed in this way:
1) The first $50,000 would be subject to a 15% rate ($7,500)
2) The income between $50,001 and $75,000 would be subject to a 25% rate ($6,250)
3) The income between $75,000 and $300,000 would be taxed at 34% rate ($69,700)
So, you would end up with a tax liability of $90,250. This would leave you with an after tax net income of $209,750.
Now, let's have that $20,000 deduction. Your taxable income drops to $280,000. Your income up to $75,000 would be taxed the same way, only now you would have $205,000 subject to the 34% rate ($280,000 - $75,000).
That would leave you with a tax liability of $83,450. $280,000 - $83,450 = $196,550. This is your after tax net income--$13,200 less than before. So, you gave away $20,000 for a $6,800 savings in your tax liability.
Even if your deduction bumped you into a lower bracket, if wouldn't matter. Let's say your taxable income is $80,000. So, to get into the lower bracket, you donate $10,000 to charity. Before the donation, your tax liability would be $15,450. After giving away $10,000, your tax liability would be $12,500. So, you spend $10,000 for a $2,950 savings on your taxes.
that is the national part. the county has some..... other things. which is why my county has lost so many jobs. the small businesses were taxed to death. my state wasn't much help either. Then there are city taxes as well.
Hobgoblin
12-13-2008, 09:47 PM
I want to know what you guys think.
Personally, I dont like ideas coming from the top down. I dont care of they are liberal or conservative ideas. So I dont like the amendment banning gay marriage but I dont like it being made legal suddenly either, in spite of so many people being against it. So what if every state put it to a vote? That way Massachusetts can have it legalized but Texas can keep it illegal. I know its not a good idea, but I dont see any other way to do it.
Hobgoblin
12-13-2008, 09:47 PM
I want to know what you guys think.
Personally, I dont like ideas coming from the top down. I dont care of they are liberal or conservative ideas. So I dont like the amendment banning gay marriage but I dont like it being made legal suddenly either, in spite of so many people being against it. So what if every state put it to a vote? That way Massachusetts can have it legalized but Texas can keep it illegal. I know its not a good idea, but I dont see any other way to do it.
Hobgoblin
12-13-2008, 09:47 PM
I want to know what you guys think.
Personally, I dont like ideas coming from the top down. I dont care of they are liberal or conservative ideas. So I dont like the amendment banning gay marriage but I dont like it being made legal suddenly either, in spite of so many people being against it. So what if every state put it to a vote? That way Massachusetts can have it legalized but Texas can keep it illegal. I know its not a good idea, but I dont see any other way to do it.
Gilpesh
12-13-2008, 09:55 PM
but I dont see any other way to do it.
I think we should skip the whole... gay people should avoid these states if they want rights... which will lead to a few incidents over that...
And just get to the part where the federal government makes it legal and says, "Deal with it," to the bigots.
Gilpesh
12-13-2008, 09:55 PM
but I dont see any other way to do it.
I think we should skip the whole... gay people should avoid these states if they want rights... which will lead to a few incidents over that...
And just get to the part where the federal government makes it legal and says, "Deal with it," to the bigots.
Gilpesh
12-13-2008, 09:55 PM
but I dont see any other way to do it.
I think we should skip the whole... gay people should avoid these states if they want rights... which will lead to a few incidents over that...
And just get to the part where the federal government makes it legal and says, "Deal with it," to the bigots.
wiegeabo
12-13-2008, 10:14 PM
I think we should skip the whole... gay people should avoid these states if they want rights... which will lead to a few incidents over that...
And just get to the part where the federal government makes it legal and says, "Deal with it," to the bigots.
Just like they did in the 50's and 60's. :up:
wiegeabo
12-13-2008, 10:14 PM
I think we should skip the whole... gay people should avoid these states if they want rights... which will lead to a few incidents over that...
And just get to the part where the federal government makes it legal and says, "Deal with it," to the bigots.
Just like they did in the 50's and 60's. :up:
wiegeabo
12-13-2008, 10:14 PM
I think we should skip the whole... gay people should avoid these states if they want rights... which will lead to a few incidents over that...
And just get to the part where the federal government makes it legal and says, "Deal with it," to the bigots.
Just like they did in the 50's and 60's. :up:
I want to know what you guys think.
Personally, I dont like ideas coming from the top down. I dont care of they are liberal or conservative ideas. So I dont like the amendment banning gay marriage but I dont like it being made legal suddenly either, in spite of so many people being against it. So what if every state put it to a vote? That way Massachusetts can have it legalized but Texas can keep it illegal. I know its not a good idea, but I dont see any other way to do it.
I always find it unsettling when the rights of the minority are based on a vote by the majority.
I want to know what you guys think.
Personally, I dont like ideas coming from the top down. I dont care of they are liberal or conservative ideas. So I dont like the amendment banning gay marriage but I dont like it being made legal suddenly either, in spite of so many people being against it. So what if every state put it to a vote? That way Massachusetts can have it legalized but Texas can keep it illegal. I know its not a good idea, but I dont see any other way to do it.
I always find it unsettling when the rights of the minority are based on a vote by the majority.
I want to know what you guys think.
Personally, I dont like ideas coming from the top down. I dont care of they are liberal or conservative ideas. So I dont like the amendment banning gay marriage but I dont like it being made legal suddenly either, in spite of so many people being against it. So what if every state put it to a vote? That way Massachusetts can have it legalized but Texas can keep it illegal. I know its not a good idea, but I dont see any other way to do it.
I always find it unsettling when the rights of the minority are based on a vote by the majority.
XpunkRocker
12-14-2008, 01:18 AM
I want to know what you guys think.
Personally, I dont like ideas coming from the top down. I dont care of they are liberal or conservative ideas. So I dont like the amendment banning gay marriage but I dont like it being made legal suddenly either, in spite of so many people being against it. So what if every state put it to a vote? That way Massachusetts can have it legalized but Texas can keep it illegal. I know its not a good idea, but I dont see any other way to do it.
that is how we are doing it now. and almost all states don't want it. not even california now. gay marraige is a state issue and the states usually have the people vote on it.
XpunkRocker
12-14-2008, 01:18 AM
I want to know what you guys think.
Personally, I dont like ideas coming from the top down. I dont care of they are liberal or conservative ideas. So I dont like the amendment banning gay marriage but I dont like it being made legal suddenly either, in spite of so many people being against it. So what if every state put it to a vote? That way Massachusetts can have it legalized but Texas can keep it illegal. I know its not a good idea, but I dont see any other way to do it.
that is how we are doing it now. and almost all states don't want it. not even california now. gay marraige is a state issue and the states usually have the people vote on it.
XpunkRocker
12-14-2008, 01:18 AM
I want to know what you guys think.
Personally, I dont like ideas coming from the top down. I dont care of they are liberal or conservative ideas. So I dont like the amendment banning gay marriage but I dont like it being made legal suddenly either, in spite of so many people being against it. So what if every state put it to a vote? That way Massachusetts can have it legalized but Texas can keep it illegal. I know its not a good idea, but I dont see any other way to do it.
that is how we are doing it now. and almost all states don't want it. not even california now. gay marraige is a state issue and the states usually have the people vote on it.
Kelly
12-14-2008, 08:44 AM
I want to know what you guys think.
Personally, I dont like ideas coming from the top down. I dont care of they are liberal or conservative ideas. So I dont like the amendment banning gay marriage but I dont like it being made legal suddenly either, in spite of so many people being against it. So what if every state put it to a vote? That way Massachusetts can have it legalized but Texas can keep it illegal. I know its not a good idea, but I dont see any other way to do it.
If we followed this concept Demo.......women would not have the right to vote, and the Civil Right's Amendments would have never been written.
But, as I have stated before, and I will probably get slammed again for not knowing what I'm talking about, but I'll go with it anyway. The white elephant in the room, IMO......just my opinion......is that the gay population more wants the acceptance of the majority, as in.......people saying...."the gay lifestyle is right"......they already have rights that all U.S. citizens have, except the right of marriage. So if this is about marriage.....then cool legislate it. If its about acceptance, I'm not sure that that can be legislated....
Kelly
12-14-2008, 08:44 AM
I want to know what you guys think.
Personally, I dont like ideas coming from the top down. I dont care of they are liberal or conservative ideas. So I dont like the amendment banning gay marriage but I dont like it being made legal suddenly either, in spite of so many people being against it. So what if every state put it to a vote? That way Massachusetts can have it legalized but Texas can keep it illegal. I know its not a good idea, but I dont see any other way to do it.
If we followed this concept Demo.......women would not have the right to vote, and the Civil Right's Amendments would have never been written.
But, as I have stated before, and I will probably get slammed again for not knowing what I'm talking about, but I'll go with it anyway. The white elephant in the room, IMO......just my opinion......is that the gay population more wants the acceptance of the majority, as in.......people saying...."the gay lifestyle is right"......they already have rights that all U.S. citizens have, except the right of marriage. So if this is about marriage.....then cool legislate it. If its about acceptance, I'm not sure that that can be legislated....
Kelly
12-14-2008, 08:44 AM
I want to know what you guys think.
Personally, I dont like ideas coming from the top down. I dont care of they are liberal or conservative ideas. So I dont like the amendment banning gay marriage but I dont like it being made legal suddenly either, in spite of so many people being against it. So what if every state put it to a vote? That way Massachusetts can have it legalized but Texas can keep it illegal. I know its not a good idea, but I dont see any other way to do it.
If we followed this concept Demo.......women would not have the right to vote, and the Civil Right's Amendments would have never been written.
But, as I have stated before, and I will probably get slammed again for not knowing what I'm talking about, but I'll go with it anyway. The white elephant in the room, IMO......just my opinion......is that the gay population more wants the acceptance of the majority, as in.......people saying...."the gay lifestyle is right"......they already have rights that all U.S. citizens have, except the right of marriage. So if this is about marriage.....then cool legislate it. If its about acceptance, I'm not sure that that can be legislated....
The Senator
12-14-2008, 11:42 AM
I want to know what you guys think.
Personally, I dont like ideas coming from the top down. I dont care of they are liberal or conservative ideas. So I dont like the amendment banning gay marriage but I dont like it being made legal suddenly either, in spite of so many people being against it. So what if every state put it to a vote? That way Massachusetts can have it legalized but Texas can keep it illegal. I know its not a good idea, but I dont see any other way to do it.
I've got an idea: Considering this is a civil rights issue, why don't we leave it to the courts to decide? I don't think it is fair to let the majority decide rights for the minority. We have let that happen all too often in this country, and nothing beneficial ever comes out of that.
The Senator
12-14-2008, 11:42 AM
I want to know what you guys think.
Personally, I dont like ideas coming from the top down. I dont care of they are liberal or conservative ideas. So I dont like the amendment banning gay marriage but I dont like it being made legal suddenly either, in spite of so many people being against it. So what if every state put it to a vote? That way Massachusetts can have it legalized but Texas can keep it illegal. I know its not a good idea, but I dont see any other way to do it.
I've got an idea: Considering this is a civil rights issue, why don't we leave it to the courts to decide? I don't think it is fair to let the majority decide rights for the minority. We have let that happen all too often in this country, and nothing beneficial ever comes out of that.
The Senator
12-14-2008, 11:42 AM
I want to know what you guys think.
Personally, I dont like ideas coming from the top down. I dont care of they are liberal or conservative ideas. So I dont like the amendment banning gay marriage but I dont like it being made legal suddenly either, in spite of so many people being against it. So what if every state put it to a vote? That way Massachusetts can have it legalized but Texas can keep it illegal. I know its not a good idea, but I dont see any other way to do it.
I've got an idea: Considering this is a civil rights issue, why don't we leave it to the courts to decide? I don't think it is fair to let the majority decide rights for the minority. We have let that happen all too often in this country, and nothing beneficial ever comes out of that.
Hobgoblin
12-14-2008, 02:39 PM
If we followed this concept Demo.......women would not have the right to vote, and the Civil Right's Amendments would have never been written.
But, as I have stated before, and I will probably get slammed again for not knowing what I'm talking about, but I'll go with it anyway. The white elephant in the room, IMO......just my opinion......is that the gay population more wants the acceptance of the majority, as in.......people saying...."the gay lifestyle is right"......they already have rights that all U.S. citizens have, except the right of marriage. So if this is about marriage.....then cool legislate it. If its about acceptance, I'm not sure that that can be legislated....
Yeah, thats exactly what I was thinking as I typed it last night. Thats the major flaw in my argument, which even I didnt totally believe in.
I just dont know of any way to pass gay marriage through the system without bending the rules. Yes, we could leave it to the courts, but I dont see how it could pass with the courts leaning Right, as they do now. True, some Jusrices are expected to retire and Obama will appoint liberal Judges, but how long with that last? Those justices will eventually retire and a conservative president could appoint reactionary judges.
I can only see gay marriage going through to legality if it were attached to a sure fire bill to pass Congress, sort of like how Roe v Wade was passed (at least I think it was RvW). If that happens, we basically have a situation like we currently have with abortion: people will protest the decision for decades but nothing will change. However, with homosexuals making up some 3% of the population, I cant see support being as strong as it is for abortion, abortion being more common than homosexuality (hard as it is to believe that abortion would be "strongly" supported).
Hobgoblin
12-14-2008, 02:39 PM
If we followed this concept Demo.......women would not have the right to vote, and the Civil Right's Amendments would have never been written.
But, as I have stated before, and I will probably get slammed again for not knowing what I'm talking about, but I'll go with it anyway. The white elephant in the room, IMO......just my opinion......is that the gay population more wants the acceptance of the majority, as in.......people saying...."the gay lifestyle is right"......they already have rights that all U.S. citizens have, except the right of marriage. So if this is about marriage.....then cool legislate it. If its about acceptance, I'm not sure that that can be legislated....
Yeah, thats exactly what I was thinking as I typed it last night. Thats the major flaw in my argument, which even I didnt totally believe in.
I just dont know of any way to pass gay marriage through the system without bending the rules. Yes, we could leave it to the courts, but I dont see how it could pass with the courts leaning Right, as they do now. True, some Jusrices are expected to retire and Obama will appoint liberal Judges, but how long with that last? Those justices will eventually retire and a conservative president could appoint reactionary judges.
I can only see gay marriage going through to legality if it were attached to a sure fire bill to pass Congress, sort of like how Roe v Wade was passed (at least I think it was RvW). If that happens, we basically have a situation like we currently have with abortion: people will protest the decision for decades but nothing will change. However, with homosexuals making up some 3% of the population, I cant see support being as strong as it is for abortion, abortion being more common than homosexuality (hard as it is to believe that abortion would be "strongly" supported).
Hobgoblin
12-14-2008, 02:39 PM
If we followed this concept Demo.......women would not have the right to vote, and the Civil Right's Amendments would have never been written.
But, as I have stated before, and I will probably get slammed again for not knowing what I'm talking about, but I'll go with it anyway. The white elephant in the room, IMO......just my opinion......is that the gay population more wants the acceptance of the majority, as in.......people saying...."the gay lifestyle is right"......they already have rights that all U.S. citizens have, except the right of marriage. So if this is about marriage.....then cool legislate it. If its about acceptance, I'm not sure that that can be legislated....
Yeah, thats exactly what I was thinking as I typed it last night. Thats the major flaw in my argument, which even I didnt totally believe in.
I just dont know of any way to pass gay marriage through the system without bending the rules. Yes, we could leave it to the courts, but I dont see how it could pass with the courts leaning Right, as they do now. True, some Jusrices are expected to retire and Obama will appoint liberal Judges, but how long with that last? Those justices will eventually retire and a conservative president could appoint reactionary judges.
I can only see gay marriage going through to legality if it were attached to a sure fire bill to pass Congress, sort of like how Roe v Wade was passed (at least I think it was RvW). If that happens, we basically have a situation like we currently have with abortion: people will protest the decision for decades but nothing will change. However, with homosexuals making up some 3% of the population, I cant see support being as strong as it is for abortion, abortion being more common than homosexuality (hard as it is to believe that abortion would be "strongly" supported).
Gilpesh
12-14-2008, 02:49 PM
Yeah, thats exactly what I was thinking as I typed it last night. Thats the major flaw in my argument, which even I didnt totally believe in.
Don't worry Demo, we know you were playing devil's advocate. :oldrazz:
But yeah, normally a state rights issue should go to the states and have them vote on it, but in this situation it could only turn out like it did in California... where the majority ends up taking rights away from the minority.
Gilpesh
12-14-2008, 02:49 PM
Yeah, thats exactly what I was thinking as I typed it last night. Thats the major flaw in my argument, which even I didnt totally believe in.
Don't worry Demo, we know you were playing devil's advocate. :oldrazz:
But yeah, normally a state rights issue should go to the states and have them vote on it, but in this situation it could only turn out like it did in California... where the majority ends up taking rights away from the minority.
Gilpesh
12-14-2008, 02:49 PM
Yeah, thats exactly what I was thinking as I typed it last night. Thats the major flaw in my argument, which even I didnt totally believe in.
Don't worry Demo, we know you were playing devil's advocate. :oldrazz:
But yeah, normally a state rights issue should go to the states and have them vote on it, but in this situation it could only turn out like it did in California... where the majority ends up taking rights away from the minority.
Kelly
12-14-2008, 04:01 PM
Yeah, thats exactly what I was thinking as I typed it last night. Thats the major flaw in my argument, which even I didnt totally believe in.
I just dont know of any way to pass gay marriage through the system without bending the rules. Yes, we could leave it to the courts, but I dont see how it could pass with the courts leaning Right, as they do now. True, some Jusrices are expected to retire and Obama will appoint liberal Judges, but how long with that last? Those justices will eventually retire and a conservative president could appoint reactionary judges.
I can only see gay marriage going through to legality if it were attached to a sure fire bill to pass Congress, sort of like how Roe v Wade was passed (at least I think it was RvW). If that happens, we basically have a situation like we currently have with abortion: people will protest the decision for decades but nothing will change. However, with homosexuals making up some 3% of the population, I cant see support being as strong as it is for abortion, abortion being more common than homosexuality (hard as it is to believe that abortion would be "strongly" supported).
Well, I think gay marriage will be very much like abortion as far as acceptance in that........."hey if they want to live their life, the way they want to live let them...." "I wouldn't have an abortion, but I'm not going to tell you you can't". We have a paradigm change in our country of "live and let live" with this generation coming up, EVEN within the conservative party. There are A HELL OF ALOT of Republicans that are fiscally conservative, but lean left in these areas.....PLUS, It is very hard for even conservative judges to go in and "change" prior decisions. I just don't see us having a true "fiscally/socially conservative" president ever again, unless Obama totally screws this up.
Kelly
12-14-2008, 04:01 PM
Yeah, thats exactly what I was thinking as I typed it last night. Thats the major flaw in my argument, which even I didnt totally believe in.
I just dont know of any way to pass gay marriage through the system without bending the rules. Yes, we could leave it to the courts, but I dont see how it could pass with the courts leaning Right, as they do now. True, some Jusrices are expected to retire and Obama will appoint liberal Judges, but how long with that last? Those justices will eventually retire and a conservative president could appoint reactionary judges.
I can only see gay marriage going through to legality if it were attached to a sure fire bill to pass Congress, sort of like how Roe v Wade was passed (at least I think it was RvW). If that happens, we basically have a situation like we currently have with abortion: people will protest the decision for decades but nothing will change. However, with homosexuals making up some 3% of the population, I cant see support being as strong as it is for abortion, abortion being more common than homosexuality (hard as it is to believe that abortion would be "strongly" supported).
Well, I think gay marriage will be very much like abortion as far as acceptance in that........."hey if they want to live their life, the way they want to live let them...." "I wouldn't have an abortion, but I'm not going to tell you you can't". We have a paradigm change in our country of "live and let live" with this generation coming up, EVEN within the conservative party. There are A HELL OF ALOT of Republicans that are fiscally conservative, but lean left in these areas.....PLUS, It is very hard for even conservative judges to go in and "change" prior decisions. I just don't see us having a true "fiscally/socially conservative" president ever again, unless Obama totally screws this up.
Kelly
12-14-2008, 04:01 PM
Yeah, thats exactly what I was thinking as I typed it last night. Thats the major flaw in my argument, which even I didnt totally believe in.
I just dont know of any way to pass gay marriage through the system without bending the rules. Yes, we could leave it to the courts, but I dont see how it could pass with the courts leaning Right, as they do now. True, some Jusrices are expected to retire and Obama will appoint liberal Judges, but how long with that last? Those justices will eventually retire and a conservative president could appoint reactionary judges.
I can only see gay marriage going through to legality if it were attached to a sure fire bill to pass Congress, sort of like how Roe v Wade was passed (at least I think it was RvW). If that happens, we basically have a situation like we currently have with abortion: people will protest the decision for decades but nothing will change. However, with homosexuals making up some 3% of the population, I cant see support being as strong as it is for abortion, abortion being more common than homosexuality (hard as it is to believe that abortion would be "strongly" supported).
Well, I think gay marriage will be very much like abortion as far as acceptance in that........."hey if they want to live their life, the way they want to live let them...." "I wouldn't have an abortion, but I'm not going to tell you you can't". We have a paradigm change in our country of "live and let live" with this generation coming up, EVEN within the conservative party. There are A HELL OF ALOT of Republicans that are fiscally conservative, but lean left in these areas.....PLUS, It is very hard for even conservative judges to go in and "change" prior decisions. I just don't see us having a true "fiscally/socially conservative" president ever again, unless Obama totally screws this up.
Hobgoblin
12-14-2008, 05:39 PM
Well, I think gay marriage will be very much like abortion as far as acceptance in that........."hey if they want to live their life, the way they want to live let them...." "I wouldn't have an abortion, but I'm not going to tell you you can't". We have a paradigm change in our country of "live and let live" with this generation coming up, EVEN within the conservative party. There are A HELL OF ALOT of Republicans that are fiscally conservative, but lean left in these areas.....PLUS, It is very hard for even conservative judges to go in and "change" prior decisions. I just don't see us having a true "fiscally/socially conservative" president ever again, unless Obama totally screws this up.
We will. These things go in cycles.
Hobgoblin
12-14-2008, 05:39 PM
Well, I think gay marriage will be very much like abortion as far as acceptance in that........."hey if they want to live their life, the way they want to live let them...." "I wouldn't have an abortion, but I'm not going to tell you you can't". We have a paradigm change in our country of "live and let live" with this generation coming up, EVEN within the conservative party. There are A HELL OF ALOT of Republicans that are fiscally conservative, but lean left in these areas.....PLUS, It is very hard for even conservative judges to go in and "change" prior decisions. I just don't see us having a true "fiscally/socially conservative" president ever again, unless Obama totally screws this up.
We will. These things go in cycles.
Hobgoblin
12-14-2008, 05:39 PM
Well, I think gay marriage will be very much like abortion as far as acceptance in that........."hey if they want to live their life, the way they want to live let them...." "I wouldn't have an abortion, but I'm not going to tell you you can't". We have a paradigm change in our country of "live and let live" with this generation coming up, EVEN within the conservative party. There are A HELL OF ALOT of Republicans that are fiscally conservative, but lean left in these areas.....PLUS, It is very hard for even conservative judges to go in and "change" prior decisions. I just don't see us having a true "fiscally/socially conservative" president ever again, unless Obama totally screws this up.
We will. These things go in cycles.
Kelly
12-14-2008, 05:43 PM
I think we are in evolutionary cycles.....and I think we have evolved into a Fiscally right, and a socially slightly left country. So no, I don't think a Jindal could win the presidency IF Obama does a good job. If he doesn't, then our country will say....**** evolution, I want Palin......*shudders*
Kelly
12-14-2008, 05:43 PM
I think we are in evolutionary cycles.....and I think we have evolved into a Fiscally right, and a socially slightly left country. So no, I don't think a Jindal could win the presidency IF Obama does a good job. If he doesn't, then our country will say....**** evolution, I want Palin......*shudders*
Kelly
12-14-2008, 05:43 PM
I think we are in evolutionary cycles.....and I think we have evolved into a Fiscally right, and a socially slightly left country. So no, I don't think a Jindal could win the presidency IF Obama does a good job. If he doesn't, then our country will say....**** evolution, I want Palin......*shudders*
XpunkRocker
12-14-2008, 05:43 PM
I've got an idea: Considering this is a civil rights issue, why don't we leave it to the courts to decide? I don't think it is fair to let the majority decide rights for the minority. We have let that happen all too often in this country, and nothing beneficial ever comes out of that.
that is the way it should be. I think leaving it to the states will eventually lead to all of them legalizing marraige, but it will take a long time. The courts really are the ones that should be taking of this though. just like segragation, they should end this as well. but... it looks like the courts are staying out of it. but eventually, gay marraige/civil unions will be legal. my generation is more accepting of it, and once they have more power, it will happen. too bad it is taking so long though.
XpunkRocker
12-14-2008, 05:43 PM
I've got an idea: Considering this is a civil rights issue, why don't we leave it to the courts to decide? I don't think it is fair to let the majority decide rights for the minority. We have let that happen all too often in this country, and nothing beneficial ever comes out of that.
that is the way it should be. I think leaving it to the states will eventually lead to all of them legalizing marraige, but it will take a long time. The courts really are the ones that should be taking of this though. just like segragation, they should end this as well. but... it looks like the courts are staying out of it. but eventually, gay marraige/civil unions will be legal. my generation is more accepting of it, and once they have more power, it will happen. too bad it is taking so long though.
XpunkRocker
12-14-2008, 05:43 PM
I've got an idea: Considering this is a civil rights issue, why don't we leave it to the courts to decide? I don't think it is fair to let the majority decide rights for the minority. We have let that happen all too often in this country, and nothing beneficial ever comes out of that.
that is the way it should be. I think leaving it to the states will eventually lead to all of them legalizing marraige, but it will take a long time. The courts really are the ones that should be taking of this though. just like segragation, they should end this as well. but... it looks like the courts are staying out of it. but eventually, gay marraige/civil unions will be legal. my generation is more accepting of it, and once they have more power, it will happen. too bad it is taking so long though.
Hobgoblin
12-14-2008, 07:11 PM
I've got an idea: Considering this is a civil rights issue, why don't we leave it to the courts to decide? I don't think it is fair to let the majority decide rights for the minority. We have let that happen all too often in this country, and nothing beneficial ever comes out of that.
But is it fair to let a minority decide something when the majority is against it? Democracy is rule by the majority,not rule by the majority as long as everyone is cool with it.
Hobgoblin
12-14-2008, 07:11 PM
I've got an idea: Considering this is a civil rights issue, why don't we leave it to the courts to decide? I don't think it is fair to let the majority decide rights for the minority. We have let that happen all too often in this country, and nothing beneficial ever comes out of that.
But is it fair to let a minority decide something when the majority is against it? Democracy is rule by the majority,not rule by the majority as long as everyone is cool with it.
Hobgoblin
12-14-2008, 07:11 PM
I've got an idea: Considering this is a civil rights issue, why don't we leave it to the courts to decide? I don't think it is fair to let the majority decide rights for the minority. We have let that happen all too often in this country, and nothing beneficial ever comes out of that.
But is it fair to let a minority decide something when the majority is against it? Democracy is rule by the majority,not rule by the majority as long as everyone is cool with it.
CaptainClown
12-14-2008, 07:15 PM
But is it fair to let a minority decide something when the majority is against it?
Its a fine line that you can't really put a solution to. Every cause has to be carefully examined which can be a problem when you just make it Minority vs. Majority and assume that all Minority causes should be considered.
CaptainClown
12-14-2008, 07:15 PM
But is it fair to let a minority decide something when the majority is against it?
Its a fine line that you can't really put a solution to. Every cause has to be carefully examined which can be a problem when you just make it Minority vs. Majority and assume that all Minority causes should be considered.
CaptainClown
12-14-2008, 07:15 PM
But is it fair to let a minority decide something when the majority is against it?
Its a fine line that you can't really put a solution to. Every cause has to be carefully examined which can be a problem when you just make it Minority vs. Majority and assume that all Minority causes should be considered.
Gilpesh
12-14-2008, 07:18 PM
But is it fair to let a minority decide something when the majority is against it?
When it is the minority's rights that they are deciding... f**k the majority being against it. And I don't mean random rights where people just pick random things that people just throw "right to..." in front of it.
But it is the right to marry the person they love that they are fighting for... which some idiots think ruin their marriages... :whatever:
Democracy is rule by the majority,not rule by the majority as long as everyone is cool with it.
But what about the tyranny of the majority? A lot of people are white and heterosexual, does that mean people who aren't just that and get their rights voted away when the majority says so is right?
Gilpesh
12-14-2008, 07:18 PM
But is it fair to let a minority decide something when the majority is against it?
When it is the minority's rights that they are deciding... f**k the majority being against it. And I don't mean random rights where people just pick random things that people just throw "right to..." in front of it.
But it is the right to marry the person they love that they are fighting for... which some idiots think ruin their marriages... :whatever:
Democracy is rule by the majority,not rule by the majority as long as everyone is cool with it.
But what about the tyranny of the majority? A lot of people are white and heterosexual, does that mean people who aren't just that and get their rights voted away when the majority says so is right?
Gilpesh
12-14-2008, 07:18 PM
But is it fair to let a minority decide something when the majority is against it?
When it is the minority's rights that they are deciding... f**k the majority being against it. And I don't mean random rights where people just pick random things that people just throw "right to..." in front of it.
But it is the right to marry the person they love that they are fighting for... which some idiots think ruin their marriages... :whatever:
Democracy is rule by the majority,not rule by the majority as long as everyone is cool with it.
But what about the tyranny of the majority? A lot of people are white and heterosexual, does that mean people who aren't just that and get their rights voted away when the majority says so is right?
Hobgoblin
12-14-2008, 07:36 PM
When it is the minority's rights that they are deciding... f**k the majority being against it. And I don't mean random rights where people just pick random things that people just throw "right to..." in front of it.
But it is the right to marry the person they love that they are fighting for... which some idiots think ruin their marriages... :whatever:
But what about the tyranny of the majority? A lot of people are white and heterosexual, does that mean people who aren't just that and get their rights voted away when the majority says so is right?
Of course not. No one but a moron would be in favor of repealing womens right to vote or the civil rights movement. And yes, I hate it when people say gay marriage somehow cheapens "real" marriage. If we are going to put laws into effect that reflect Biblical teaching, we better make divorce, adultery and pre-marital sex illegal too. I dont hear talk radio bemoaning the evils of adultery or unmarried sex.
Hobgoblin
12-14-2008, 07:36 PM
When it is the minority's rights that they are deciding... f**k the majority being against it. And I don't mean random rights where people just pick random things that people just throw "right to..." in front of it.
But it is the right to marry the person they love that they are fighting for... which some idiots think ruin their marriages... :whatever:
But what about the tyranny of the majority? A lot of people are white and heterosexual, does that mean people who aren't just that and get their rights voted away when the majority says so is right?
Of course not. No one but a moron would be in favor of repealing womens right to vote or the civil rights movement. And yes, I hate it when people say gay marriage somehow cheapens "real" marriage. If we are going to put laws into effect that reflect Biblical teaching, we better make divorce, adultery and pre-marital sex illegal too. I dont hear talk radio bemoaning the evils of adultery or unmarried sex.
Hobgoblin
12-14-2008, 07:36 PM
When it is the minority's rights that they are deciding... f**k the majority being against it. And I don't mean random rights where people just pick random things that people just throw "right to..." in front of it.
But it is the right to marry the person they love that they are fighting for... which some idiots think ruin their marriages... :whatever:
But what about the tyranny of the majority? A lot of people are white and heterosexual, does that mean people who aren't just that and get their rights voted away when the majority says so is right?
Of course not. No one but a moron would be in favor of repealing womens right to vote or the civil rights movement. And yes, I hate it when people say gay marriage somehow cheapens "real" marriage. If we are going to put laws into effect that reflect Biblical teaching, we better make divorce, adultery and pre-marital sex illegal too. I dont hear talk radio bemoaning the evils of adultery or unmarried sex.
Gilpesh
12-14-2008, 07:42 PM
Of course not. No one but a moron would be in favor of repealing womens right to vote or the civil rights movement. And yes, I hate it when people say gay marriage somehow cheapens "real" marriage. If we are going to put laws into effect that reflect Biblical teaching, we better make divorce, adultery and pre-marital sex illegal too. I dont hear talk radio bemoaning the evils of adultery or unmarried sex.
Yeah... that's why I on a general "how things should be" basis agree with the states rights to decide... but thinking about it, shows that there is no way it could actually work the way it should, and those crazy idiots that think gay marriage ruins marriage would probably get enough people to go along to make sure that it always gets voted down.
Gilpesh
12-14-2008, 07:42 PM
Of course not. No one but a moron would be in favor of repealing womens right to vote or the civil rights movement. And yes, I hate it when people say gay marriage somehow cheapens "real" marriage. If we are going to put laws into effect that reflect Biblical teaching, we better make divorce, adultery and pre-marital sex illegal too. I dont hear talk radio bemoaning the evils of adultery or unmarried sex.
Yeah... that's why I on a general "how things should be" basis agree with the states rights to decide... but thinking about it, shows that there is no way it could actually work the way it should, and those crazy idiots that think gay marriage ruins marriage would probably get enough people to go along to make sure that it always gets voted down.
Gilpesh
12-14-2008, 07:42 PM
Of course not. No one but a moron would be in favor of repealing womens right to vote or the civil rights movement. And yes, I hate it when people say gay marriage somehow cheapens "real" marriage. If we are going to put laws into effect that reflect Biblical teaching, we better make divorce, adultery and pre-marital sex illegal too. I dont hear talk radio bemoaning the evils of adultery or unmarried sex.
Yeah... that's why I on a general "how things should be" basis agree with the states rights to decide... but thinking about it, shows that there is no way it could actually work the way it should, and those crazy idiots that think gay marriage ruins marriage would probably get enough people to go along to make sure that it always gets voted down.
The Senator
12-14-2008, 08:28 PM
But is it fair to let a minority decide something when the majority is against it? Democracy is rule by the majority,not rule by the majority as long as everyone is cool with it.
And this is where democracy is flawed. A government should be looking out for the interests of all people-- not most people. If we let the majority decide everything, then black people would still face institutional discrimination. Legal experts should be in charge of civil rights issues; not a bunch of slack-jawed yokels who are only literate in Biblical theology.
The Senator
12-14-2008, 08:28 PM
But is it fair to let a minority decide something when the majority is against it? Democracy is rule by the majority,not rule by the majority as long as everyone is cool with it.
And this is where democracy is flawed. A government should be looking out for the interests of all people-- not most people. If we let the majority decide everything, then black people would still face institutional discrimination. Legal experts should be in charge of civil rights issues; not a bunch of slack-jawed yokels who are only literate in Biblical theology.
The Senator
12-14-2008, 08:28 PM
But is it fair to let a minority decide something when the majority is against it? Democracy is rule by the majority,not rule by the majority as long as everyone is cool with it.
And this is where democracy is flawed. A government should be looking out for the interests of all people-- not most people. If we let the majority decide everything, then black people would still face institutional discrimination. Legal experts should be in charge of civil rights issues; not a bunch of slack-jawed yokels who are only literate in Biblical theology.
Hobgoblin
12-14-2008, 08:37 PM
And this is where democracy is flawed. A government should be looking out for the interests of all people-- not most people. If we let the majority decide everything, then black people would still face institutional discrimination. Legal experts should be in charge of civil rights issues; not a bunch of slack-jawed yokels who are only literate in Biblical theology.
Sounds good to me, but what about the well organized and very motivated slack jawed yokels? Like it or not, they will have their say. They may be ignorant, but sadly, they have a right to be and their votes count just as much as ours.
Hobgoblin
12-14-2008, 08:37 PM
And this is where democracy is flawed. A government should be looking out for the interests of all people-- not most people. If we let the majority decide everything, then black people would still face institutional discrimination. Legal experts should be in charge of civil rights issues; not a bunch of slack-jawed yokels who are only literate in Biblical theology.
Sounds good to me, but what about the well organized and very motivated slack jawed yokels? Like it or not, they will have their say. They may be ignorant, but sadly, they have a right to be and their votes count just as much as ours.
Hobgoblin
12-14-2008, 08:37 PM
And this is where democracy is flawed. A government should be looking out for the interests of all people-- not most people. If we let the majority decide everything, then black people would still face institutional discrimination. Legal experts should be in charge of civil rights issues; not a bunch of slack-jawed yokels who are only literate in Biblical theology.
Sounds good to me, but what about the well organized and very motivated slack jawed yokels? Like it or not, they will have their say. They may be ignorant, but sadly, they have a right to be and their votes count just as much as ours.
wiegeabo
12-14-2008, 09:14 PM
And this is where democracy is flawed. A government should be looking out for the interests of all people-- not most people. If we let the majority decide everything, then black people would still face institutional discrimination. Legal experts should be in charge of civil rights issues; not a bunch of slack-jawed yokels who are only literate in Biblical theology.
Which is why we don't live in a democracy. The US is a republic. It makes the tyranny of the majority much harder. Obviously not impossible, but much harder.
As for civil rights, that shouldn't even be an issue the people decide directly. Hell, it shouldn't be an issue at all. If it's not a crime, all people should be allowed equal rights. And sometimes, even if it is a crime because it's only been defined that way to disallow equal rights.
wiegeabo
12-14-2008, 09:14 PM
And this is where democracy is flawed. A government should be looking out for the interests of all people-- not most people. If we let the majority decide everything, then black people would still face institutional discrimination. Legal experts should be in charge of civil rights issues; not a bunch of slack-jawed yokels who are only literate in Biblical theology.
Which is why we don't live in a democracy. The US is a republic. It makes the tyranny of the majority much harder. Obviously not impossible, but much harder.
As for civil rights, that shouldn't even be an issue the people decide directly. Hell, it shouldn't be an issue at all. If it's not a crime, all people should be allowed equal rights. And sometimes, even if it is a crime because it's only been defined that way to disallow equal rights.
wiegeabo
12-14-2008, 09:14 PM
And this is where democracy is flawed. A government should be looking out for the interests of all people-- not most people. If we let the majority decide everything, then black people would still face institutional discrimination. Legal experts should be in charge of civil rights issues; not a bunch of slack-jawed yokels who are only literate in Biblical theology.
Which is why we don't live in a democracy. The US is a republic. It makes the tyranny of the majority much harder. Obviously not impossible, but much harder.
As for civil rights, that shouldn't even be an issue the people decide directly. Hell, it shouldn't be an issue at all. If it's not a crime, all people should be allowed equal rights. And sometimes, even if it is a crime because it's only been defined that way to disallow equal rights.
GAY MUSICIANS TO PLAY INAUGURATION PARADE
http://www.ktvu.com/news/18272695/detail.html
GAY MUSICIANS TO PLAY INAUGURATION PARADE
http://www.ktvu.com/news/18272695/detail.html
GAY MUSICIANS TO PLAY INAUGURATION PARADE
http://www.ktvu.com/news/18272695/detail.html
Pink Ranger
12-19-2008, 09:28 AM
That the U.S. cannot even bring itself to support condemnation of anti-gay persecution makes me even more happy I'm not American.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081219/world/bc_un_gay_rights
Seriously, to my American brothers and sisters on board, come to Canada. We could use more dynamic, creative and hardworking people up here. Between this, California and Rick Warren swearing in Barack Obama, the hardcore bigots and soft bigots in your country need to one day realize the price they pay for their ignorance.
Pink Ranger
12-19-2008, 09:28 AM
That the U.S. cannot even bring itself to support condemnation of anti-gay persecution makes me even more happy I'm not American.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081219/world/bc_un_gay_rights
Seriously, to my American brothers and sisters on board, come to Canada. We could use more dynamic, creative and hardworking people up here. Between this, California and Rick Warren swearing in Barack Obama, the hardcore bigots and soft bigots in your country need to one day realize the price they pay for their ignorance.
Pink Ranger
12-19-2008, 09:28 AM
That the U.S. cannot even bring itself to support condemnation of anti-gay persecution makes me even more happy I'm not American.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081219/world/bc_un_gay_rights
Seriously, to my American brothers and sisters on board, come to Canada. We could use more dynamic, creative and hardworking people up here. Between this, California and Rick Warren swearing in Barack Obama, the hardcore bigots and soft bigots in your country need to one day realize the price they pay for their ignorance.
That the U.S. cannot even bring itself to support condemnation of anti-gay persecution makes me even more happy I'm not American.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081219/world/bc_un_gay_rights
Seriously, to my American brothers and sisters on board, come to Canada. We could use more dynamic, creative and hardworking people up here. Between this, California and Rick Warren swearing in Barack Obama, the hardcore bigots and soft bigots in your country need to one day realize the price they pay for their ignorance.
If only...
That the U.S. cannot even bring itself to support condemnation of anti-gay persecution makes me even more happy I'm not American.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081219/world/bc_un_gay_rights
Seriously, to my American brothers and sisters on board, come to Canada. We could use more dynamic, creative and hardworking people up here. Between this, California and Rick Warren swearing in Barack Obama, the hardcore bigots and soft bigots in your country need to one day realize the price they pay for their ignorance.
If only...
That the U.S. cannot even bring itself to support condemnation of anti-gay persecution makes me even more happy I'm not American.
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/081219/world/bc_un_gay_rights
Seriously, to my American brothers and sisters on board, come to Canada. We could use more dynamic, creative and hardworking people up here. Between this, California and Rick Warren swearing in Barack Obama, the hardcore bigots and soft bigots in your country need to one day realize the price they pay for their ignorance.
If only...
PROP 8 PROPONENTS SEEK TO NULLIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html
Sponsors of the California ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage are seeking to nullify thousands of marriages between gay and lesbian couples performed after the state Supreme Court ruled them constitutional.
The passge of Proposition 8 left the future of thousands of marriages between same-sex couples unclear.
The sponsors Friday filed responses to three anti-Proposition 8 lawsuits with the state Supreme Court. The briefs also defend Proposition 8 against opponents' legal challenges, including an argument that the amendment needed a constitutional convention to be added to the state's constitution.
"We are confident that the will of the voters and Proposition 8 will ultimately be upheld," said Andrew Pugno, General Counsel for ProtectMarriage.com and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund.
California Attorney General Edmund "Jerry" Brown called on the court to reject the initiative.
"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification," Brown said in a written statement.
Rick Jacobs, founder and chair of the anti-Proposition 8 Courage Campaign, said he was "appalled" that the initiative's supporters wanted to nullify the same-sex marriages that are already on the books.
"The motivation behind this mean-spirited and heart-breaking action should not be allowed to be buried in legal brief," he said. "If Proposition 8's sponsors plan to destroy lives, they should at least have the courage to admit it publicly."
Disgusting. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif
PROP 8 PROPONENTS SEEK TO NULLIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html
Sponsors of the California ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage are seeking to nullify thousands of marriages between gay and lesbian couples performed after the state Supreme Court ruled them constitutional.
The passge of Proposition 8 left the future of thousands of marriages between same-sex couples unclear.
The sponsors Friday filed responses to three anti-Proposition 8 lawsuits with the state Supreme Court. The briefs also defend Proposition 8 against opponents' legal challenges, including an argument that the amendment needed a constitutional convention to be added to the state's constitution.
"We are confident that the will of the voters and Proposition 8 will ultimately be upheld," said Andrew Pugno, General Counsel for ProtectMarriage.com and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund.
California Attorney General Edmund "Jerry" Brown called on the court to reject the initiative.
"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification," Brown said in a written statement.
Rick Jacobs, founder and chair of the anti-Proposition 8 Courage Campaign, said he was "appalled" that the initiative's supporters wanted to nullify the same-sex marriages that are already on the books.
"The motivation behind this mean-spirited and heart-breaking action should not be allowed to be buried in legal brief," he said. "If Proposition 8's sponsors plan to destroy lives, they should at least have the courage to admit it publicly."
Disgusting. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif
PROP 8 PROPONENTS SEEK TO NULLIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html
Sponsors of the California ballot measure that banned same-sex marriage are seeking to nullify thousands of marriages between gay and lesbian couples performed after the state Supreme Court ruled them constitutional.
The passge of Proposition 8 left the future of thousands of marriages between same-sex couples unclear.
The sponsors Friday filed responses to three anti-Proposition 8 lawsuits with the state Supreme Court. The briefs also defend Proposition 8 against opponents' legal challenges, including an argument that the amendment needed a constitutional convention to be added to the state's constitution.
"We are confident that the will of the voters and Proposition 8 will ultimately be upheld," said Andrew Pugno, General Counsel for ProtectMarriage.com and the Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund.
California Attorney General Edmund "Jerry" Brown called on the court to reject the initiative.
"Proposition 8 must be invalidated because the amendment process cannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights without compelling justification," Brown said in a written statement.
Rick Jacobs, founder and chair of the anti-Proposition 8 Courage Campaign, said he was "appalled" that the initiative's supporters wanted to nullify the same-sex marriages that are already on the books.
"The motivation behind this mean-spirited and heart-breaking action should not be allowed to be buried in legal brief," he said. "If Proposition 8's sponsors plan to destroy lives, they should at least have the courage to admit it publicly."
Disgusting. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif
Anita18
12-19-2008, 11:24 PM
PROP 8 PROPONENTS SEEK TO NULLIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html
Disgusting. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif
If we point out that additional weddings (and divorces :oldrazz: ) would boost the economy, would it get people to vote for gay marriage?
I don't care if it's low, I still want to try it. Maybe then it would actually get by the conservatives. :o
Anita18
12-19-2008, 11:24 PM
PROP 8 PROPONENTS SEEK TO NULLIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html
Disgusting. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif
If we point out that additional weddings (and divorces :oldrazz: ) would boost the economy, would it get people to vote for gay marriage?
I don't care if it's low, I still want to try it. Maybe then it would actually get by the conservatives. :o
Anita18
12-19-2008, 11:24 PM
PROP 8 PROPONENTS SEEK TO NULLIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html
Disgusting. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif
If we point out that additional weddings (and divorces :oldrazz: ) would boost the economy, would it get people to vote for gay marriage?
I don't care if it's low, I still want to try it. Maybe then it would actually get by the conservatives. :o
cerealkiller182
12-19-2008, 11:28 PM
If we point out that additional weddings (and divorces :oldrazz: ) would boost the economy, would it get people to vote for gay marriage?
No, I've never seen so many people act so stubbornly. I think if somehow there was all of a sudden a way for homosexuals to reproduce biologically that those same people would still say no.
cerealkiller182
12-19-2008, 11:28 PM
If we point out that additional weddings (and divorces :oldrazz: ) would boost the economy, would it get people to vote for gay marriage?
No, I've never seen so many people act so stubbornly. I think if somehow there was all of a sudden a way for homosexuals to reproduce biologically that those same people would still say no.
cerealkiller182
12-19-2008, 11:28 PM
If we point out that additional weddings (and divorces :oldrazz: ) would boost the economy, would it get people to vote for gay marriage?
No, I've never seen so many people act so stubbornly. I think if somehow there was all of a sudden a way for homosexuals to reproduce biologically that those same people would still say no.
No, I've never seen so many people act so stubbornly. I think if somehow there was all of a sudden a way for homosexuals to reproduce biologically that those same people would still say no.
I believe it was Mike Huckabee who said that 'marriage is an institution used for the creation of life' and that's why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.
:dry:
No, I've never seen so many people act so stubbornly. I think if somehow there was all of a sudden a way for homosexuals to reproduce biologically that those same people would still say no.
I believe it was Mike Huckabee who said that 'marriage is an institution used for the creation of life' and that's why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.
:dry:
No, I've never seen so many people act so stubbornly. I think if somehow there was all of a sudden a way for homosexuals to reproduce biologically that those same people would still say no.
I believe it was Mike Huckabee who said that 'marriage is an institution used for the creation of life' and that's why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.
:dry:
wiegeabo
12-19-2008, 11:50 PM
I believe it was Mike Huckabee who said that 'marriage is an institution used for the creation of life' and that's why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.
:dry:
Someone better tell my mom's friends, who decided not to have children, that their on Huckabee's **** list.
wiegeabo
12-19-2008, 11:50 PM
I believe it was Mike Huckabee who said that 'marriage is an institution used for the creation of life' and that's why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.
:dry:
Someone better tell my mom's friends, who decided not to have children, that their on Huckabee's **** list.
wiegeabo
12-19-2008, 11:50 PM
I believe it was Mike Huckabee who said that 'marriage is an institution used for the creation of life' and that's why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.
:dry:
Someone better tell my mom's friends, who decided not to have children, that their on Huckabee's **** list.
Addendum
12-20-2008, 12:31 AM
And tell that to married couples that are unable to have children due to medical complications, Huckabee
Addendum
12-20-2008, 12:31 AM
And tell that to married couples that are unable to have children due to medical complications, Huckabee
Addendum
12-20-2008, 12:31 AM
And tell that to married couples that are unable to have children due to medical complications, Huckabee
cerealkiller182
12-20-2008, 12:37 AM
I believe it was Mike Huckabee who said that 'marriage is an institution used for the creation of life' and that's why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.
:dry:
Right, and if homosexuals proved to be able to create life, he'd probably find another scapegoat. I was just exaggerrating their stubbornness
cerealkiller182
12-20-2008, 12:37 AM
I believe it was Mike Huckabee who said that 'marriage is an institution used for the creation of life' and that's why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.
:dry:
Right, and if homosexuals proved to be able to create life, he'd probably find another scapegoat. I was just exaggerrating their stubbornness
cerealkiller182
12-20-2008, 12:37 AM
I believe it was Mike Huckabee who said that 'marriage is an institution used for the creation of life' and that's why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.
:dry:
Right, and if homosexuals proved to be able to create life, he'd probably find another scapegoat. I was just exaggerrating their stubbornness
wiegeabo
12-20-2008, 12:42 AM
PROP 8 PROPONENTS SEEK TO NULLIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html
Disgusting. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif
Well, let's hope the state court follows the Constitution prohibition of ex post facto laws.
wiegeabo
12-20-2008, 12:42 AM
PROP 8 PROPONENTS SEEK TO NULLIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html
Disgusting. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif
Well, let's hope the state court follows the Constitution prohibition of ex post facto laws.
wiegeabo
12-20-2008, 12:42 AM
PROP 8 PROPONENTS SEEK TO NULLIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html
Disgusting. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif
Well, let's hope the state court follows the Constitution prohibition of ex post facto laws.
Mister Sinister
12-20-2008, 05:03 AM
PROP 8 PROPONENTS SEEK TO NULLIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html
Disgusting. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif
Now, regardless of their actions in the past, how DARE they try to take away the happiest day of someone's life, something they waited their whole lives for and spent a lot of money, someone explain to me how that is not barbaric, evil and downright cruel.
Mister Sinister
12-20-2008, 05:03 AM
PROP 8 PROPONENTS SEEK TO NULLIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html
Disgusting. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif
Now, regardless of their actions in the past, how DARE they try to take away the happiest day of someone's life, something they waited their whole lives for and spent a lot of money, someone explain to me how that is not barbaric, evil and downright cruel.
Mister Sinister
12-20-2008, 05:03 AM
PROP 8 PROPONENTS SEEK TO NULLIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html
Disgusting. http://www.superherohype.com/forums/images/smilies/icon13.gif
Now, regardless of their actions in the past, how DARE they try to take away the happiest day of someone's life, something they waited their whole lives for and spent a lot of money, someone explain to me how that is not barbaric, evil and downright cruel.
Handsome Rob
12-20-2008, 06:33 AM
Well, let's hope the state court follows the Constitution prohibition of ex post facto laws.
I agree with this. Retroactively applying laws is downright scary . . . these homosexuals married when it was legal in California. They shouldn't go back and then nullify their marriages--that violates contract law, because the marriage contract was neither void nor voidable at the time it was entered into.
Handsome Rob
12-20-2008, 06:33 AM
Well, let's hope the state court follows the Constitution prohibition of ex post facto laws.
I agree with this. Retroactively applying laws is downright scary . . . these homosexuals married when it was legal in California. They shouldn't go back and then nullify their marriages--that violates contract law, because the marriage contract was neither void nor voidable at the time it was entered into.
Handsome Rob
12-20-2008, 06:33 AM
Well, let's hope the state court follows the Constitution prohibition of ex post facto laws.
I agree with this. Retroactively applying laws is downright scary . . . these homosexuals married when it was legal in California. They shouldn't go back and then nullify their marriages--that violates contract law, because the marriage contract was neither void nor voidable at the time it was entered into.
Schlosser85
12-20-2008, 09:00 AM
PROP 8 PROPONENTS SEEK TO NULLIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
Banning gay marriage is one thing...but trying to go back in time and nullify thousands of marriages that were already performed is just downright cruel. Those gay couples waited their entire lives, not knowing if they would live long enough to see their dream of being able to get married come along, and then some self-righteous people who don't like it, as if it has anything to do with them, stick their noses in and say "oh, nope, you're not married".
How would these people feel if someone came along a few months after they got married and told them their marriage was suddenly invalid?
I don't know what these people are, but they're not Christians, that much is pretty clear.
Schlosser85
12-20-2008, 09:00 AM
PROP 8 PROPONENTS SEEK TO NULLIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
Banning gay marriage is one thing...but trying to go back in time and nullify thousands of marriages that were already performed is just downright cruel. Those gay couples waited their entire lives, not knowing if they would live long enough to see their dream of being able to get married come along, and then some self-righteous people who don't like it, as if it has anything to do with them, stick their noses in and say "oh, nope, you're not married".
How would these people feel if someone came along a few months after they got married and told them their marriage was suddenly invalid?
I don't know what these people are, but they're not Christians, that much is pretty clear.
Schlosser85
12-20-2008, 09:00 AM
PROP 8 PROPONENTS SEEK TO NULLIFY SAME-SEX MARRIAGES
Banning gay marriage is one thing...but trying to go back in time and nullify thousands of marriages that were already performed is just downright cruel. Those gay couples waited their entire lives, not knowing if they would live long enough to see their dream of being able to get married come along, and then some self-righteous people who don't like it, as if it has anything to do with them, stick their noses in and say "oh, nope, you're not married".
How would these people feel if someone came along a few months after they got married and told them their marriage was suddenly invalid?
I don't know what these people are, but they're not Christians, that much is pretty clear.
Schlosser85
12-20-2008, 09:05 AM
someone explain to me how that is not barbaric, evil and downright cruel.
You've pretty much summed up the entire conservative Christian/evangelical movement in this country. They're on a lower evolutionary scale than we are.
Schlosser85
12-20-2008, 09:05 AM
someone explain to me how that is not barbaric, evil and downright cruel.
You've pretty much summed up the entire conservative Christian/evangelical movement in this country. They're on a lower evolutionary scale than we are.
Schlosser85
12-20-2008, 09:05 AM
someone explain to me how that is not barbaric, evil and downright cruel.
You've pretty much summed up the entire conservative Christian/evangelical movement in this country. They're on a lower evolutionary scale than we are.
BlackLantern
12-20-2008, 09:38 AM
I don't think any judge or judges, in their right minds, would even consider this
BlackLantern
12-20-2008, 09:38 AM
I don't think any judge or judges, in their right minds, would even consider this
BlackLantern
12-20-2008, 09:38 AM
I don't think any judge or judges, in their right minds, would even consider this
danoyse
12-20-2008, 11:56 AM
That would actually affect someone I know who married his partner in CA before Prop 8 was passed. I can't imagine any court allowing those marriages to be overturned.
danoyse
12-20-2008, 11:56 AM
That would actually affect someone I know who married his partner in CA before Prop 8 was passed. I can't imagine any court allowing those marriages to be overturned.
danoyse
12-20-2008, 11:56 AM
That would actually affect someone I know who married his partner in CA before Prop 8 was passed. I can't imagine any court allowing those marriages to be overturned.
Right, and if homosexuals proved to be able to create life, he'd probably find another scapegoat. I was just exaggerrating their stubbornness
Oh I have no doubt about that Cereal.
Right, and if homosexuals proved to be able to create life, he'd probably find another scapegoat. I was just exaggerrating their stubbornness
Oh I have no doubt about that Cereal.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.