Hello everybody

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh and Ben-- your comparison of today unfavorably with slavery times is absurd

Hrm?

2012 - 100 = 1912. Slavery had already been banned in the US for close to 50 years by then.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are ignoring the fact that the rich pay the most tax and they don't have to work at all. Those that do work for pure satisfaction, not necessity. You're being silly.

Kidicious.

No, quite the contrary. Those with high incomes get taxed the most. There's a difference between high income and high wealth. The ones who don't have to work at all, the truly wealthy folks usually have low incomes. Those who do work, and work long hours are the ones who tend to have the highest income.

It's not right to deprive people of the fruits of their labor just because they make more than me.

[Tuberski]

Dear God.

ACK!

[Ben Kenobi]

Again, just your opinion that you use to deny other people the rights that you enjoy. And hide behind a religious definition. Faith can not be successfully argued against, just mocked.

One, faith actually is protected by the constitution. There is a right to freedom of conscience in America.

Two, marriage isn't an individual right. You don't have the right to get married to whomever you want to marry. There are restrictions on those who can marry. If it were a natural right, these restrictions wouldn't apply. Also, notwithstanding the fact that nobody has the right to demand that someone else marry them.

Three, gay people are treated exactly the same way by the marriage law. They have the exact same rights that I do. What they are asking for is special rights, not 'equal rights'. They want their preferred relationship to be recognized as marriage. There are good reasons why this shouldn't be the case, because the two are not functionally the same. The state has expectations on marriage that gay marriage does not fulfill.

And was it the implementation of Gay marriages the change?

Yes, it was. The curriculum was changed by the province to force everyone who taught in a public school to teach contrary to their faith.

Wasn't it your CHOICE not to teach because of those changes. Were you forced to not teach.

Yes, I was forced not to teach. There have been other christians, Chris Kempling, who have been blacklisted from the BC College of Teachers. So yeah, the change in the law is having a negative effect on me, in barring me from teaching in the province.

So you're willing to admit that yes, the change in the laws did hurt me?

Giving them equal protection under the law is how I would 'Look after other people'. I don't see how your desire to deny them that is looking after them.

Forcing people to act contrary to their faith isn't 'equal protection' under the law. If equal protection truly applied, then no Christian would ever have to teach anything on homosexuality contrary to their faith. Instead, we see the state forcing people to abide by a law that is contrary to freedom of religion.

Now, you're welcome to assert that this is fearmongering, except that this is exactly what is happening in MA and BC, both places which have lifted their restriction on gay marriage. It isn't, 'leave well enough alone', it's 'attack all those who think otherwise'.

Please don't look after me.

I have tried to be kind to you in the past, don't worry, I won't make that mistake anymore.

[Ming]

Yes, I was forced not to teach. There have been other christians, Chris Kempling, who have been blacklisted from the BC College of Teachers. So yeah, the change in the law is having a negative effect on me, in barring me from teaching in the province.

So you're willing to admit that yes, the change in the laws did hurt me?

So you are claiming that the state won't let you teach? Have you been blacklisted, or is it just this Chris person... So you are actually barred from teaching, or is it simply your choice not to teach? You haven't really answered the question.
And please provide some proof... maybe your name on an actual blacklist... or maybe some paper work that actually bars you from teaching...
It sounds more like you are refusing to teach, not that you can't.

And frankly, I wouldn't want a bigot and moron like you teaching my children... cramming your silly bigoted beliefs down young people's throats...
People like you are why bigotry is passed on generation by generation.... It will never go away as "good religious people" like you continue to spread their message of hate for others.

[Ben Kenobi]

You just keep making yourself look stupid

If you say it often enough will it come true? Maybe you should click your heels together.

Slavery... you are forced to do what a master tells you do, and you don't get paid.

Taxation... you do what you want to do, and pay the government it's share

You are forced to do what the state tells you to do, or you don't get paid, and you get arrested and thrown in jail. Should I be thankful that the state gives some of it back? Or is it just slavery under a different name?

Let me ask you something, Ming. If someone came up to you and said that you had to give 50 percent of your check to him, before you even saw the money - what would you call that person? Especially if he had a bunch of thugs who would beat you up if you said no?

You are not OWNED by the state. You pay with money or time, and then you are free.

Uh, yeah, you are owned by the state. The state forces you to pay your money and time for the benefit of the state. The only difference is that it lets you keep some of your money. That doesn't change the fact that the state does own you and the state sets the terms.

I can't go to the state and say, hey, I really need that money right now. Let me have all of it. No, the state tells you, pay up or else.

It's YOUR choice to break the law... The FREEDOM to make a bad choice... Slavery isn't about choice... it's about lack of FREEDOM

Yeah, and taxation robs you of your freedom, the exact same way. The time that you could have spent improving your own situation, is time that you have to spend working for the state. I don't have the choice - the state decides the terms, and unlike with slavery, you can't escape and gain your freedom. There is no way out.

tell me what crime slaves committed?

What crime has someone who's kept all the money that he earned through his blood + sweat committed?

Again, for your simple mind... you go to jail for breaking the law... not the case with slaves... they had no choice.

So because a person chooses to keep all of his money, that gives the state the right to throw him in jail, and take his children away from him, and confiscate his property which he has earned?

It didn't used to work this way. It used to be that the state had no claim on the property of it's citizens, and had to sustain itself on the import duties of goods brought into the country.

A small step... unlike slavery which is indeed total control of your life.

And you've already lost a substantial number of your rights which you once possessed. This is my concern. The state is acting like, yes, it owns you - and owns your labor. And you have no right to say no.

America used to know what real freedom was like. Please provide some actual facts instead of tossing around 6 months.

The top federal bracket is 35 percent. That represents the same as working for the government from January to April.

Now, lets say you happen to work in Oregon, you'll pay 11 percent if you make more than 11k. So that's already 46 percent. The same as working for the government from January to the middle of June. If we take a middle estimate of say 35k, (which really isn't that much money), in Oregon, you're going to pay around 25 percent of that income to the government, if you live in Oregon.

That's the same as if you were to work from January to April every year for the government and not get paid at all.

we get something in return, police protection, schools, parks, library's

As opposed to what we could do for ourselves, if we were permitted to work for ourselves for the entire year?

So what's your point here?

That taxation is really no different from slavery. The state takes the fruits of your labor and spends it how it sees fit. You wouldn't work for another person for 4 months with no pay, and if you could be arrested by that person for choosing not to work, you don't consider that slavery? I sure would.

[Ben Kenobi]

So you are claiming that the state won't let you teach?

Not in where I have my degree, due to the curriculum changes. I could get certification and teach math or sciences, but I ought to be able to teach in the area where I am most qualified.

It sounds more like you are refusing to teach, not that you can't.

I'm perfectly willing to teach, just that the province won't hire me, at least not as a history teacher. Which is fine by me...

And frankly, I wouldn't want a bigot and moron like you teaching my children

Well, my students here seem to be doing just fine on their assessments.

cramming your silly bigoted beliefs down young people's throats

Have you ever sat in any of my classes? My teaching philosophy is the same as Von Ranke's, that all historical evidence has to be backed up through empiricism, and actual records. I'm perfectly happy to stick to a history curriculum, but I'm not going to teach something that I believe is wrong.

I can, and do teach secular history, and you wouldn't even know I was a Catholic unless you asked. I enjoy teaching all kinds of history.

It will never go away as "good religious people" like you continue to spread their message of hate for others.

Well, I invite you to sit in my class one of these days. Perhaps that would dispel your concerns.

[Jon Miller]

Honestly I can understand that part of the reason the state supports marriage is to provide for the raising of children/etc (the other reason is to support stable relationships).

However, the solution is to allow gays to adopt, and then implement support for gay marriage (via state recognition).

JM

[dannubis]

I'm perfectly happy to stick to a history curriculum, but I'm not going to teach something that I believe is wrong.

Yep. No pushing your opinions onto young peoples here.

[Kidlicious]

Kidicious.

No, quite the contrary. Those with high incomes get taxed the most. There's a difference between high income and high wealth. The ones who don't have to work at all, the truly wealthy folks usually have low incomes. Those who do work, and work long hours are the ones who tend to have the highest income.

It's not right to deprive people of the fruits of their labor just because they make more than me.

[Ben Kenobi]

Yep. No pushing your opinions onto young peoples here.

I'm really not sure why sexual preferences are at all relevant to what I teach. Really, I don't see it.

[Ben Kenobi]

However, the solution is to allow gays to adopt, and then implement support for gay marriage (via state recognition).

So because they can't have children, the solution is to ignore everything and have people bend over backwards to accommodate them? If adoption were all about making adults feel fulfilled, then why don't we let single people adopt as well?

Isn't that discrimination by marital status?

[rah]

Hmm, I thought single people could adopt. Just another example of Ben making crap up to support his ridiculous arguments.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2009/09/the-adoption-option-can-single-people-adopt.html

Smart, educated, working, independent, wants to have a family. No it's not an introduction from an online dating website, it describes the profile of single women and men hoping to adopt these days. Single would-be parents have been coming forward in force over the past decades, seeking to fulfill a part of their lives by bringing a child into the picture. It is estimated that 5% of all adoptions are done by single people.

But, are there restrictions? Can single people adopt? And, what should a single person keep in mind during the adoption process?

Restrictions

Where there used to be a stigma and even legal restrictions on single parent adoptions, there are now resources, support groups, and options for singles wanting to start a family. In fact, no state prohibits an unmarried person from adopting, and many states actually spell out applicability of adoption laws to single persons.

[Dauphin]

He gives oerdin a run for his money on who can get more facts wrong.

[rah]

Especially after his comments like

Have you ever sat in any of my classes? My teaching philosophy is the same as Von Ranke's, that all historical evidence has to be backed up through empiricism, and actual records.

Thank god I wasn't drinking anything when I read this or I'm sure it would have shot out my nose when I started laughing.