Conservatives and Homosexuality

Post Reply New Topic

as the gipper said, "there you go again." why do you have to say these mean things about people you don't even know? gay folk as well as straights are on this forum, so why do you want to alienate the gay folk who have done you absolutely no harm? straight folk are just as likely to molest animals as gay folk. i don't give a hoot what you think about gay folk or anything else, but in a civil forum one might show some tact. implying that gayfolk like to bugger sheep is not tact, but is just a red herring that has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. it sounds like you just want to offend people, and you are doing a good job of it, btw.

I thought you had some awareness. It seems not. If you cannot see how property is acquired,guaranteed, accumulated and used there is no use in conversing further between us. The Christian God is usually capitalized. I really didn't think it worthwhile to involve discussions of the myriad of other gods but I assure you none of those guarantees property either. If you are unaware of the multitudes of lazy undeserving irresponsible and uncaring rich people you are indeed pretty totally socially blind. Have you never heard of eminent domain in capitalist society? Communists usually deny private property, they do not necessarily guarantee it except in very limited quantities. That is a factor in capitalist society, not a genetic outcome. Ignorance is an unhappy state and you should do something about it.

You've deliberately taken a quote out of context and assigned it a meaning it didn't have in its original context. I refered to people in general. I was saying that people have all sorts of sexual preferences but do not necessarily get to marry the object of their desire.

And you have not indicated what harm it does heterosexuals for gay people to marry and have all the legal married rights of heterosexuals.

Eminent domain is a term used in the US; here in the UK it would be compulsory purchase, and has a rather tenuous connection to the subject of inheritance and the state's tax on that, so I'd be a little more careful when slinging your accusations of ignorance about. Anyway, the problem of tax on inheritance isn't an issue for rich people alone, and you yourself have identified the issues of tax and inheritance as a problem for gay people a few posts back in this thread.

As for the God reference, it seemed strange you should mention that considering how you detest religion.

It costs them money. It gives preferential treatment in law and taxation to a politically-favoured minority

they are politically favoured? how idiotic, they dont have equal rights how is that favoured?

and they are protected (because straight people try to kill us,beat us and generaly hate us. fair reason to be protected dont you think?

if we had equal rights and werent targeted by violent bigots...those laws wouldnt be necessary.

and for pointing out that sand capitalizes the word "God" is petty, he may dislike religion because of all it has inflicted on the world, but we can still be civil and respect your views even if we disagree with them.

I made a point of the capital in God to allude to something that's obviously lost on you; I wasn't correcting him. As for equal rights, in the UK they do and some more on top. They even have civil partnerships for them with preferential tax treatment, and as I said they can marry someone of the opposite sex like anyone else. Perhaps they could give single white males some benefits then I might be more understanding. Frankly, I'm sick of being taxed so the state can give it away to others, and as for being attacked, white males are regularly beaten to a pulp just for being white after straying into immigrant-dominated districts; but nobody seems concerned about that. Like I said gay people are politically favoured, just like certain immigrant groups. However, I don't hold that against them personally, and have no problems with people being gay.

they can marry someone of the opposite sex? technically we can but whats the point? marriage is about love first and foremost, (civil partnership doesnt equal marriage). you seem bitter, about something i cant grasp.

what preferential tax benefits do gay people get in the UK?

and im pretty sure the police do their job even when (yes im mocking here, seems absurd they wouldnt try to protect white people seeing as theyre citizens too) its white people getting killed.

This is a very odd mix of persecution complexes. I explained why I capitalized the word God and am not offended by the mention. But why are equal rights for gay marriages any more punishing to public money than in heterosexual marriages? What has that to do with other ethnic groups? From the general line of your argument it is becoming clear you have little interest in sexual affairs of other people but, like ruveyn, are sure that you have no obligations to society at all and society is bent on stealing your "hard earned" money. But as I tried to point out, the people who work in finance and manage large industries do not work any harder than the guys cleaning sewers, cutting down forests, cleaning toilets, digging in coal mines and many other poorly paying hard jobs but nevertheless they are the guys walking away with millions and billions every year while everybody else goes into debt. Hard work has very little equivalence to money. It's luck and quick wits and pure circumstance.

The issue is that you can make an argument for heterosexual marriage in that it can provide a stable situation within which to raise kids. It provides a benefit to society as a whole, and thus warrants expenditure of public money. However, I'm aware that particular argument can be dissected and criticised, because its success depends on other factors, and has gradually been eroded by leftists who wish the family to be replaced by the state. For example, you can look at how easy it is to get divorced, and that renders marriage almost worthless, unless you consider that other tenet of socialism, wealth redistribution, which divorce serves admirably. But giving gay marriage public money is completely useless to society as a whole, unless again you consider the wealth redistribution on divorce.


All other things being equal, working hard and dedication will giving you a better chance of living comfortably. Of course, all things aren't equal and personality, IQ, and chance play a part along with other things. Sitting on your backside, like some, thinking the state owes you a living will get you nowhere. Furthermore, being jealous of those who earn more than you, and encouraging disproportionate taxation on their assets, when you earn sufficient to feed yourself and family, have cable TV, a car and 15 days paid leave a year demonstrates one of the many less pleasant sides of human nature. You'll find most people are having problems with debt because they're not prepared to live within their means, not because they don't earn enough. Even the underclass in this country on benefits get a roof over their head and enough to feed themselves. I accept the need for some kind of welfare state like this, if not from a strictly moral view, then from a commonsense one in that it keeps society stable and prevents unrest amongst the underclass who might otherwise be inclined to start some marxist revolution, as has happened in many countries over the years. I guess it's similar to some foul medicine, in that you might know it's for the best, but on taking it you curse and spit at the taste. One thing I would say, though, is that immigrants here shouldn't get a penny from the state. I'd add, too, that I would prefer to see many people at the lower end of the wages scale paid more, but I don't think that's something you can directly legislate for. Cutting immigration, and removing immigrants who are here illegally would help that situation, I believe.

I don't know how old you are or what country you live in but your ignorance of the problems of decent people who struggle to merely get by, not to speak of having a comfortable living, is totally profound. At the moment there are, in the USA. five people seeking to fill each job opening and once you lose a job, if you are even slightly past middle age, it is extremely hard to find another job at all, not to speak of one equivalent to the one you left. Any disability pretty much disqualifies you totally. A severe expensive medical problem is a total disaster and very frequently demands bankruptcy. The number of poor people falling out of the middle class is torrential.

I am appalled at your total ignorance of the current problems of a huge number of decent people in terrible trouble.

I think it's clear from my posts here that I'm not from the US, and that my spelling and possibly idiom indicate I'm British. It would follow that my opinion on the matter being discussed represents a British perspective, Sand. Indeed, the wording of at least one of my posts in this thread show that I'm refering to where I live. I do accept things are likely to be harder in the US, although many argue that the willingness of individuals to buy goods on credit and live for today, rather than put money aside for hard times, hasn't helped. Furthermore, the immigrant situation is similar -- why not round up the illegal ones and send them back?

People use credit, not because they are stupid or because they are living high, but because wages in the USA have remained relatively static over many years even though productivity has increased immensely and the bulk of the gain has gone to the controlling elite whose share of the economic wealth has increased hugely at the expense of the working class. But they are running out of credit and the economy is flopping. There is no extra money to put aside. It doesn't exist.

If the immigrants were sent back there would be no agricultural workers to pick the crops and no cheap labor for the construction businesses. The immigrants are an integral part of the economy.

Anyone who supposes that the legal benefits of marriage exist for the purposes of supporting families is completely disconnected from the 21st century reality in the West.

Reproduction is not a precondition to marriage, or to the benefits of marriage. A childless couple is free to enjoy the benefits. An elderly couple, where the woman is beyond menopause, is free to marry.

In some jurisdictions, there is a tax disincentive to marriage. In Canada, a married or common-law couple may only elect one, "principal residence" that is tax exempt for capital gains purposes. A couple who are not cohabiting may each have one. Entitlement to certain tax benefits is based on combined income--two people who might, individually, qualify for certain benefits cannot qualify when their incomes are combined.

We can make up all of the arguments that we like about a purposive approach to discrimination, but the fact remains that it is a matter of currying favour with one political force to the detriment of another. It is precisely this type of failure in unrestricted democracy that requires protection of political minorities in order to maximize economic productivity.

GB is a capitalist country. As long as it is capitalist, then people won't get paid for how hard they work. Hard work doesn't get anyone anywhere. Let me show you an example:



Who do you think does more work, The Duke of Westminster or a miner? And before you go on a roll about IQ and other biological factors: