To my gay friends

Status
Not open for further replies.
DJTorrente said:
I've got an easy solution to that one - flat tax for everybody!
Click to expand...

A flat tax would be fair only to the median-income population. The rich wouldn't pay enough, the super-poor would pay too much. 15% takes food from the mouths of people only making $20K/year. Don't get me wrong, I'm still all for everyone paying something - but I still like the idea of a graduated tax. The idea of 50% of the people paying nothing is absurd.

Now, on to the topic at hand.

DJTorrente said:
Then no need to redefine marriage...
Click to expand...


It depends on how you defined it before. Most people just defined it as two people in love who want to spend the rest of their lives together. There are a few people with their panties in a wad who think everyone must conform to their beliefs and the world must not evolve.
 
DJTorrente said:
I've got an easy solution to that one - flat tax for everybody! Then no need to redefine marriage into gaymarriage, and no florists, photographers or bakers need to pay fines because of who will or will not work any particular job.
Click to expand...

In making this ruling, the SC essentially took the position that the phrase, "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" found in the 14th Amendment means, "the government shall treat all persons exactly the same." A tax code with seven tax rates clearly does not treat all persons the same, it will have to go to a single rate. Nor can there be any tax credits or tax deductions.
 
DJTorrente said:
I've got an easy solution to that one - flat tax for everybody! Then no need to redefine marriage into gaymarriage, and no florists, photographers or bakers need to pay fines because of who will or will not work any particular job.

How many leftists are with me?!?

attachment.php
attachment.php
attachment.php


Yeah, that's what I thought... :sigh:
Click to expand...
Yep, easy peasy, because the only things that same-sex couples care about are tax benefits. You obviously have a hard time grasping the concept of the big picture. I'm not even a "leftist" and I'm not with you.
 
roncachamp said:
In making this ruling, the SC essentially took the position that the phrase, "...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" found in the 14th Amendment means, "the government shall treat all persons exactly the same." A tax code with seven tax rates clearly does not treat all persons the same, it will have to go to a single rate. Nor can there be any tax credits or tax deductions.
Click to expand...

Being rich is not a protected class.
 
bartmc said:
Who knew that the 14th amendment only applies to a "protected class" of people?
Click to expand...

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
 
DJTorrente said:
No need to guess. According to statistics, 1 in 1,666 (0.06%) are neither XX nor XY. To put it in perspective, sex chromosome anomalies are to homosexuality, roughly what homosexuality is to the general population.

But now the entirety of the population needs to tie itself in knots and disrupt a social institution that has served humanity for millenia in order to address the insoluble needs of 1 in 1,666 people? The people pushing gaymarriage are the same people who say that religious objectors need to "get over it" for the good of the whole. There are a hell of lot more than 1 in 1,666 religious objectors. But it doesn't count to the militant homosexualists when those people's rights are trampled.
Click to expand...

Oh no!! Marriage is now completely ruined!!! What will we do now???!! :eek:

So much drama...:rolleyes2:
 
Aeric said:
Yep, easy peasy, because the only things that same-sex couples care about are tax benefits. You obviously have a hard time grasping the concept of the big picture. I'm not even a "leftist" and I'm not with you.
Click to expand...


You need to catch up. DJ was responding to a particular, singular complaint.
 
Kristin said:
Motive is never irrelevant when one is trying to figure out why something happened.
Click to expand...
Motive is irrelevant. As an engineer I conduct root cause analysis daily. Outside of work I couldn't care less why someone gets hit, kicked, killed, laughed at, loved, etc., as it is irrelevant to the outcome. Dead is still dead.
 
Dav8or said:
So much drama...:rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

I said the same when small businesspeople were being fined and business closed down because certain homosexuals could not get the floral provider, baker or photographer of their choice.

First world problems, I think they call them.
 
SkyHog said:
Despite what some may think, no one has both a penis and a vagina. They may have other indicators of being hermaphroditic, but having both sets of primary sex organs is not one of them.
Click to expand...
What you're trying to say is basically correct, but penis and vagina are NOT primary sex organs and it is indeed quite possible to have both. What is impossible is to have two testicles AND two ovaries formed from a single embryo. (I believe there are rare exceptions involving chimerism.)
 
bartmc said:
No but people fundamentally opposed to the act are being compelled by law to participate In it.
Click to expand...
If they are government employees, that is as it should be imo. They have the option of resigning or asking to be transferred to a different position. I'm sympathetic to private individuals who decline to participate on religious or philosophical grounds, e.g. Ms. Stutzman in the Ohio case.
 
azure said:
What you're trying to say is basically correct, but penis and vagina are NOT primary sex organs and it is indeed quite possible to have both. What is impossible is to have two testicles AND two ovaries formed from a single embryo. (I believe there are rare exceptions involving chimerism.)
Click to expand...

Aside from having an ambiguous-looking external genitalia, true hermaphroditism in humans differs from pseudohermaphroditism in that the person's karyotype has both XX and XY chromosome pairs (47XXY, 46XX/46XY, 46XX/47XXY or 45X/XY mosaic) and having both testicular and ovarian tissue. One possible pathophysiologic explanation of this rare phenomenon is a parthenogenetic division of a haploid ovum into two haploid ova. Upon fertilization of the two ova by two sperm cells (one carrying an X and the other carrying a Y chromosome), the two fertilized ova are then fused together resulting in a person having dual genitalial, gonadal (ovotestes) and genetic sex.

Another common cause of hermaphroditism is the crossing over of the SRY from the Y chromosome to the X chromosome during meiosis. The SRY is then activated in only certain areas, causing development of testes in some areas by beginning a series of events starting with the upregulation of SOX9, and in other areas not being active (causing the growth of ovarian tissues). Thus, testicular and ovarian tissues will both be present in the same individual.
 
pilot_dude said:
Motive is irrelevant. As an engineer I conduct root cause analysis daily. Outside of work I couldn't care less why someone gets hit, kicked, killed, laughed at, loved, etc., as it is irrelevant to the outcome. Dead is still dead.
Click to expand...

It may be irrelevant if you are engineering machines, but we are talking humans here.
 
azure said:
If they are government employees, that is as it should be imo. They have the option of resigning or asking to be transferred to a different position. I'm sympathetic to private individuals who decline to participate on religious or philosophical grounds, e.g. Ms. Stutzman in the Ohio case.
Click to expand...

The issue is where to draw the line between a cake baker and a hotel owner refusing accommodation. There is a whole spectrum of interaction. Personally, I think that one key distinction is when the service being sought involves an aspect of artistic endeavor. I don't think that anyone should be required to put that part of themselves into a project that they do not wish to, regardless of whether the objection is religious or not. Claiming a religious exemption just muddies up the whole thing, IMO.
 
Kristin said:
The issue is where to draw the line between a cake baker and a hotel owner refusing accommodation. There is a whole spectrum of interaction. Personally, I think that one key distinction is when the service being sought involves an aspect of artistic endeavor. I don't think that anyone should be required to put that part of themselves into a project that they do not wish to, regardless of whether the objection is religious or not. Claiming a religious exemption just muddies up the whole thing, IMO.
Click to expand...

That whole First Amendment thing is just a problematic part of the "Charter of Negative Liberties", huh?
 
nddons said:
That whole First Amendment thing is just a problematic part of the "Charter of Negative Liberties", huh?
Click to expand...

Apparently not as problematic as this whole "The First Amendment doesn't apply to private action" thing.
 
Flying Viking said:
Apparently not as problematic as this whole "The First Amendment doesn't apply to private action" thing.
Click to expand...

When a religious person, business or institution is coerced by force of law (i.e. The government) to participate of face the penalties, it absolutely sure as **** is a Constitutional matter.
 
nddons said:
When a religious person, business or institution is coerced by force of law (i.e. The government) to participate of face the penalties, it absolutely sure as **** is a Constitutional matter.
Click to expand...

Like when the government says no to virgin sacrifices, even though it's part of a religious tradition? Where would you draw the line? OK for a business to exclude women or blacks for religious reasons? OK to do drugs? Have slaves? Kill infidels?

And how big must a religion be to be protected? Can I start my own?
 
nddons said:
When a religious person, business or institution is coerced by force of law (i.e. The government) to participate of face the penalties, it absolutely sure as **** is a Constitutional matter.
Click to expand...

Not to progressives, because progressives are happy with that whole "the people are property of the government" thing.
 
Flying Viking said:
Like when the government says no to virgin sacrifices, even though it's part of a religious tradition? Where would you draw the line? OK for a business to exclude women or blacks for religious reasons? OK to do drugs? Have slaves? Kill infidels?

And how big must a religion be to be protected? Can I start my own?
Click to expand...

I remember a lot of squawking in S FL because Santeria rites involving animal sacrifices were being prosecuted under animal cruelty laws.

Don't recall how that was resolved, though.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Aside from having an ambiguous-looking external genitalia, true hermaphroditism in humans differs from pseudohermaphroditism in that the person's karyotype has both XX and XY chromosome pairs (47XXY, 46XX/46XY, 46XX/47XXY or 45X/XY mosaic) and having both testicular and ovarian tissue. One possible pathophysiologic explanation of this rare phenomenon is a parthenogenetic division of a haploid ovum into two haploid ova. Upon fertilization of the two ova by two sperm cells (one carrying an X and the other carrying a Y chromosome), the two fertilized ova are then fused together resulting in a person having dual genitalial, gonadal (ovotestes) and genetic sex.
Click to expand...
I believe this is consistent with what I said. The presence of both testicular and ovarian tissue is relatively common, but TWO of each (or indeed, more than two gonads of any type) is exceedingly rare. My understanding is that the only way this can happen is via the fusion of two fertilized ova, as your source indicates. Maybe I'm using the wrong term for that, but as I understand it, that is one form of chimerism.
Another common cause of hermaphroditism is the crossing over of the SRY from the Y chromosome to the X chromosome during meiosis. The SRY is then activated in only certain areas, causing development of testes in some areas by beginning a series of events starting with the upregulation of SOX9, and in other areas not being active (causing the growth of ovarian tissues). Thus, testicular and ovarian tissues will both be present in the same individual.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...
That's another mechanism that can result in both ovarian and testicular tissue, but it can't result in having two of each or more than two gonads in all, AFAIK.
 
FastEddieB said:
I remember a lot of squawking in S FL because Santeria rites involving animal sacrifices were being prosecuted under animal cruelty laws.

Don't recall how that was resolved, though.
Click to expand...

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah was decided in favor of the Santerians allowing the practice of animal sacrifice. I am betting the outcome would be different if it was human sacrifice involved.
 
Kristin said:
So religious liberty should trump all other rights?
Click to expand...

Pretty much, unless it involves actual, tangible harm to another. Hurt feelings don't count. There is no right to never have your feelings hurt.

The first reason religion needs to trump almost all else is that religion, by its nature, cannot be proven. So the only way to fairly apply religious liberty is to presumptively accept that whatever people say they believe is what they believe, even if it's bizarre, absurd, and makes no sense to anyone except the believer.

But that shouldn't be a problem nowadays. After all, we're expected to accept that boys are girls and girls are boys just because they say they are, so there's good precedent for presumptive acceptance of absurdity as truth.

The second reason is that religion is one of the few things that can compete with government for the sway it can exercise over people, and we need something to compete with government. We also need that "something" to be free of government influence and beyond its control.

That's why despotic governments throughout history have either tried to suppress religion (for example, the USSR, its satellites, Red China, and North Korea), or established state religions (for example, the entire Muslim Middle East). Despots don't want competition for the hearts and minds of the people. It's also why an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 Catholic priests, brothers, and sisters were murdered in Nazi Germany during the Holocaust.

So whether or not you believe in a religion, the evidence is pretty clear that we need religion (or at least freedom of religion) to serve as a bulwark against despotism. Even the despots themselves know this, which is why they either suppress religion or try to control it.

For example, none other than Joe Stalin -- no great friend of religion -- revived the Russian Orthodox Church after the Nazis invaded Russia in 1941, hoping that it would spur patriotism and lend the legitimacy that only religion can provide to the war against the Nazis. As powerful as Stalin was, he knew that the church was more so -- even after having been decimated as a result of decades of persecution by the Communist regime.

Rich
 
Last edited:
RJM62 said:
My apologies. Happy Anniversary. How I missed that when it was the first thing you said is beyond me. Probably I hadn't had my morning coffee yet when I first read it.

Rich
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
Kristin said:
So religious liberty should trump all other rights?
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech/thought/expression is the ultimate check against tyranny. So yes.

But you inadvertently make a great point about the insidious danger of labeling privileges/desires/recognition as "rights." Dr. Sowell has written quite a bit about this danger (and strategy).
 
Florida Cracker said:
So... Religious speech should be outlawed IF it conflicts with dyke wedding cakes?
Click to expand...

To Florida Cracker:

Statements like this...

"Ann Coulter: "Every single cause championed by liberals is based on a fake story. They make up events that didn't happen and get apoplectic over things that never will happen. The definition of "liberal" is quickly becoming: people who believe their fantasies should be facts. "

"To anger a conservative lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth." - Teddy Roosevelt"

...whether from the right or left are what's destroying the ability of this country to be great. Anyone with a brain should realize that conservatives and liberals both have good ideas. To polarize by demonizing one or the other is the problem, not the opinion itself.

I remember my college days, long ago, and a wise professor who would ask each of us to debate, pretending we had the opposite point of view. In the process, folks, shockingly, sometimes changed their minds.

Let us remember that this country was founded on the principles of free, educated debate and respect.

The only folks I don't respect is those on either end of the spectrum, from Keith Olberman to Ann Coulter, who seek to judge and demonize those who differ for personal gain.

Let us respect and learn from one another. There's too much at stake here to fall prey to judgmental, narrow thinking, left or right.
 
RJM62 said:
Pretty much, unless it involves actual, tangible harm to another. Hurt feelings don't count. There is no right to never have your feelings hurt.

The first reason religion needs to trump almost all else is that religion, by its nature, cannot be proven. So the only way to fairly apply religious liberty is to presumptively accept that whatever people say they believe is what they believe, even if it's bizarre, absurd, and makes no sense to anyone except the believer.

But that shouldn't be a problem nowadays. After all, we're expected to accept that boys are girls and girls are boys just because they say they are, so there's good precedent for presumptive acceptance of absurdity as truth.

The second reason is that religion is one of the few things that can compete with government for the sway it can exercise over people, and we need something to compete with government. We also need that "something" to be free of government influence and beyond its control.

That's why despotic governments throughout history have either tried to suppress religion (for example, the USSR, its satellites, Red China, and North Korea), or established state religions (for example, the entire Muslim Middle East). Despots don't want competition for the hearts and minds of the people. It's also why an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 Catholic priests, brothers, and sisters were murdered in Nazi Germany during the Holocaust.

So whether or not you believe in a religion, the evidence is pretty clear that we need religion (or at least freedom of religion) to serve as a bulwark against despotism. Even the despots themselves know this, which is why they either suppress religion or try to control it.

For example, none other than Joe Stalin -- no great friend of religion -- revived the Russian Orthodox Church after the Nazis invaded Russia in 1941, hoping that it would spur patriotism and lend the legitimacy that only religion can provide to the war against the Nazis. As powerful as Stalin was, he knew that the church was more so -- even after having been decimated as a result of decades of persecution by the Communist regime.

Rich
Click to expand...

When it comes to oppression, governments and religion both have that capacity so can act as a check against each other. It does get really ugly when both are combined into one as ISIS had done.

Now, do you consider by refused a room at the inn because of race to be a tangible injury or is that just hurt feelings?
 
Florida Cracker said:
So... Religious speech should be outlawed IF it conflicts with dyke wedding cakes?
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand this issue. Free speech is different than impeding the free exercise of religion. My point is that the cake maker would be better off arguing that requiring her to make a cake is forced speech and hence is a violation of that part of the first amendment. That is an argument that is stronger, IMO, than the religious one as having to make a cake, which is her chosen profession, is more tenuously connected to the free exercise of religion than it is to speech.
 
Lindberg said:
Freedom of speech/thought/expression is the ultimate check against tyranny. So yes.

But you inadvertently make a great point about the insidious danger of labeling privileges/desires/recognition as "rights." Dr. Sowell has written quite a bit about this danger (and strategy).
Click to expand...

You confuse the free exercise of religion with freedom of speech. An act can implicate both, but the freedom of speech is the more compelling argument, IMO.

No one should be forced to speak. Decorating a cake is speech. Now if you are selling Hostess Twinkies and refuse to sell to a black person, no speech is involved, and it is discrimination. Freedom of speech is how the cake baker should defend herself. Of course, she probably wanted to test the religious aspect, but ultimately, that could be a losing proposition.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
To Florida Cracker:

Statements like this...

"Ann Coulter: "Every single cause championed by liberals is based on a fake story. They make up events that didn't happen and get apoplectic over things that never will happen. The definition of "liberal" is quickly becoming: people who believe their fantasies should be facts. "

"To anger a conservative lie to him. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth." - Teddy Roosevelt"

...whether from the right or left are what's destroying the ability of this country to be great. Anyone with a brain should realize that conservatives and liberals both have good ideas. To polarize by demonizing one or the other is the problem, not the opinion itself.

I remember my college days, long ago, and a wise professor who would ask each of us to debate, pretending we had the opposite point of view. In the process, folks, shockingly, sometimes changed their minds.

Let us remember that this country was founded on the principles of free, educated debate and respect.

The only folks I don't respect is those on either end of the spectrum, from Keith Olberman to Ann Coulter, who seek to judge and demonize those who differ for personal gain.

Let us respect and learn from one another. There's too much at stake here to fall prey to judgmental, narrow thinking, left or right.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup::yes:
 
Kristin said:
When it comes to oppression, governments and religion both have that capacity so can act as a check against each other. It does get really ugly when both are combined into one as ISIS had done.
Click to expand...

If there is freedom of religion, then religion has little capacity to oppress because membership in a religion is voluntary.

Kristin said:
Now, do you consider by refused a room at the inn because of race to be a tangible injury or is that just hurt feelings?
Click to expand...

That's just as moot and irrelevant a comparison as it was the last few times you puked it up.

Rich
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top