posted
The function of government is to promote the welfare and protect the nation's citizens who contribute to society, while discouraging or eliminating parasitic citizens who take more from society than they either have given or will give in return.
In regard to non-parasitic citizens, government should help the greatest number to the greatest extent.
Any govenment help or protection to a minority or special interest group is immoral, unless: it does not cost the majority, or it benefits the majority to the equal or greater extent that it costs the majority.
Under these principles, entitlements are immoral unless they benefit the majority to the extent that they incur costs to the majority. Welfare is thus generally immoral - promotes parasites rather than reduces them and costs the majority more than it benefits the majority.
Gay marriage does cost the majority in additional marriage entitlements such as survivors benefits after the death of a spouse, and additional insurance costs to provide coverage to spouses where business or government provided some payment for this insurance. However, Gays can argue that they pay for this for non-gays and deserve their own benefit share.
I would only object to gay marriage when it allows gay couples to adopt children. Children should be brought up by heterosexual parents as they can learn much from the different-sex parental role models to help them later adjust in society as adults.
I can see no significant immorality to a nation in allowing gay marriage, but do see such immorality in allowing gays to rear children in a gay setting - not because they model homosexual behavior, but because they will lack heterosexual parental role models in their upbringing.
,
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like homo-sexuals, because of the children they're gonna adopt and I think it's just immoral and wrong. (no offense, just opinion)
Posts: 151 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, many men have negative instincts about homosexuality - the thought of sex with another man disgusts them. I myself am this way. Gays call it homophobia but it is not a fear of homosexuality as much as being repelled by it, sometimes aggresively.
A reaction formation defense can also be involved. Here you are unconsciously desirous of homosexual relations but consciously against it because of religious ideas, etc. This leads to conflict where you are attracted to gay performers and gays but fight to keed your distance from being involved with them. The movie, "Reflections in a Golden Eye", with Marlon Brando, was an excellent study of this.
I am for Gay marriage as I think relationship commitment would be promoted. I am against children being raised in such marriages, however.
Homosexual sexual predators and abusers (and any hetero or homo child abuser) should be shot immediately on a judge's court order with presentation of sufficient witness testimony - without a trial!
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Art: "Any govenment help or protection to a minority or special interest group is immoral, unless: it does not cost the majority, or it benefits the majority to the equal or greater extent that it costs the majority."
"Under these principles, entitlements are immoral unless they benefit the majority to the extent that they incur costs to the majority."
Wallace: Sure wish our Senators and Congressmen believed that with all that they get....retirement benefits, medical, insurance, perks, haircuts, etc.,etc.,etc.
Posts: 3607 | From: NJ - Outside Phila. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, whats with Americans and ****ting their pants about gays getting married? Even if Americans don't recogonize the marriage legally, gay people will still call themselves 'married' whether people like it or not.
Thats OK, apparently their are many financially sucessful gay Americans immigrating to Canada to get away from all the ignorance and bigotry down there.... Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kevin954: Yeah, whats with Americans and ****ting their pants about gays getting married? Even if Americans don't recogonize the marriage legally, gay people will still call themselves 'married' whether people like it or not.
Thats OK, apparently their are many financially sucessful gay Americans immigrating to Canada to get away from all the ignorance and bigotry down there....
Anti-gay sentiment stems from instinct in many people that make homsex repulsive. This is irrational at times as are all intincts. Takes time for instinctivelly based attitudes to change.
Could we say the sperm drain to Canada counteracts the brain drain to the U.S.? Just kidding. Actually many liberal intellectuals are now trying to get into Canada because of their hatred of Bush. They are finding out that the beauracratic hurdles will take maybe years before thay can become Canadian citizens. Could you people north of the border try to speed this up for our liberal exodus? Just say they are being politically persucuted by Bush's policies.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really don't care what they do or what their sexual preferences are as long as they do not push it on me. If we can overlook differences in religion , WHY NOT THAT? If we can overlook differences in color, WHY NOT THAT? If we can overlook differences in sex, age, etc., WHY NOT THAT? The only reason people have problems with it is because of religious mores....many of which should be seriously questioned, no matter what the religion.
I say, "live and let live".
Posts: 3607 | From: NJ - Outside Phila. | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wallace#1: Really don't care what they do or what their sexual preferences are as long as they do not push it on me. If we can overlook differences in religion , WHY NOT THAT? If we can overlook differences in color, WHY NOT THAT? If we can overlook differences in sex, age, etc., WHY NOT THAT? The only reason people have problems with it is because of religious mores....many of which should be seriously questioned, no matter what the religion.
I say, "live and let live".
I agree. However it might be more fun to kill 'em.
lol
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Christian people, who believe in the Bible, of course feel that since God calls it an abomonation, that it isn't right in HIS eyes, so it must not be, to us either! Accept the sinner, but not the sin! Once again, we ALL sin!
-------------------- As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord! Posts: 622 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Being a real Christian, in that I actually believe in living a life that models the beliefs and actions of Jesus, I know Jeses was a very tolerant guy that would let people go about their business whether he disagreed with it or not. Bible belt yankee doodle "Christians" like yourself won't let them do that though, you'd rather support constitutional ammendments to ban it. The hypocrisy is disgusting.
Like glassman said in the other thread, in death their is going to be a very "special" place for people who twist the loving, acceptance and tolerance of God into something hate filled to keep people in control.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Art: I would only object to gay marriage when it allows gay couples to adopt children. Children should be brought up by heterosexual parents as they can learn much from the different-sex parental role models to help them later adjust in society as adults.
osubucks: Better for the children to stay in the system then not get adopted at all! That is what you are saying isn't it?
Most that stay in the sytem grow up to be troubled adults. If someone wants them they should be able to care for them!
There is so much HYPOCRISY in the AMERICA! People preach about marriage being so important but 50% will end in divorce.
Art: Good point. However, we haven't had a problem with too many children up for adoption. We do have problem children that no one wants, but then if we allow homo-secxual couples to have only these children to bring up then the courts will not allow such discrimination, which will open the door for unrestrricted adoption by homosexuals.
Problem children should be aborted, or killed soon after birth. The state has the moral right to kill anyone, anytime, anywhere, if it promotes the greatest good for the greatest number of its citizens, and this includes children. Violation of this moral principle leads to immorality for a state's citizens.
[ February 20, 2005, 23:09: Message edited by: Art ]
Posts: 1458 | From: Ohio | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think gay marriage should be allowed it disgust me how there rights are being taken away. Also i dont think we should take a lot of time judging gays in a moral stand point considering all of us do plenty of sinning and should worry about fixing ourselfs first. And about children needing heterosexual upbrings more than 50% of marriages end in divorce...
Posts: 84 | From: austin texas united states | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ghtry: I think gay marriage should be allowed it disgust me how there rights are being taken away. Also i dont think we should take a lot of time judging gays in a moral stand point considering all of us do plenty of sinning and should worry about fixing ourselfs first. And about children needing heterosexual upbrings more than 50% of marriages end in divorce...
Good points. But the divorced parent hopefully visits the children and provides them an opposite sex role model parental experience.
I think we should not allow a divorced parent with children to remarry within 5 years of diviorce if they do not have primary custody of children in the marriage - make divorce a less attractive option. The divorced parent with primary custody could remarry immediately however.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
when a corporation is given an environmental regulation that is expensive to follow, it will ("IT will"!) often weigh the pros and cons of breaking the law. "if we break this law and get caught one out of every 5 years of breaking it, it will be cheaper to pay those fines, than to comply."
CUT TO: a whole town gets leukemia.
Art, you want to shoot the sick child-molester, on the spot, ("on judgets orders" ! )... what about the CEO who knowingly skirts an environmental law because it is cost-effective? and 400 kids get cancer? lets shoot him.
"you say you knowingly dumped cancer-causing fish-killing, water destroying poison in the river? really? the river my kids swam in all summer? you don't say. ok, please go stand against that wall,sir."
lets shoot his offspring while we're at it. just in case that kind of greed is genetic. kiddig. i'm just trying to mimic your emotions running away with the ball bit.
How 'bout the3 strikes law for corporations?
really, hating the CEO is not appropriate, when it comes to putting profit-motive above all else. since he is bound by law (an unnatural, sick, and very dangerous law) to do this. however he is not bound by any law (sick or otherwise) to BREAK the law. so i say, shoot him.
------------------------------------------ (except that i am non-violent... so ok, we just need a total paradigm shift. fuch. how are we going to do that...)
Posts: 234 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A: .. the divorced parent hopefully visits the children and provides them an opposite sex role model parental experience.
LL: is opposite more important, or merely *as* important, as having a same-sex role model? just curious. having a same-sex parental role model is great, unless that person who happens to have the same sex-parts as you do, SUX. then it's actually a nightmare slowly coming true.. as you *become* the monster. (examples abound. find a woman who tolerates spousal abuse. she'll tell you that's what her mom did.) if your opposite sex parent is horrifying,then you will be gay or ... fill in the blank (see spousal abuse example, above.)
---
is there any reliable data yet on the effects of the upbringing of a kid under same-sex parentage?
there are so many variables. imagine you have one set of hetero parents who are stupid, abusive, illiterate, terrible-tv-watching junk food-eating, smoking, lying, drug-abusing mosters.. (let your imagination do the rest.. comeon, you can do more...) and next door we have daddy and daddy..! a couple of hilarious PHDs! they have a full library, money, faabulous food, an impressive collection of art, movies, an exciting lifestyle, they travel the world, they find the best schools for their kids, they are LOVING, don't forget that part please. in short, they rock.
you are jane, in an orphanage. which family do you want to live with?
ok, i realize that in life it isn't often the fabulous daddy's vs. the horrible heteros, but i'm just saying, there's a lot to consider... gender not necessarily belonging on top of the list. maybe not even in the top five.
~~~
A: I think we should not allow a divorced parent with children to remarry within 5 years of diviorce if they do not have primary custody of children in the marriage - make divorce a less attractive option.
LL: oh yeah, that'll take care of it! it's not like they'll just "shack up" with the new partners. great idea art.
what if the children actually *want* their parents to be outof the toxic relationship...? what if they actually long for happy, fulfilled parents.. parents who leave relationships which aren't working and find relationships that are working, sending a message to the child that you are driving your life, (not festering in it as a bitter miserable victim.) many ppl believe staying married when the marriage is no good, does the kid no favors.
if daddy hates mommy then jimmy learns "the woman is the one that i hate." and on we go. [the real point might be ==humans are not naturally meant to mate for life??? i think i saw a study which showed that the natural life span of a hetero relationship is something like 4 years.. long enuf to get her pregnant, and hang around while she breastfeeds jr... and gets him into a preschool so's she kin git back to work!.. i don't know where i read this...]
A: The divorced parent with primary custody could remarry immediately however.
LL: ? ! have you lost your mind? (you've lost your mind.) do you assume it's always so cut and dried, that one person is good and the other bad? and the "good" one always gets custody?
lets say the divorce is mutual, and they decide for the dad to have primary custody bcs he works out of the house. mom travels. so little jimmy and little janey spend most of their time with daddy, who is now happily remarried. but when they go to spend time with mommy, she is alone.. (according to your retarded rule.)
Little janey has Mom, (not daddy's new wife,) as her same-sex role model. and now you would have it - that janey should digest this message early on "mommy is lonely." so that janey can grow up to repeat it?
congratulations. you are my first allstocks letdown.
Posts: 234 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lucy Lastic: when a corporation is given an environmental regulation that is expensive to follow, it will ("IT will"!) often weigh the pros and cons of breaking the law. "if we break this law and get caught one out of every 5 years of breaking it, it will be cheaper to pay those fines, than to comply."
CUT TO: a whole town gets leukemia.
Art: They get sued and pay dearly, which is why this has never happended. Nice fantasy but doesn't wash.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lucy Lastic: Art, you want to shoot the sick child-molester, on the spot, ("on judgets orders" ! )... what about the CEO who knowingly skirts an environmental law because it is cost-effective? and 400 kids get cancer? lets shoot him.
Art: Korashaw, but only after we sue his company, and shoot all others involved. Again, no such thing as happened but child molestation happens every hour and many children are traumatized by it. Now the 13 year old boy seduced by his female teacher is a different story, as the boy will tell you - an enriching and growth enhancing experience.
LL: ..lets shoot his offspring while we're at it. just in case that kind of greed is genetic. kiddig. i'm just trying to mimic your emotions running away with the ball bit.
Art: No, we are not sure they inherited his criminal personality. We might want to sterilize them if we did find it is an inherited trait. Not kidding.
LL: How 'bout the3 strikes law for corporations? Really, hating the CEO is not appropriate, when it comes to putting profit-motive above all else. since he is bound by law (an unnatural, sick, and very dangerous law) to do this. however he is not bound by any law (sick or otherwise) to BREAK the law. so i say, shoot him.
Art: Ochen korashaw. He is a criminal and we need to remove them from society.
LL:...except that i am non-violent...
Art: We all have problems.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Art: .. the divorced parent hopefully visits the children and provides them an opposite sex role model parental experience.
LL: is opposite more important, or merely *as* important, as having a same-sex role model?
Art: The child learns different roles from a mother and father, and both are equally important. Children reared with only one sex parent(s) have more problems in life.
LL: find a woman who tolerates spousal abuse. she'll tell you that's what her mom did. if your opposite sex parent is horrifying,then you will be gay or ... fill in the blank (see spousal abuse example, above.)
Art: Mozeyt beetz. But, you must realize the women who tolerates (or even seeks spousal) abuse has the genes of her mother who did the same. Genetic as much as modeled (learned) trait.
LL: is there any reliable data yet on the effects of the upbringing of a kid under same-sex parentage?
Art: Yes, more problems than mommy-daddy rearing. However, many modern politically correct (liberal) researchers would find that homosexual parents do as good a job. Research in may fields is politically biased these days.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
LL: there are so many variables. imagine you have one set of hetero parents who are stupid, abusive, illiterate, terrible-tv-watching junk food-eating, smoking, lying, drug-abusing mosters.. (let your imagination do the rest.. comeon, you can do more...) and next door we have daddy and daddy..! a couple of hilarious PHDs! they have a full library, money, faabulous food, an impressive collection of art, movies, an exciting lifestyle, they travel the world, they find the best schools for their kids, they are LOVING, don't forget that part please. in short, they rock.
Art: Pravda. My remarks assumed "all other things being equal."
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
LL: what if the children actually *want* their parents to be outof the toxic relationship...? what if they actually long for happy, fulfilled parents.. parents who leave relationships which aren't working and find relationships that are working, sending a message to the child that you are driving your life, (not festering in it as a bitter miserable victim.) many ppl believe staying married when the marriage is no good, does the kid no favors.
Art: They have no other choice. Many situations require us to accept and adjust - lay back and enjoy it. Like when I was 13 and was seduced by my 22 year old female schoolteacher. It was traumatic but I had to accept it and move on.
LL: if daddy hates mommy then jimmy learns "the woman is the one that i hate." and on we go. [the real point might be ==humans are not naturally meant to mate for life???
Art: Better for the children and if parents want children they should accept a life long commitment, otherwise don't get married and do without children. Guess what? Eventually everyone would have genes inclining them to marry for life and have children - other genes will select out from lack of inclusive fit (reproduction to continue gene pool membership).
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Art: The divorced parent with primary custody could remarry immediately however.
LL: ?
Yes, the one with custody of children should remarry quickly (replacing the parent that left the home) to give the children both-sex parents. The one that left the home would be penalized in not being allowed to marry for at least 5 years and hopefully to never remarry. This assumes the one that left wanted the divorce more, and was not as good "marriage material" as the one that stayed with custoday.
LL: Have you lost your mind? (you've lost your mind.) Do you assume it's always so cut and dried, that one person is good and the other bad? and the "good" one always gets custody?
Art: Generally so, that the one that leaves the home is the more divorce-prone parent. However, rules would be modified to cover circumstances, with the judge deciding.
LL: lets say the divorce is mutual, and they decide for the dad to have primary custody bcs he works out of the house. mom travels. so little jimmy and little janey spend most of their time with daddy, who is now happily remarried. but when they go to spend time with mommy, she is alone.. (according to your retarded rule.)
Art: That is the price she pays for a divorce, and if she pays it she proves less suitability to be a good parent.
LL: congratulations. you are my first allstocks letdown.
Art: For this to be your first letdown from me must mean that you have not yet bought one of my stock picks.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Jesus was tolerant, until it came to people sinning! I seem to recall him going into the temple, and tearing it apart in anger, because the tax collectors were there working, on the Sabbath! Like I said, hate the sin, but love the sinner! That is what Jesus did, and does! He shared the Word, and told them what was sin, and told them to go and sin no more! He didn't sit by, and watch, and not say anything, and just let them continue on in their sins! A true Christian, does this with love! If someone rapes a child, do you sit by, and let them continue doing what they want, because we are to be tolerant of their actions? Rape to God, is a sin, just as much as homosexuality, murder, adultery, stealing, lying, and all the rest! I think you all know what they are! One isn't any worse than another! I also believe that Jesus wouldn't say things, to deliberately hurt others, so if you are serious about being a Christian, you may want to rethink your remarks! What I state in this forum, is my beliefs, and none of it is intended to hurt anybody! I only share what is in my heart!
-------------------- As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord! Posts: 622 | From: USA | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hurting people sometimes is necessary to help them (surgery). Criticism sometimes is necessary to enable a person to see the truth (teaching by correcting errors). Killing people is sometimes necessary to save more lives (use of atomic bombs to end WW II).
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gays should be able to marry. People that think otherwise are just like those in the past that said women shouldn't vote and blacks shouldn't be drinking from the same water fountain.
It is called equal rights.
And I call bogus on any of these bible based arguments that gay marriage is a sin under God. The bible is FULL of crap that good Christians violate everyday.
Life is too short to spend time trying limit the freedoms of people that aren't like you. Take all that energy and start enjoying your own life -- i.e., get a life.
End of discussion.
Posts: 852 | From: Pacific Northwest | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Art: Killing people is sometimes necessary to save more lives (use of atomic bombs to end WW II).
Art, go learn some history. Not a single military historian worth his salt subscribes to that bs theory anymore.
We dropped the bomb as a show of force to the Russians, plus we demanded an immediate unconditional surrender that had terms illustrating a gap in cultures. This has all been re-hashed by Truman's hawks in documentaries, biographies and current history books.
Posts: 852 | From: Pacific Northwest | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Art: Killing people is sometimes necessary to save more lives (use of atomic bombs to end WW II).
Art, go learn some history. Not a single military historian worth his salt subscribes to that bs theory anymore.
We dropped the bomb as a show of force to the Russians, plus we demanded an immediate unconditional surrender that had terms illustrating a gap in cultures. This has all been re-hashed by Truman's hawks in documentaries, biographies and current history books.
Japan refused to surrender, even after the first stomic bomb. They had been preparing for a U.S. land invasion on Japanese soil for many months. They had built numerous denfenses, and even were training civilian women and children to fight a war of attrition for years. They calculated that the enormous difficulties for the U.S. of supplying troops, food and other supplies across a vast ocean, would wear the U.S. down and after millions of casaulties on both sides of years of fighting, we would call a truce and go home. Japan could then rebuild and go about their original goal of conqueroring much of Asia. The U.S. for many months were carrying out preparations to invade Japan.
The Japanese losses sustained by the atomic bomb attacks were small relative to those sustained by both sides, if the invasion scenario had played out.
Have you ever heard of the idea that war involves inflicting maximal destruction on the enemy and suffering mininmal losses to your own? This means if killing a billion of the enemy can save only one of your own, you should do it, all other things being equal.
Liberals like you advocate parity in lossoes so that the U.S. should only kill in patrity to the losses they suffer, and thus should always restrict war efforts, and fight with one hand tied behind their back, as we did in Viet Nam.
Any commnder in war knows the value of sacrificing some of his men in a battle if it will inflict grater harm on the enemy that will also/or save more of his men in the long run.
Sometimes killing is necessary from a moral perspective, to obtain a greater good.
-------------------- The light of truth is blinding to most.
More comforting to look only at the shadows of falseness. Posts: 4402 | From: Florida | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have to agree with art on the case of Japan in WWII. That would have resulted in a huge number of deaths on both sides. But i dont think what we are doing in Iraq right now is the right thing to do. We are already in there so we cant leave now but i dont think going in there in the first place was smart.
Posts: 84 | From: austin texas united states | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
