Hello everybody

[giblets]

ten percent is not huge

Relative to the number of gay people, yes it is. Being gay is not as common as being left handed or being black. That's absurd.

[Ben Kenobi]

First, that's an economic and personal finance issue you're pointing out.

And your point is? Doesn't change the fact that taxation is slavery, just in a different form. Instead of being owned by an individual, you are owned by the state. We've emancipated a portion only to sell everyone back.

Just because a lot of people choose different paths than I did doesn't mean they are slaves.

In America or in the Philippines?

Things that have gotten worse since 1964 ... DOMA, knee-jerk reactions to terrorism (Patriot Act, NDAA), anti-piracy/internet security stupidity (SOPA like crap), not being willing to pay for or fix social programs, and reverse racism (Affirmative Action). It's good you realize those are awful things for our society.

And you start to see why I'm concerned. 1964 was 50 years ago. Looking at the recent numbers, a person earns on average today, what they did back in the late 70s. The number of people working has deteriorated back to the numbers then. All the gains made over the course of my lifetime are already gone.

[Ben Kenobi]

I reject the assertion that the government needs to make laws encouraging reproduction.

Then you're willing to do away with all state recognition of marriage? It's been the case, at least in the English speaking world, going back nearly 500 years.

there is no fertility crisis

Have you looked at the numbers in Europe? Yes, there is a fertility crisis.

I especially reject the idea that "changing rules damages society as a whole."

Then you'll happily answer my question as to what has been done in the last 50 years to improve society. 50 years is a long time, JR.

[Ben Kenobi]

They're the same in that, at least in the Western world, people who marry, tend to marry for the same reason - out of love. It's basically replaced marriages for economic and/or political reasons.

I ask the same question as gribbler. Why then is failure to consummate grounds for divorce?

[Jon Miller]

I have seen 10% listed as the high side for the number of homosexuals.

JM

[Wezil]

Where did MrFun get such an absurd number?

Iirc, it's the old Kinsey number. It was quoted for years until better numbers came along and is still quoted by those that want as big a number as they can get.

[-Jrabbit]

Then you're willing to do away with all state recognition of marriage? It's been the case, at least in the English speaking world, going back nearly 500 years.

I did not say, nor even imply, that the state should do away with recognition of marriage. My point is that expanding the definition to include same-gender couples does not diminish, or even change, the situation of heterosexual couples.

Have you looked at the numbers in Europe? Yes, there is a fertility crisis.

Again, gay marriage does not affect that in any way.

Then you'll happily answer my question as to what has been done in the last 50 years to improve society. 50 years is a long time, JR.

Not before you tell me how the Civil Rights Act, the 19th Amendment, and child labor laws have damaged society. Nice attempt at moving the goal posts from 100 years to 50 BTW. But it doesn't change the fact that your contention -- "changing rules damages society as a whole" -- is an obtusely reactionary "argument" that has absolutely no bearing on the issue of gay marriage.

[MrFun]

I ask the same question as gribbler. Why then is failure to consummate grounds for divorce?

I don't know what this question has to do with my point that I made.

[MrFun]

dp

[giblets]

douple post. the server here sucks

[giblets]

\And you start to see why I'm concerned. 1964 was 50 years ago. Looking at the recent numbers, a person earns on average today, what they did back in the late 70s. The number of people working has deteriorated back to the numbers then. All the gains made over the course of my lifetime are already gone.

What do you expect when you put people like Reagan in charge to give everything to the rich.

[Ben Kenobi]

In the Philippines.

You've proven my point. Arguing that you can buy land in the Philippines because it's cheaper, confirms the problem that I'm getting at. Land prices and housing values are way out of proportion with what most people earn.

[MikeH]

I especially reject the idea that "changing rules damages society as a whole." 100 years ago, separate but equal race laws were in force. Women did not enjoy basic suffrage. Not too long before that, child labor and slave labor were thought of as necessary to the economy. But then those damned liberals freed the slaves, gave women the vote, and gave the blacks legal equality.

It's a world gone mad.

Of course he ignored this brilliant post.

Welcome back Ben.

[molly bloom]

And your point is? Doesn't change the fact that taxation is slavery, just in a different form.

You have written a great many stupid things in your time. This may be one of the most offensive and stupid. May I suggest that you say to an African-American Texan that they are no better off paying taxes now than their ancestors were being slaves in the past ?


I somehow doubt that you will find anyone (in full possession of their mental faculties) to agree with you.

[molly bloom]

I'm a convert.

We all know this by now. Ad nauseam.

Calling me a Catholic faithful to the Church is a huge compliment.

I didn't. I don't mind you paraphrasing what I say, but entirely misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I say, well, that's rather dim.