Denying federal benefits to same-sex couples is unconstitutional - Page 3 - Homesteading Today
You are Unregistered, please register to use all of the features of Homesteading Today!    
Homesteading Today

Go Back   Homesteading Today > Specialty Forums > General Chat

General Chat Sponsored by LPC Survival


Like Tree62Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
  #41  
Old 06/03/12, 10:20 AM
Nevada's Avatar
Voice of Reason
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 33,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by pancho View Post
The govt. is doing everything possible to break up the traditional family.
Why else would they pay for the raising of a family if the father is removed?
Because the alternative is unacceptable.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06/03/12, 10:34 AM
Cornhusker's Avatar
Unapologetically me
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 12,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevada View Post
Because the alternative is unacceptable.
Our government is unacceptable
Ambereyes and copperkid3 like this.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
Mark Twain
______________________________________________

Enforced tolerance is oppression

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06/03/12, 10:35 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevada View Post
Because the alternative is unacceptable.
Letting the father live with his family is unacceptable?
Ambereyes likes this.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06/03/12, 10:37 AM
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ca
Posts: 6,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevada View Post
Because the alternative is unacceptable.
The alternative is to let the mothers family take care of the child if the father won't. He will be forced to pay child suppport too. So, the government need not be involed at all, except for a few cases.
__________________
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" - President Obama June 14, 2008
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06/03/12, 12:26 PM
Nevada's Avatar
Voice of Reason
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 33,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffreyD View Post
The alternative is to let the mothers family take care of the child if the father won't. He will be forced to pay child suppport too. So, the government need not be involed at all, except for a few cases.
In practice it seldom worked out that nicely.

I agree that the well-organized welfare system has changed families, probably not for the better. But it's not like we can go backwards. Simply put, the world is a more complicated place than it was 50 years ago.

Last edited by Nevada; 06/03/12 at 12:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 06/03/12, 12:37 PM
7thswan's Avatar  
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: michigan
Posts: 22,570
I can't get past the "Gay is not a race" crowd. Who is that and what does that statement meen?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 06/03/12, 12:50 PM
Nevada's Avatar
Voice of Reason
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 33,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by 7thswan View Post
I can't get past the "Gay is not a race" crowd. Who is that and what does that statement meen?
Some GC posters have suggested that since sexual preference is not a race it's perfectly legal to persecute them.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 06/03/12, 01:46 PM
Cornhusker's Avatar
Unapologetically me
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 12,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by pancho View Post
Letting the father live with his family is unacceptable?
I think he means personal responsibility is unacceptable, as in making sure fathers take care of their offspring
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
Mark Twain
______________________________________________

Enforced tolerance is oppression

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 06/03/12, 01:48 PM
Cornhusker's Avatar
Unapologetically me
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 12,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevada View Post
Some GC posters have suggested that since sexual preference is not a race it's perfectly legal to persecute them.
Nice stretch.
It's people like you who equate gays with the black struggles like sexual preference is a race.
You act like gay is an affliction, something that deserves special attention, special rights and a big boohoo from everybody.
You're gay, get over it and live your life without forcing it onto the schools and general public.
unregistered41671 likes this.
__________________
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.
Mark Twain
______________________________________________

Enforced tolerance is oppression

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 06/03/12, 02:48 PM
Nevada's Avatar
Voice of Reason
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 33,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cornhusker View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevada
Some GC posters have suggested that since sexual preference is not a race it's perfectly legal to persecute them.
Nice stretch.
It's people like you who equate gays with the black struggles like sexual preference is a race.
You act like gay is an affliction, something that deserves special attention, special rights and a big boohoo from everybody.
You're gay, get over it and live your life without forcing it onto the schools and general public.
You just made my point for me.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 06/03/12, 03:50 PM
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Ca
Posts: 6,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevada View Post
You just made my point for me.
I don't see any persecution here at all! I guess some will read it the way they want and call it persecution when the facts are being pointed out. Isn't that in Alinsky's book?
copperkid3 likes this.
__________________
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun" - President Obama June 14, 2008
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 06/03/12, 05:40 PM
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 10,940
Once you think about it is is also unconstitutional for me to marry my sister or first cousin?
__________________
God must have loved stupid people because he made so many of them.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 06/04/12, 02:37 AM
FourDeuce's Avatar
Five of Seven
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Arkansas Ozarks
Posts: 3,048
"any government worthy of the name tries to promote societal good."

You tried to sneak in the assumption that gay marriage(or any other kind of non-traditional family) goes against "societal good". Can you prove that? I hope so, because if you can't, the whole argument kind of falls apart.
Haven likes this.
__________________
"I don't want everyone to like me; I should think less of myself if some people did."
— Henry James
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 06/07/12, 01:47 PM
reluctantpatriot's Avatar
I am good without god.
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Terra Planet, Sol System, Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Vet View Post
Once you think about it is is also unconstitutional for me to marry my sister or first cousin?
Actually, in quite a few states you CAN marry your first cousin legally and have it recognized by the state.

As for your sister, if you want to marry her you can, but it is not something that is recognized by the state and is technically not legally allowed.
__________________
I would challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one. – Sam Harris
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 06/11/12, 12:35 AM
texican's Avatar  
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Carthage, Texas
Posts: 12,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevada View Post
That's why hetero get married.



After paying into the Social Security fund my entire adult life, now that I'm ready to start drawing SS I resent the "hog trough" analogy. I paid into the annuity fund, so now I expect annuity benefits. I reject the suggestion that accepting benefits that I paid for makes me some sort of freeloader.

But I recognize that you were just throwing out a red herring. It has nothing to do with the argument at hand, which is why gays are treated differently.
And, Nevada, I know your smart enough to know that you haven't been paying into an annuity fund, but into a govt. run welfare program.... the money you/I "donate" does not go into a bank vault somewhere, but automatically goes out the door to current retirees. Would be nice if it WERE an annuity fund, similar to Peru's, where you can actually see how much money you have in the system, and (from what I've read) can get that money out, especially if a loved one dies before reaching retirement age.

I'm a good ten years out of SS's retirement age... seriously doubt it'll exist by then... not depending upon it, in the least.
Ambereyes, JeffreyD and copperkid3 like this.
__________________
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. Seneca
Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival. W. Edwards Deming
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 06/11/12, 08:44 AM
Nevada's Avatar
Voice of Reason
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 33,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by texican View Post
Would be nice if it WERE an annuity fund, similar to Peru's, where you can actually see how much money you have in the system, and (from what I've read) can get that money out, especially if a loved one dies before reaching retirement age.
What you are describing in Peru is not an annuity, but a whole life program. Social security could be structured that way but it would be more expensive for participants. It's worth considering, but I don't think raising payroll taxes during a recession would be a popular idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by texican View Post
I'm a good ten years out of SS's retirement age... seriously doubt it'll exist by then... not depending upon it, in the least.
It better be here 10 years from now. I signed up to start Social Security this summer. I expect to get it for the rest of my life.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 06/11/12, 10:06 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dwelling in the state of Confusion - but just passing thru...
Posts: 8,092
Exclamation You say that "some" GC members have suggested???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nevada View Post
Some GC posters have suggested that since sexual preference is not a race it's perfectly legal to persecute them.



Name them!!!
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 06/11/12, 10:48 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 12,448
Since I don't want anyone telling me who I should choose for a mate I try to do the same for other people.
Just can't understand why people think they have the right to choose for another person.
Wonder if those people would cry and whine if they were forced to accept someone other people chose for them?
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 06/11/12, 11:15 AM
Haven's Avatar
I agree with Pancho
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by reluctantpatriot View Post
Actually, in quite a few states you CAN marry your first cousin legally and have it recognized by the state.

.
Was watching that Gypsy show last night and some gypsies from WVa had to travel to Va to get married since they were 1st cousins.

Inbred marriage is illegal in West Virginia; whoda thunkit?
pancho likes this.
__________________
"For if you start dancing on tables, fanning yourself, feeling sleepy when you pick up a book... making love whenever you feel like it, then you know. The south has got you.”
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 06/11/12, 11:33 AM
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Mass. and wanting to transplant
Posts: 1,261
" Was watching that Gypsy show last night and some gypsies from WVa had to travel to Va to get married since they were 1st cousins.
Inbred marriage is illegal in West Virginia; whoda thunkit? "

But is the Law Enforced ?
Reply With Quote
Reply




Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:04 PM.
Contact Us - Homesteading Today - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top - ©Carbon Media Group Agriculture