Discussions
Should Gays Pay Taxes?
Posted by johnbisceglia • 2/03/09 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: equality, IRS, tax protest, tax revolt, taxes
I say no - not until OUR FAMILIES are treated the SAME in U.S. Law.
If you are FED UP with having to be "liked enough" for equal rights, and believe EQUALITY is ours to TAKE and refuse to beg for it, then EQUALITY TAX REVOLT. For All Americans who support our demand for equality: REVOLT - April 15, 2009
User Comments
-
I was heartbroken that Prop 8 passed! I would have voted against it but I live in MA more than 50% of the time (in SF the other half).
While the country took a step forward in electing Obama, California--and all of our citizens took a huge step back.-
I was heartbroken when prop 8 passed too. I actually was in disbelief. I was certain that it wouldn't go through.
-
-
Everyone has to pay taxes. The IRS is the sole efficient organization in the gov't. If you don't pay they will find you. I think other gov't agencies should pay closer attention to the IRS.-
Speaking of thier efficiency at finding people, perhaps we should stop reporting missing and eploited children to the police and instead tip the IRS off that they have not been paying taxes and are now driving cars that you know that they can't afford.
Here is another interesting tidbit for you, did you know that 7 out of 10 people who are audited are targeted because thier friends and neighbors reported somethign suspicious about you to the IRS.
-
-
Actually, there is no law requiring to pay income tax in the US (it is unconstitutionnal), other than the big stick.
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173-
yeah, but try not paying your income taxes. you won't get away with it! LoL
-
-
Are you asserting that you receive no benefit from the operation of the U.S. government? Are you willing to waive all of the protections you do enjoy under U.S. law and all government services in return for not paying taxes?
And do you think everyone who feels adversely affected by a law should refuse to pay taxes?-
Great questions.
-
Well, it is an interesting form of protest, don't you think?
-
gays aren't adversely affected by A law... more like laws, policies, institutional gay-cism... -
Some highly committed pacifists and Quakers have been war tax resisters for many years now... -
Madame:
Do you know how may types of citizenship are described in the US Constitution?
Which type are you? More importantly, do you know what the differences are? There is a type of citizenship that most American's fall into and per the Constitution are not liable to pay a direct tax. Did you also know that per the Constitution that the Federal Government has no authority to assess a direct income tax on individual citizens. The only entity authorized to do so is the STATE GOVERNMENT. The FEDS can only assess a per capita tax to the state based on population assessments called "Census". It is then up to the state to collect the required amount of tax from the individual to make up the difference that they should have to pay.
However, our system is based on Voluntary Compliance. But try not complying and see where that gets you. Did you know, that any document that you sign that includes a definition of penalty under pergery can be considered COERSION and nulifies the legality of the document so that you can not be held accountable for the information in it.
I will end here, because this line of discussion could ramble on for 20+ pages.
-
-
Umm .. ok. From where I come from being gay is against the law. Dont ask me why ... but thats just how it is. And I do know that in some countries being gay is punishable by death.
Correct if I'm wrong but being gay is not against the law in the US and some states have actually gone ahead and legalized same sex marriage. I'd say the US is getting there only if it takes some time. It took more than a century for America to accept a black president so it will take some time before the entire concept of homosexuality is accepted by the general society.
Not paying taxes in my opinion really does not do much more than act against your cause. Yes, as Anok said, it is an interesting form of protest but will it really be effective ? And by not paying your taxes you would be denying the government from vital funds (especially when it needs it the most) and deny it from serving the general population which also includes the non-gay community that supports you.
I hope that made sense.-
The residents of California are angry because their rights were actually removed.
I'd be a little mad, myself. -
Well obviously anyone would be mad. Its just that gays and lesbians in the US are way better off than their counterparts spread across the world.
I dont know maybe its because I've witnessed both extremes. -
Oh and how did they lose their rights ? I dont think I've heard of that one.
-
@alexmcone--
They had been given the right to marry and it was taken away. It's discrimination. -
Their rights were not removed.
Special rights were provided them and those special rights were recognized by the citizens of California as being just that, special rights. -
This is true, Alex. But the fact that its the US is what makes it even more astounding to me, and others. This shouldn't even be a battle here.
-
Why should gays not be allowed to marry?
Helllooo? It's 2009!
I've lived in San Francisco from the time I was barely 17--and have many gay friends--I went to some of their weddings. That they are not allowed to marry is nothing more than discrimination. -
They had the right to marry, and then it was removed.
That isn't a "special right". Unless heterosexuals consider themselves special.
Oh wait, maybe in CA they do. -
It doesn't matter whether it was a "special right" or not--it was a right, created by the state, granted, and then taken back. It's important to note, though, that it was an artificial right (just like all legal marriage) that existed only because the state created it, and it wasn't the government that took it back--it was the citizens of the state of California. Unfortunately, this is such a hot-button issue that the debate keeps drifting to the emotional aspects and skips right over the real issue here, which is a system of government that gives 50.01% of the population the right to initiate and create law. There is a reason we have a representative form of government.
-
-
You are an American citizen, you should then pay taxes.
if you do not want to pay taxes in America, take up citizenship in another nation, relocate there and rid yourself of the burden of American citizenship.-
If they are American citizens, then they should have equal rights as per the constitution.
-
Anok,
they have the same rights. -
No. They don't. They don't have the right to marry.
-
No, they don't.
-
they have the same rights.
No they do not. They do not have the right to marry. That discrimination in turn means that they do not have the full rights and benefits that opposite sex married couples in America do. What that amounts to is the loss of rights and benefits from the feds and from the state.
If you want details please do a forum search because we have been through this itemization of lost rights and benefits previously in more that one forum thread.
Here's a summary:
For a country like America that purports to guarantee “equality” to deprive a class its citizens of the basic human right to contract in such a way as to be able to dispose their possessions appropriately upon the demise of one or the other is nothing short of outrageous hypocrisy.
I believe that same-sex partners ought to have the same rights and obligations as opposite-sex married couples have routinely experienced, such as:
* Social security, bereavement, injury and pension benefits.
* Tenancy rights.
* Possibility of adoption.
* Full recognition in life assurance policies.
* Responsibility to provide reasonable maintenance for partners and children.
* Same tax treatment as married couples, including exemptions from inheritance tax on homes.
* Visiting rights in hospitals.
* The obligation to contribute financially to their relationship and children.
* Parental responsibility for the children of their partner.
* The ability to dissolve the partnership via a divorce procedure.
* Ability to register the death of a partner and make decisions concerning burial.
The right for same sex couples to marry in California was taken away via the passage of the proposition 8 vote. What was lost were between 1000-1400 federal and state rights that eschew to married couples only. Registered partnerships or civil unions give same-sex couples the benefits and protections of civil marriage, however, the couples are not legally married, and therefore they NOT entitled to spousal rights, AKA all the rights and benefits of marriage that issue federally and from the state to other married couples.
Some rights and benefits that differ are joint custody of children, adoption and immigration rights, next of kin, inheritance, social security, and tax benefits, accident compensation, life insurance, immigration, spouse and child support, workplace benefits, ability to sue for wrongful death, hospital visitation and health care decisions. (Take note that the the foregoing is NOT an exhaustive list.)
The mean spirited and fallacious campaign of the right wing religious zealots who financed a multi million dollar campaign to deprive their neighbors of Sheri rights will remain a shameful day in the history of the USA. And, lest we forget, it was this same faction of citizens years ago that also stood in favor of slavery and against inter-racial marriage. -
Yes, they have exactly the very same rights to marry.
The very same.
Anything beyond that is special accomidation; special rights. -
No, they do not. They do not have the right to marry the person they love or are attracted to.
Perhaps we should restrict all marriages to homosexual ones, abolish hetero marriages altogether.
I think that's a great idea. Now, go get married! -
Anok,
they may marry a person of the opposite sex, correct?
I and you may marry a person of the opposite sex, correct?
Neither they, or myself or any other has the right to marry a person of the same sex, correct?
Same rights.
>>Perhaps we should restrict all marriages to homosexual ones, abolish hetero marriages altogether. -
Let's reverse it.
Everyone can marry someone of the same sex. Do you feel your rights are being upheld now?
Perhaps we could change it this way - you may only marry someone of the same religion.
Or perhaps the opposite religion. Yes, that one is better.
Marriage is a human right (article 16, UN declaration of human rights) and is interpreted as a federal right in the US (Amendment 14). In California marriage is listed as an inalienable right, and did not exclude homosexuals until a ban was placed in the 60's.
Marriage - to whom you choose of free will - is a basic right. And homosexuals do not have the same rights or protections as heterosexuals.
Besides the "well they can get married to someone they're not attracted to!" argument is tired and lame. -
Anok, I know you weren't talking to me, but I don't feel that scenario would affect my "rights" at all. I don't think the state is under any obligation to create a system of legal marriage for me or to extend benefits to me based on that status.
-
Tiffany, I appreciate your answer, full well knowing your opinion on marriage though, I would say you are like part of 1% of the population who would feel that way.
When rights and protections are being extended to one group, but not another one...people tend not to think about abolishing it altogether. You know?
But the heart of the question really is - does the state have the right to tell you who you can marry? -
Anok,
the nation was founded upon a foundation of natural law. Homosexual marriage does not work within the framework of natural law. Without natural law then America ceases to be America and America ceases to be free.
The whole of the foundation clearly needs repair as we have chipped away at it for 200 plus years now.
You cannot have a solid foundation when you use pliable building materials.
Marriage has a solid definition and has a solid definition for a reason. Because marriage between men and women is good for the nation, marriage between people of the same sex is detrimental to the nation.
There is nothing within homosexual marriage, or homosexual relationships period, that is of benefit to the nation.
A nation needs to maintain a specific birth rate in order to retain its identity. If there were such a thing as a population bomb, then homosexual marriage is water dousing the wick of that bomb.
Mentioned earlier was the separation of church and state.
Separation of church and state first of all is not a constitutional item; you will not find it in the constitution. I imagine you are informed enough to know where it came from and the context.
Knowing that then it is obvious that the LDS church (Mormons) was perfectly within their rights to stand opposed to the legalization of homosexual marriage.
No one cries separation of church and church and state when pro-homosexual marriage denominations of individual churches speak in favor.
Your claim that saying homosexuals have the same rights is old and tired, is itself old and tired. Homosexuals do in fact have the very same rights as Americans that hetros have. The very same.
When you say it isn't true and then try to prove your point you can only do so by playing in the black and white and trying to color it grey.
As for your U.N. they are a useless, inept, corrupt organization. May they soon join the league of nations in the history books.
If I wanted to live in a European nation I'd have moved to one years ago.
America is unique among all nations that have ever existed. For all of its flaws, no nation has ever known such individual freedom, in no other nation have people known such across the board equality, etc...
I disagree with many various things that our government does. My disagreement does not allow me not to pay taxes.
It utterly disgusts me that my tax money funds abortion for instance, I continue to pay taxes.
Homosexuals were given the legal right to marry via the court system. This was a work behind the scenes in order to skirt around the voters of California.
It was a full on scam and was done in complete disregard to the citizens of California.
Homosexual marriage is an extension of a far wider agenda to force the ‘acceptance’ of the homosexual lifestyle; and to make those of us who stand opposed to appear to be in the minority and paint us bigots.
For the time being at least we are in the majority and our opposition does not make us bigots (gay is not the new black, no matter how much homosexuals wish it were).
It has been demonstrated at least since the early 90’s that there is no more “intolerant” group in America than “homosexual activists”. Without a doubt homosexual marriage will be legal in all 50 states sooner rather than later but it won’t come because of some civil rights moment for homosexuals in America.
Civil Rights was the right thing to do and was long, long overdue. It was right for the country and was right for the individual.
Homosexual marriage will come because it is forced upon us, like a hammer slamming a nail into the knot of a piece of snakewood. -
What if your work decided wearing pants was no longer allowed. But instead, everyone must wear skirts. Would you comply? What would you feel about your rights against womans rights then?
-
"the nation was founded upon a foundation of natural law."
Uhhh, no it wasn't. The nation's founding document is the Constitution. And the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law. If straight couples are allowed to marry, gay couples should also be allowed to marry.
Saying that gays have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex is saying nothing at all.
Gays do not have the right to marry and straight people do. That is the fact. There is no reason to believe the government has the authority to STOP gays from marrying, and there is every reason to believe that the law GUARANTEES that gays be given the same rights as heterosexuals when they do marry.
-
-
Every man should be loyal to his country, else seek another. Paying taxes is a small cost for living in such a great country! -
should childless US citizens pay school taxes?-
The difference here is childless couples are not being denied the right of having children, they have chosen for it to be that way. -
YES - if they choose to live in school zone areas. -
School taxes are not assessed per child, they are based on the property within the district. If you choose to have title to property, then school taxes are assessed based upon the value of what you own. This is the most equitable way to collect money for the socially collaborative purpose of educating children (intellectual infrastructure, if you will). Many of the taxes and fees we pay individually (whether on property, gasoline, or sales) go towards a collective purpose.
-
-
I find it somewhat amusing that America is the 'supposed' land of the free, but yet not all citizens have the same rights and freedoms.
As Dan Savage wrote last year (www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/savagelove/081120/), "Oh, Canada, while we scream and yell about being the land of the free, you quietly live it. I love how my boyfriend magically becomes my husband when we visit Canada, without anyone else’s marriage being threatened.".
I find that quite profound, no? -
Yeah they should! Everyone should. Life isn't fair and everyone gets screwed in one way or another. Some religions are treated like second class citizens, some ethnic groups are, some service members are, rich people are punished for being rich, etc.
Following the logic of the OP, no one should pay taxes.
A bit of random information, tax protesters are not technically committing a crime, however they typically get smacked with a 5k fine under IRS section 6702 and Internal Revenue Code section 6673 imposing civil monetary penalties for making frivolous arguments in proceedings before the United States Tax Court. The law provides that frivolous arguments may result in a penalty of up to $25,000., (the most frequent ones being it's unconstitutional or civil unrest)-
The groups that you mentioned may endure social stigmas - but they are not in fact treated like second class citizens under the law.
Homosexuals are. -
I think that the NAACP would beg to differ, and the servicemembers who are excluded from renting a house, getting extra life insurance, purchasing certain items or being allowed to attend certain functions simply because of their job may also have a say.
If your argument is based on the marriage thing, well every company I have ever worked for offered benefits for domestic partners, two people can buy a house together, adoption is allowed, the only things I see missing are a state document and inheritance rights. My inlaws are lesbians and they seem to think that the marriage issue is a matter of semantics, commitment ceremony vs wedding. Now they can be wrong, but I asked them less than twenty minutes ago if they were second class citizens or if they have ever felt that way in the 27 years that they have been together. They said no. They live in bible banging Lake City Florida and didn't see an issue so maybe my perception is jaded? If so, elaborate, I am curious about the subject.
I still say everyone needs to pay taxes but the citizenship views are of interest to me -
nevermind, I see TT's breakdown above. Interesting points.
-
With regards to rules regarding active duty service members:
You and I both know that they are not civilians and are not protected by the same laws. And they sign a contract that states that when they enlist.
The military is a world unto itself. -
Indeed, instead of being prosecuted by just civilian laws, they are also prosecuted by UCMJ. So its a harsher punishment just for being X.
Don't get me wrong, I think everyone should be treated fairly, my point was that no one is and that this is not the answer.
Tax protesting will cause nothing but a nasty backlash. It calls attention to a label, then will flood the media, then people will become sick of hearing about it, next the government will most likely have a huge crackdown on the articles I have listed above and start garnishing bank accounts and placing liens, after that there will be more out cry and protests, and though some may join the cause, some will also become less tolerant as a result of it. The government gets their money one way or another, it's a matter of voluntarily giving it up and potentially getting some back, or giving up with a lot more penalties, interests and damage to your credit record. -
I've personally never understood why that is, or why anyone would subject themselves to that - but it is 100% voluntary.
-
I knew you were going to say that
-
Well...*shrug*
It is. Unless your like a criminal who wants to get out of jailtime. Then that's not really a choice. I mean it is, but not really
-
-
All people should pay taxes and all people should be treated equally under the law perhaps if we stepped away from labelling ourselves and others we would become 'all people' not the 'gays'-
Nice idea, robinj!
-
I couldn't agree more.
-
-
I dont care whether you're half donkey pay your taxes. last thing we need in a bad economy is a large group of people purposely not paying their taxes.
-
You are free to do whatever you want to do.
But - know this.
April 16th - there is a penalty on the balance due and interest is accruing. If the government requests you to file an income tax return, penalty calculations are usually double normal rates.
The government, although may provide fairness and forgiveness on some of the above penalties and interest - they do not write off bad debts. Ever.-
And you'll never become Secretary of State if you don't...oh, wait...Interior, maybe? HUD?
-
-
TT says: "* Possibility of adoption."
Am I to understand you prefer the right to a child over the right of a child (to be raised in a household with diverse parents)?-
@harvetavatar
I live in Canada. My neighbors, who are married to each other, are of the same sex. The children of one partner were produced by a dead beat dad, who abandoned them at age 13 months and 1 month. He has contributed ZERO to their finances, upbringing, etc. and wants nothing to do with them.
When their mother was away on a business trip for her company the eldest child suffered a serious schoolyard accident at age 5 and required surgery. The partner who was not the parent could not sign for the surgery because she was not his parent. She called the father and begged for him to come to the hospital and sign for the surgery. He was too stoned, drunk and paranoid to do so. The mother had to fly home from England (18 hours all told traveling time to the hospital) while her son lay there waiting.
Since then the father chose to allow his two children to be adopted by the woman who had been in their lives since infancy ie. the woman married to their mother. Does that clarify my position on the adoption issue? -
All children deserve the right to be placed in healthy, happy homes with loving parents - and all parents who can provide a loving, healthy home for an unwanted child should have the right to persue it and not be discriminated against because of sexual orientation, race, religion, political affiliation etc...
-
@TT,
If I understand the story you told, one of the women is the mother of the children who were adopted. Not your typical case. I was thinking of the classic adoption case.
More generally, your position seems to me to be that of the argument of the lesser evil (ie its better that kids live with two parents of the same sex who are caring rather than two parents who are uncaring or even worse... ). This is quite a common viewpoint, and excludes the possibility that neither of these situations is good for a child. Btw, if one accepts the idea of a "lesser evil" one also logically accepts the idea of a lesser good - thus of an absolute good. -
In the case of adoption the adoptive parents are never "the lesser of two evils". The point that is regularly made - and often missed - is that qualified parents are being denied the opportunity to provide loving homes based - not on qualifications, not on character, not on ability - but rather on their choice of partner.
This same discriminatory standard is not placed on straight couples.
Oh, and scientific studies have shown that children raised by gay coupes develop the same as any other kids. The sexual orientation of the parents have little - if any - bearing on the child. -
@Anok,
1) I do believe the vast majority of couples of diverse sex looking to adopt can offer healthy, happy homes, and a loving environment.
2) I also believe the right of a child to be raised in a diverse environment(with both a male and female adult models)is much more important than the right to (adopt) a child. This is in no way a judgement on individuals, the requirement of determined and complementary parents for the optimal upbringing of a child needs little further demonstration. -
@Anok again,
1) The typical argument, and the one presented by TT was clearly that of the lesser evil...
2) There could be a case to me made if there were not enough complementary "qualified parents", but this is not the case.
3) I can live with that type of "discrimination", just as long as children are not discriminated in their upbringing. I prefer the right of the child to the "right to a child".
4) "Scientific studies": yes, depending on what results you aim at, you can get often get the results you are looking for. Be that as it may, in just a few years time we will be able to observe the results of this real live experience. Boy o boy, this will be fun! -
@haevyavatar
I neglected to mention that the same sex couple both have two parents who love them. They both have brothers who love them too. The children do have grandfathers, uncles and male cousins. They have no shortage of male role models who are married to opposite sex partners in their lives at all. They stay overnight in homes where there are opposite sex partners and they take vacations with these "nuclear opposite sex families" too.
What I object to is that some people seem to imagine that families do not include gay people. Of course they do. They always have. Where I live in the country extended families and not nuclear families are the status quo. Moreover, 30% of all kids in North America are being raised by single parents, who are primarily women. (But this is off-topic discussion so I'll post no more on this in this thread.) -
Shorter Harvey - "Gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, because I don't think they'll provide good homes."
Why not just up and say it? "Diverse homes"? Gimme a break. I grew up with friends raised by homosexual parents. Guess what, they went to school, did their homework, had friends, got into some trouble, went to dances, hung out, had boyfriends/girlfriends, went to college, got jobs...
Same as me.
Science says you're wrong. There are millions of children who need to be adopted.
What's the problem? -
I just noticed this down here, guys, gay people are allowed to adopt. It's state specific, but the organizations that allow it do not have state residency requirements. I know several gay couples who have adopted. Here are some of the states, the rest of the list can be found at the link at the end. I just added the first few as examples, Alabama was surprising to me.
* Alabama
Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed in some areas.
* Alaska
Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed in some areas.
* Arizona
Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption unclear.
* Arkansas
Arkansas Act One prohibits unmarried couples (both same sex and opposite sex) from adopting or fostering children. More on Act One
* California
Permits single GLBT and joint adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed.
* Colorado
Permits same-sex couple adoption. Also allows grandparents and other individuals helping raise the child to adopt.
* Connecticut
Permits single GLBT and joint adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed.
* Delaware
Permits single GLBT adoption. Does not clearly prohibit joint gay adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed in some areas.
* District of Columbia
Permits single GLBT and joint adoption. Second-parent adoption allowed.
gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gaycoupleadopt.htm -
Florida also just passed a law allowing gay adoption. It might not be through completely yet.
-
Not so much passed a law allowing it as overturned a law banning it. -
TT,
Yes, those are good points, however not an optimal situation for the child, and I for one think the child's "rights" should come first. There is no dearth of "good homes" from diverse sex families.
-
-
Payment of taxes was never subject to any conditions except money changing hands, either as income or sales, or on the basis of holding property as in property taxes. Even if gays get full civil rights, transgender people still won't. Advancement of civil rights is a continuing work in progress. But you pay your dues if you play the game at all. -
Gay rights and paying taxes are two separate issues.
One has nothing to do with the other.
If you dont own a car , you still have to pay taxes to fix the roads.
If you dont have kids you still pay school taxes.
ect ect ect.
Marraige takes place in the heart , not because of some ceremony.
I can state my opinion of taxes but it wouldn't change anything, I still will pay them and I am proud to be able to pay them. I don't agree with them all but If I want the laws changed then I need to elect lawmakers that think as I do, until then we have to abide by the rules of the current set of rulemakers.Is Barrack OBama going to change anything, I hope so but the Executive branch of the government is not the problem, it is the legislative branch we need to watch out for. -
Any man who wants to su.....probably yeah. -
my god... when will you people get over this rights thing
its really getting old
you all have privileges, some more, some less.
be thankful that you have some
there are plenty of people who have none...
you all make me sick, with this talk of i have this right, i have that right
one day you will have nothing-
But thats what make America so great. We keep fighting for equality/rights even if we have a lot of privileges. It gives us something to care about and work towards.
-
but the thing is that you can have equality, and have a fair system where everyone has an equal opportunity.
but when you start to have "rights" you automatically push your self up into this self righteous upper class of the world
its not fair on the rest
*************EDIT*********************
i maintain that rights, privilege and equality are all different -
I have to disagree with your notion of "rights" and how it relates to the US. I think its fair for me to say that we believe the rights we have others should have as well. We are probably the biggest contributor to humanitarian efforts that also promote democracy and equal rights.
And, its not the US fault that other countries dont get the same "rights", we can only do so much. and pushing for equality is pushing for the rights that we believe are god given.
****EDIT****
I figured that they are related and used interchangeably though -
but look at the man power you have, can you imagine if china or russia (Edit maybe not russia) went on a humanitarian spree, you would be goneskies
just as an example, (not attacking you or anything) this sentence sort of illustrates my point about putting your self up on a pedestal
"its not the US fault that other countries dont get the same "rights""
and i also don't get this mentality that america is ment to save the world
what is that all about?? -
You're talking about two different issue Siralmo.
One issue is the fight for equal rights under our laws, in our country. This has nothing to do with the rest of the world. We have papers, documents, declarations and a constitution complete with a hoard of judges, justices, lawyers and politicians to interpret it.
Those documents outline the fundamentals of our country, and provide the guidelines for us when created new law, or abolishing old law. The fact that other countries don't operate this way, or have different opinions or cultures than us really isn't our fault. We have nothing to do with that.
The second issue that you brought up is American Imperialism. We seem to have a thing for imposing our own beliefs and powers on other countries.
Totally different subject. -
Because America is always looked at as an example of a strong democracy and fighting for piece. When theres a huge humanitarian effort, they dont want to know what Russia thinks about it, they want to know the US opinion and what we plan on doing to help. Therefore, thats why I say its not our fault anyways, the statement is still true. Its more about our ideals and principles I think.
***edit***
I wrote my statement before I saw Anok's but I had to go get this yummy sandwich out the microwave and got distracted, but I'll just assume that me and Anok agree...hopefully -
@Anok yeh im sorry about my tendency to curve left of centre, going back to my original point, i still believe that it is exactly the same with the country as well. it has always proven... or at least as far as i have seen that those with money power status or friends, will have more rights than those without, because at the end of the day it is only a hand full of people who decide what is right and what is wrong...
these people use their own judgement
now when you think of a concept like equality or rights or even privilege, the concept is something that is supposed to autonomous yet the biggest flaw in it all is that we put a person in charge, and human error can be huge -
Sensico - I went the usual anarchist route with my answer
Siralmo - the crazy ass part of this debate here is that the rights of homosexual were restricted by popular vote not wealthy and powerful elite.
o_0
The one time the government should'a stepped in.... -
@sensico your statement is valid, i just don't agree thats why i left "(not attacking you or anything)" in there
i do alot of humanitarian work, and its not easy to help people, i just hope that you guys aren't ruining the world, one good deed at a time
mind you in the recipients situation, they are more than happy to get anything, thats why it is so welcome, the problem then is that you create a dependence.
and just because someone expects something from you doesn't mean you give it
i'm pretty sure the US government has played politics under the guise of a humanitarian effort before and will most likely do it again -
@Anok are you for real?? they all need a slap in the face
-
I know!
-
@siralmo
I agree with every point you made above.
Are you going to provide sensico with the link so she can see that
the USA takes as much out of the UN as it puts in? -
unfortunately this has been personal opinion and would have to go and do some research to provide such a link
-
Its ok, I dont have much time to raed that crap (research)
-
-
Although I feel that it is wrong to deny anyone their rights...I do think that gay people should pay taxes.
-
ok. Don't pay taxes and go to jail. I don't think the IRS cares-
LOL!
-
-
how tiresome. fwiw, I, a gay man, filed my tax return a few days ago. -
The thing is how can you police it is it by breath or pint?? it's hard to police.
-
american is about equality or fairness
immigrants that do not get to take part in social services have to pay taxes
law-abiding citizens are double and triple taxed
that's life -
Good point here, i think if the government really set a new rule that says gay people don't have to pay tax, i think all of us have become gay just to avoid paying tax. The same thing goes for lesbians. And then the whole country would have low birth rate and so on.
One country should practice equality for the nation's peace and love. It's the best practice that any country can offer. :-) -
Maybe some kind of anal tax??? Or a saltiness enjoyment tax?? Or is that unnecessarily penalising people who enjoy salty bar snacks?
-
I want to make a dirty joke about penalising, but I won't.
-
-
This ain't a "protest".
It is an outright REVOLT against the Federal Government, due to the EXCLUSION of our families AND children in federal law. "Give me liberty (with equality) or give me death", and no, prison isn't an option.
I doubt gays will have equality until there is SUFFERING EQUALITY in the United States....i.e. - those who continue to vote suffering into our lives need to UNDERSTAND exactly what it feels like to:
* Lose your child 1 day after your spouse dies.
* Lose your home and all possessions after divorcing an abuser.
* Lose your job/career due to federal inequality.
* Lose your home due to federal inequality.
Because you are ignorant AND naive if you do not think denying Queer Families those 1,138 rights have consequences. Dire ones.
I represent a growing number of queers who have experienced a lifetime of H8, and you know what? - it's a funny thing about pain. It turns to anger. Then RAGE. Then one feels as if one needs to FIGHT BACK in order to survive in a world where FAMILY RIGHTS are voted upon by the majority. THAT is the sickness. But go on dragging this out in elections. Go on thinking that I am alone. You have NO IDEA of the anger YOUR HATE is creating...feeding...inspiring.
Oh - and the rich gays are clueless. Those making $8,000 or less a year are affected in PROFOUNDLY different ways than the rich gays. They can also afford to purchase each right piecemeal, and love going to equality fundraisers and calling in gay for a day. If they'd meditate for ONE MINUTE on the stories of Detective Lieutenant Laurel Hester, Mickie Mashburn, Tim Coco, etc., they'd realize how pathetic their gay organizations are. Vanity prevents the gay organizations from expressing justified anger, as if they need to be LIKED first in order to have human rights.
Heterosexuals would be trying to KILL US if we were voting these kinds of harm and devastation into their families. We're supposed to smile and say, "please?!" - The tide is turning. The Queer Community has barely begun to own its anger. -
It would be an interesting protest if you could rally a lot of gay and lesbian people into not paying their taxes until the government agrees to legalize same-sex marriage.
If anyone's brave enough to do that, I'd like to see how it plays out. -
* ALL MEN & WOMEN & CHILDREN ARE CREATED EQUAL
* TAXATION WITHOUT EQUALITY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
* EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW
* SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
Not one penny or taxes until then - GOOGLE "Equality Tax Revolt"-
You have equality so you've no excuse then not to pay your taxes.
What does seperation of church and state have to do with it?
Are you under the impression that seperation of church and state is a constitutional issue? -
[You have equality]
Gays have equality? Really? So that means they are allowed to marry the person they want and receive all the state and federal benefits for doing so?
[What does seperation of church and state have to do with it?]
The strongest support for repressing gay people comes from the conservative Christians, Mormons, etc. -
They do not have equality. No matter how many times you say it, it simply won't be true.
The church and state issue comes into play because the Prop 8 movement was religiously based, and, there are no non religious reasons for opposing what two consenting adults do with regards to matrimony.
Ergo, banning homosexual marriage constitutes the state upholding the religous doctrine of one religion over others.
Which goes against the first amendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, [...]" -
You claimed in another thread that you were on welfare due to PTSD. Where do you think the money for your welfare comes from? You have a lot of nerve complaining about taxes when you're living off tax dollars. -
To be technical, he stated he was on welfare because he had no legal protection nor legal coverage because he could not legally get married (and thus not receive proper care prior to the divorce, nor protect himself during the divorce) causing financial trouble.
I'd say the two are related.
Even if you have a solid point. -
[sarcasm] What separation of church and state?
Where in America does this alleged separation exist? [/sarcasm] -
"* TAXATION WITHOUT EQUALITY IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL"
You made that one up.
And, in fact, if it were real, then all taxation would be unconstitutional, since all people never have been and never will be situated exactly under the law.
-
-
Here, you can read my take on it here:
identitycheck-anok.blogspot.com/2008/12/right-to-subjugate-as-you-see-fit.h... -
Okay. Then I don't have to pay taxes, either. I live in Washington, DC. -
I DON'T GET EVERYTHING I WANT, THEREFORE I WILL PAY NOTHING.
I think it's a grand idea. Don't pay, and you'll get nothing in return.
You will be unable to use public roads,
When subjected to a gay-bashing, the police is there to protect the bashers, because you chose not to be part of their protection
After the bashing, you are forbidden to enter emergency rooms
You are not able to raise a lawsuit against your attackers,
You won't have to worry about someone burning your home, because you will be unable to own property. And since you are a free for all target, you won't be able to rent either. And you can't argue that you should be since you don't have legal protection
Enjoy your tax free life. -
From Anok,
"Shorter Harvey - "Gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt, because I don't think they'll provide good homes."
Across the centuries and cultures, philosophers who have looked into the requirements for an optimal upbringing of a human being have stressed the requirement of determined, precise, reliable and complementary (ie diverse) parents, over a long period of time (longer than most other species). I also have spoken with a few psychologists on the subject, who adamantly share the same view.
"Why not just up and say it? "Diverse homes"? Gimme a break."
??? Well yes, I said a situation where a child does not have a female and male reference is not optimal. Did you not read me?
What is your problem with the word diverse? Synonyms would be different sex, complemetary sex, etc.
"I grew up with friends raised by homosexual parents. Guess what, they went to school, did their homework, had friends, got into some trouble, went to dances, hung out, had boyfriends/girlfriends, went to college, got jobs..."
Well, yes... I never said children raised in same sex families could not do their homework, have friends, go to dances, get jobs, etc. All other things being equal, they will have more difficulty assuming and replicating the role of natural parents in society - it is more of an uphill battle.
When I was young, my parents would let our neigbors, a lovely gay couple, babysit my sister and I. They were very happy to have us... So if I can fully understand the desire of any couple to rear children, I look at the (optimal) interest of the child first.
"Science says you're wrong. There are millions of children who need to be adopted."
You are not reading me. I said there is no dearth of diverse sex homes. +what can science say of human nature?
"What's the problem?"
Yes, what is the problem?-
Across the centuries and cultures, philosophers who have looked into the requirements for an optimal upbringing of a human being have stressed the requirement of determined, precise, reliable and complementary (ie diverse) parents, over a long period of time (longer than most other species). I also have spoken with a few psychologists on the subject, who adamantly share the same view.
Hmm, lets see, research conducted during time periods where homosexuals were not only not allowed to parent children, but were often imprisoned or stoned to death VS current studies of children in the homes of homosexual parents.
The results of child development and well being is not affected by the sexual orientation of the parents. It's affected by parenting skills.
Nor does it surprise me that you would seek out psychologists who share your opinion.
Well yes, I said a situation where a child does not have a female and male reference is not optimal. Did you not read me?
What is your problem with the word diverse? Synonyms would be different sex, complemetary sex, etc.
You are incorrect. It is equally optimal, so long as the parents involved can actually provide a stable loving home.
And using the word "diverse" is a sugar coating of y our opinion so you don't come across as a bigot. Just say what you mean.
Well, yes... I never said children raised in same sex families could not do their homework, have friends, go to dances, get jobs, etc. All other things being equal, they will have more difficulty assuming and replicating the role of natural parents in society - it is more of an uphill battle.
This is a 100% fallacy. Children learn what a loving respectful relationship is by watching their guardians interact with each other. The make up of the relationship has no bearing on the child's ability to understand how a relationship works. The see and fully understand that when two people are committed and in a loving relationship they act particular ways - from fights to responsibilities to romance. The fact that the couple is made of up of two people of the same sex makes no difference.
Unless you are implying that homosexuals cannot model a loving respectful relationship?
When I was young, my parents would let our neigbors, a lovely gay couple, babysit my sister and I. They were very happy to have us... So if I can fully understand the desire of any couple to rear children, I look at the (optimal) interest of the child first.
The optimal interest of the child is to live in a stable, loving home.
You are not reading me. I said there is no dearth of diverse sex homes. +what can science say of human nature?
What does the number of straight parents have to do with homosexuals being able to parent and adopt? Homosexuals aren't bench warmers on the adoptive parent team. They are full on qualified players.
And science says a lot of things about human nature. Like the fact that homosexuals can successfully parent children.
Yes, what is the problem?
I have no problem with homosexuals adopting children. You do. Perhaps you need to ask yourself why.
-
-
Anoks says:
"The results of child development and well being is not affected by the sexual orientation of the parents. It's affected by parenting skills."
Since we seemingly have to start with the basics, you do agree that only a man and a woman can have children naturally? Now what orientation would that be? And how do you think parenting skill is acquired? Your assertion that sexual orientation has no bearing on the development of a child seems to me to be a clear case of petitio principii (or begging the question).
"Nor does it surprise me that you would seek out psychologists who share your opinion."
Actually, I did not seek anyone out, nor did I bring the subject up. In fact, this is what got me thinking...
The fact that you infer this, demonstrates your will to stick adamantly with your a priori opinion.
You can keep knocking reality with your ideological hammer, it will remain quite oblivious to the idea you have of it to be what it is! Actually, that is precisely the definition of an ideology: to carve out of reality what does not fit in ones preconceived idea...
"You are incorrect. It is equally optimal,"
Petitio principii...
"And using the word "diverse" is a sugar coating of y our opinion so you don't come across as a bigot. Just say what you mean."
Wow... you do realize that the argumentum ad hominem is the basest form of argument... you can do much better, than trying to put meanings into other peoples heads...
And nice try with "bigot", it so happens I know a few homosexuals, and they are far from convinced that letting same sex couples adopt is in a child's best interest... You should give this another think, you may be surprised to find out who really is the bigot here...
"This is a 100% fallacy. Children learn what a loving respectful relationship is by watching their guardians interact with each other."
So you are saying the role of the mother and the father are perfectly interchangeable... a man can seamlessly be a mother, and a woman can naturally be a father... wow
"The optimal interest of the child is to live in a stable, loving home."
Are you implying that diverse sex parents cannot offer this as well as same sex parents? (playing a bit of your game here).
"What does the number of straight parents have to do with homosexuals being able to parent and adopt? Homosexuals aren't bench warmers on the adoptive parent team. They are full on qualified players."
So this is a game?
"I have no problem with homosexuals adopting children. You do. Perhaps you need to ask yourself why."
Answer: because a child is not an object (of anyones desire to parent)...
PS I have no interest in pursuing a debate with someone who has zero will to seek what is true. Admittedly, my own personal experience of the matter is limited (as is yours), so the only way we could get something useful out of this whole thread is setting down some fundamental questions... which I will do (hopefully very soon)...-
And how do you think parenting skill is acquired?
Parenting skill is acquired through practice, and by the experiences the parent had growing up. (Watching his or her parent(s), taking care of siblings, babysitting, etc...)
Are you implying that brand new straight parents have more experience than brand new Gay parents because of sexual orientation only? The act of sperm meeting egg does not, in any way shape or form transfer parenting skills to the new parents. Or even to experienced parents.
You can keep knocking reality with your ideological hammer, it will remain quite oblivious to the idea you have of it to be what it is!
Actually, I'm knocking you on your lack of factual information.
Petitio principii...
Keep trying. It's a good response when yuo don't have an answer, though.
Wow... you do realize that the argumentum ad hominem is the basest form of argument... you can do much better, than trying to put meanings into other peoples heads...
And nice try with "bigot", it so happens I know a few homosexuals,
*yawn* Boring same old argument. I'm not a bigot because I know a (enter in minority group)....
You are qualifying each and every one of your statements with the basic premise that homosexuals cannot adopt children because they are homosexual. And for no other reason. Your assertions are factually incorrect, ergo your premise is incorrect, ergo your conclusions are incorrect. Circular arguments and false premises do not work in the world of reason.
So you are saying the role of the mother and the father are perfectly interchangeable... a man can seamlessly be a mother, and a woman can naturally be a father... wow
Absolutely. In fact children learn best when the mother and father roles are not strictly defined by gender. Unless you are also offended by stay at home fathers who cook, clean and nurture while the woman makes the income?
Are you implying that diverse sex parents cannot offer this as well as same sex parents? (playing a bit of your game here).
Nope, I am saying that optimal child care happens in stable, loving homes. Regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents.
So this is a game?
*yawn*
Answer: because a child is not an object (of anyones desire to parent)...
Which has nothing to do with adopting children. Are you stating that homosexuals treat children as objects, while heterosexuals do not based only sexual orientation?
And you claim that you are not a bigot?
PS I have no interest in pursuing a debate with someone who has zero will to seek what is true. Admittedly, my own personal experience of the matter is limited (as is yours), so the only way we could get something useful out of this whole thread is setting down some fundamental questions... which I will do (hopefully very soon)...
I have no desire to sit back while someone asserts misinformed opinion as fact. My experience is not limited, but it is obvious that yours is.
Here's is what is useful in this thread - homosexuals are not less than. Homosexuals are not a danger to children. Homosexuals are not incompetent.
Here's another useful thing - the only qualifications that an adoptive family should be required to meet are:
Financial stability - be able to provide a home, clothing, food, and health care to the child.
Emotionally stability - be able to pass basic psychological tests to ensure the parent(s) is ready to adopt a child, and has no severe mental handicaps that could endanger a child.
Drug test - no drug addicts for obvious reasons.
Pass a background check - no felons, child molesters, rapists or violent criminals should be allowed to adopt a child.
Race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, political affiliation do not make the list of disqualifying factors because none of them render a person or couple incapable of raising a happy healthy child, in a stable loving home.
Willful ignorance on par with yours is a bane on society. -
I forgot to back up what I've stated:
From the APA and AAP (American Psychological association, American Academy of Pediatrics)
aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/pediatrics;109/2/341?ful...
Technical Report: Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents
A growing body of scientific literature demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children’s optimal development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family unit than by the particular structural form it takes.
www.aap.org/publiced/BR_GayParent.htm
Children whose parents are homosexual show no difference in their choice of friends, activities, or interests compared to children whose parents are heterosexual. As adults, their career choices and lifestyles are similar to those of children raised by heterosexual parents.
Research comparing children raised by homosexual parents to children raised by heterosexual parents has found no developmental differences in intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, or peer popularity between them. Children raised by homosexual parents can and do have fulfilling relationships with their friends as well as romantic relationships later on.
pedsinreview.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/15/9/354
There are no data to suggest that children who have gay or lesbian parents are different in any aspects of psychological, social, and sexual development from children in heterosexual families. There has been fear that children raised in gay or lesbian households will grow up to be homosexual, develop improper sex-role behavior or sexual conflicts, and may be sexually abused. There has been concern that children raised by gay or lesbian parents will be stigmatized and have conflicts with their peer group, thus threatening their psychological health, self-esteem, and social relationships. These fears and concerns have not been substantiated by research. Pediatricians can facilitate the health care and development of these children by being aware of these and their own attitudes, by educating themselves about special concerns of gay or lesbian parents, and by being a resource and an advocate for children who have homosexual parents.
www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html
Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.
www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/article.php?id=31
Can Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals Be Good Parents?
Yes. Studies comparing groups of children raised by homosexual and by heterosexual parents find no developmental differences between the two groups of children in four critical areas: their intelligence, psychological adjustment, social adjustment, and popularity with friends. It is also important to realize that a parent's sexual orientation does not indicate their children's.
Another myth about homosexuality is the mistaken belief that gay men have more of a tendency than heterosexual men to sexually molest children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals molest children.
-
-
Anok,
Is there any research that suggest the opposite?-
I have found some - but I don't recognize the sources. (Ie, they are blogs or unrecognized "colleges") It's usually along the lines of "well this group says that these tests are wrong...." no citations etc, at which point I Look elsewhere.
The only thing I saw in any reputable source (APA) was that harassment of homosexuals and/or their children by people outside of the family unit can cause acute stress. Which has nothing to do with parenting skills. -
No but it does go towards the health of the child.
-
... which is a factor to consider, after all. I mean, should any kid have to deal with discrimination because THEIR PARENTS are gay? Though you really can't hold the parents accountable for the actions of bullies...
-
So is any harassment of a child because of their parents lifestyle or family unit.
Single parents, religious parents, non religious parents, punk rockers, or just plain old bullies in schools.
But you can't decline qualified couples from adopting because someone might say something mean and bully them. -
[But you can't decline qualified couples from adopting because someone might say something mean and bully them.]
That's what I was touching up on at the end of my post. -
I hadn't read your reply before I replied *blush*
-
And I hadn't noticed that CSI had posted above me.
-
No you can't if it is that someone "might" bully them.
But i'd like to see the numbers of children that are being bullied because their parents are gay.
If that number is very high, it should definately be one thing to take into the general evaluation as an "against" -
Not if the gay parents homeschool the child. What then?
-
The APA study I linked to (second up from the bottom) addresses that concern head on:
A third category of concerns is that children of lesbian and gay parents will experience difficulty in social relationships. For example, some observers have expressed concern that children living with lesbian mothers or gay fathers will be stigmatized, teased, or otherwise victimized by peers.
Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support.
Which, essentially tells me that it is rare. When it does occur, it can cause acute stress, but it doesn't normally occur to that extent. -
Oh come on, you've studied more than enough to know that is a way to argue a point without proof. "Has recieved no scientific support" could just as well mean that it hasn't been researched.
For it to be not true, it has to say something like, research shows that.... -
You can't prove that which does not exist.
The complimentary scientific research though - that states children in homosexual households fair the same if not better psychologically (etc. etc) proves that the kids are not suffering from acute stress in any level beyond normal childhood stress.
So, the other findings prove what does exist (positive upbringings with no problems), which then rules out the claim that such a stigma which has not been found to exist does not have an impact on children raised in homosexual households. -
I wish that i could find it. and that you could read swedish.
There was a study into these exact studies, that showed they were almost exclusively funded by, homosexual rights organizations. ANd more often than not performed by researchers that are homosexuals.
I can't remember the exact numbers, but the number of homosexual researchers in this field were in the 90th percentile.
There was a big stinkup on it at the time. Of course most of it was "ad hominem against the person that published these findings" I just can't remember where i read it. I'll look for it some more tonight.
This is a hot-button issue, and quite frankly, I don't trust 99% of those that do research into areas like this without full disclosure on why they did, where the money came from and whats in it for them.
I don't want to read research for how beneficial Polygamy is when it comes from a group of mormon researchers, or is paid for by them either.
It's like big tobacco researching the effects of tobacco... -
Scientific research should remain impartial. If the people who conducted the study failed to do so, their reputations should be besmirched.
However, just because Interest Group A funded the research doesn't necessarily mean it was biased in favor of Interest Group A. Your argument is weak. -
The APA has been studying this topic since the 70's - they are not a homosexual right's group.
The AAP studies children, not psychology, and thus they report how the children themselves are fairing. The AAP is also not a homosexual advocate group. I've found that both organizations offer impartial, non biased studies. Which is why I use them for reference. -
It almost certainly does, The funder of research often OWNS it, which means that if it's not in their interest. Or more exactly AGAINST their interest It won't be published.
Let me give you an example. You own the "South Florida Native Students Association" .. and you issue a research grant into SF students performance in the workforce.
The study shows that SF students suck, can't hold a job, and never amount to anything.
Your entire funding, comes from sf Natives, including the funding you use for scholarships, funding to improve SF schools.. Will you publish it? -
Sorry, i'm not saying its either way. What i am saying is that when topics are as inflamed as these are. The source of funding, and the personal stake of the researcher has to be disclosed before I stop wondering about it.
I've seen research that proved the opposite when i studied psych, but that was 13-14 years ago. And most of it didn't come out of America.
Higher levels of depression, suicide rates in the 200%, Problems with making friends, Bullying, Substance abuse and other things were all reported at almost the same level as reports that claimed the opposite. -
Much of the research findings you are bringing to light deal more so with homosexuality in general (rather than homosexuals ability to parent), and are dated from a time when coming out of the closet was a dangerous thing to do.
Pre 1970 in the US, (public displays of) homosexuality was punished with jail time, severe jailtime, and violent bashing was common. Psychological problems associated with being homosexual in that type of environment (even so much as being disowned by parents) certainly cause depression and suicide.
It isn't the homosexuality, but rather the hostile environment and psychological beating and abuse they endured from others.
So it's a bit different. -
All the things i listed "depression, suicide etc." above were in regards to children of homosexuals.
I wrote a paper on it, and no, none of it was from the 70's. My teacher wouldn't have accepted research that old to begin with. My main sources could be no more than 5 yo. And supporting sources to that 10yo.
But it still doesn't adress the problem of the source itself.
You can prove anything with statistics, so the problem i have with this is not the findings itself, but the reason for compiling them.
The first thing i ask myself is. Why would someone do this research. and the simplest answer is that they want to prove that the common perception is wrong for one reason or another. So the question then is why?
That, as far as i can remember was the exact argument of the person that researched the researchers, and found that they had something to gain either personally, or collectively in reporting the way they did.
The Religious, heterosexual that makes these findings gets my ear.
But i kinda feel that you'll find a 12k a year republican faster than you'll find one of them. -
I'm only coming up with suicide and depression rates of homosexuals themselves, not of children of homosexuals.
In the US, the studies do not show a difference between children in hetero-houses vs homo-households with regards to suicide or depression.
I've looked at the grant award for the APA's current studies program with regards to GLBT research - there is no indication that it was awarded by a gay advocate group (Like HRC, for example).
As to the question "why?" Why study any particular group? Homosexuality has been studied here in depth since the 1950's (Prior to that it was simply considered a mental disease). Just as ethnic groups have been studied, varying family units have been studied, day care usage has been studied, The roles of men and women in the home - pretty much anything that can be quantified and qualified is studied.
As it should be.
But no, you will never see a fervent religious person seeking out, much less publishing a study that normalizes homosexuality. Even if it miraculously dropped in their lap from God himself, you will not see it happen. There are still some doctors out there of a religious nature claiming that it can be "healed" through various forms of "therapy". Regardless of all evidence to the contrary.
-
-
-
Research is not gibberish.
But if you think it is, that explains your position better. *rolls eyes* -
Anything contrary to your opinion is "gibberish?" Why can't you be intellectually charitable and at least read her posts with the assumption, "I could be wrong. What does she [or, the opposition] have to say?"
-
Oh, you must have missed his reply to me:
PS I have no interest in pursuing a debate with someone who has zero will to seek what is true.
The "truth" being that homos can't parent, because they can't make babies or some such nonsense. -
Oh, I see.
-
-
At least most members of the LGBT community have representation in Congress, which is more than I can say for DC residents. If anyone can make a case for a tax revolt, DC residents can.
-
Good point.
-
DC residents are revolting!
(You said it. They stink on ice.) -
Ohhhh Sati *groans*
-
-
Pay your taxes... -
To csiunatc - all I want is what I already deserve; the same rights & protections as you. If you cannot understand that, pay my taxes.
To satijournal - YES - I live on TAX dollars, yet I advocate Equality Tax Revolt. But you see, I live on tax dollars BECAUSE of federal discrimination, so I guess there is SOME justice here, no? FEDS caused PTSD; tax payers pay for my food, rent, and treatment. That's America.
To those who say "move". I'd love to move to a more intelligent, enlightened country. But you see, you need $$$ to do that, and unfortunately welfare doesn't cover moving expenses.
ANYONE who thinks gays have "equal rights" is an idiot and can be dismissed as such; they don't know what they are talking about.
ANYONE who thinks the I.R.S. has the resources to catch all tax resisters is naive. ANYONE who thinks some of us will not use ANY FORCE NECESSARY to protect ourselves from an injust government and its taxes (i.e. - prison) doesn't know what injustice and rage can do to a person.
So may be able to VOTE on our family's legal worth, but you DEFINITELY CANNOT vote on our tax compliance.
SO PAY UP THIS APRIL 15th. America needs you for the bailouts more than ever!-
Massachusetts, not another country.
-
Or Connecticut.
-
-
Here's a great site for those who want to keep their money OUT of Reverend Uncle Sam's discriminatory, hateful pockets (legally):
How To Resist the Federal Income Tax Through the “Don’t Owe Nothin’” Method
sniggle.net/Experiment/index.php?entry=howto -
HELL YEAH! Fuck online petitions & permitted protests. And Join the Impact? What fucking impact? It's time to Bash Back! gaysagainstobama.org
-
I agree...Gays should not have to pay taxes. Life is not fair, but everything the GOVERNMENT does should be done in an equal, fair and just manner. Anyone who does not receive equal, fair, and just distribution of benefits from the government (rights, priveleges, money, etc.), should NOT have to pay taxes. That includes gay people who want to get married, and it also includes...well...the rest of us. Nobody should have to pay taxes, since nothing the government does is equal, fair, or just. -
This sounds like a question for Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer. -
adrach, you sound like you're high. Marriage is a FAMILY RIGHT, and unless YOU cannot get married, you SHOULD pay taxes.
Guess what - we still have ALL of the same problems everyone else has, PLUS the added burden of legal inequity.
SO PAY UP! I stopped in 2004.-
Wait, what is a "family right"? I'm not aware of any such legal concept.
-
-
they should have to pay higher taxes due to the increase risk of social and health related issues which they currently use more of in the american society. clinics, hospitols, ect.. since they use more due to certain risks of being in that liffestyle ..-
I thought you were being satirical for a second.
If you cannot prove that gays and lesbians use more health care, etc. and that using more health care, etc. merits them paying more taxes, your argument is unsound. And that's ignoring the ethical stuff.
I'm not saying don't use them. I'm saying don't rely on them.
-
-
Speaking about taxes how gays are different from other people? If you earn money and use the country's social system please pay your taxes and don't make excuses. Or would you prefer to live off other people paying their taxes?
-
Kadmiel - thanks for a new definition of stupidity
(We need more higher education in the U.S. to prevent "kadmiel" from spreading).
Yes, I actually DO prefer living off other's taxes, since others have lived off the time and talents of gay people for decades, while excluding our familes from CIVIL law.
Perhaps law makers should STOP "making excuses" for excluding our families?
Or do you ENJOY paying our taxes?
(doesn't matter if you do or don't - YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY)-
[Kadmiel - thanks for a new definition of stupidity]
Kadmiel did not provide a definition of stupidity. Exemplified? Perhaps. However, ad hominem is not a defense. If you're going to refute their claims, personal attacks are a poor way of going about it.
-
-
"most members of the LGBT community have representation in Congress" - more ignorance.
These members are excluded from civil marriage, so I guess they are "representing" those without EQUAL civil rights.
Either way - consider the growing number of gays who are revolting against unjust taxation when you sign you I.R.S. checks this April 15th. You will need to pay more and more each year as gays drop out of the tax base.
And before anyone says "prison"; please. I'd rather put a bullet through the head of the tax man, and then myself, before I allow the federal government to oppress me any more than it already does.-
Which is a clear sign of irrationality caused by mental distress. If you kill yourself, the bigots win.
-
I'm very confused...confused by how the federal government is oppressing you because your state doesn't allow for same-sex marriage, for instance. Marriage is an issue clearly reserved to the states by the Constitution.
-
-
@ voodooKobra - Oh, I said "I'd rather" - I won't be killing myself; I can't say I wouldn't "crack" if ever attacked by a basher and do who knows what...
But you're right about mental distress. Marriage discrimination caused it. WA state tax-payers have already spent thousands of dollars on the consequences of the mental distress I experienced when I had a divorce WITHOUT law.
@ MadameX - Most folks do not realize the need for FEDERAL civil marriage, you know, like HETS already have, so things like immigration, etc. do not separate couples from each other. I list a few horrific stories on my blog. Check em' out [CRUEL SUFFERING DUE TO MARRIAGE INEQUALITY AND RELIGIOUS TYRANNY]
Disgusting, really, what these families, WITH and without children, deal with due to Federal Inequality. Charles Merrill's tax case addresses this specifically (DOMA).
The "state issue" is a wonderful way for politicians (and the public) to postpone full federal equality for 30 years. You know, as in HAVING the SAME rights & protections - PERIOD - that heterosexually-led families have. No more - no less.
Can you IMAGINE a HET family travelling state to state, visiting relatives, losing & gaining rights as they cross each border?
Please.
Just because our family has an accident in KY instead of MASS, we shouldn't have to experience a child being PREVENTED from seeing his or her parent on their death bed. Or worse. Because when you do NOT have those rights (you know, the rights everyone else deems essential for THEIR families?), when you do NOT have those rights, a million different horrible things happen.
It is immoral. It is THE abomination of the century in AMERICA.
A child should NOT have less rights than another child, and neither should her parent.
SO PAY OUR TAXES.-
Hey.. there is always suicide.
You don't have to live in this horrible country, and we don't have to pay your taxes.
seems like a win win to me.
-
-
All I know is I want to pay less taxes and choose what should be done with my money rather than let our government decide what's best for me. -
-
Why don't you rename your blog "thespam" and get it over with?
-
-
Well aren't you cute, but sorry, csiunatc, no suicide here. So you'll STILL have to pay my taxes; I cannot move (unless you wanna also pay for that??).
-
BTW - I do not have to "refute" this kind of ignorance:
"they (gays) should have to pay higher taxes due to the increase risk of social and health related issues which they currently use more of in the american society. clinics, hospitols, ect.. since they use more due to certain risks of being in that liffestyle"
GOOGLE EXIST.
EDUCATION IS POSSIBLE.
LEARN ABOUT THE WORLD. -
This is reason enough to REVOLT -
Governmental Psychological Warfare
gaytaxprotest.blogspot.com/2008/11/psychological-distress-duh.html -
I am African-American and a woman. I definitely don't have "equal rights". Should I not pay taxes too?
-
[I am African-American]
Oh you are, are you? Which African country do you hold a dual citizenship in? If you say, "None," then you're not "African-American." Your ancestry might be, but you are not.
That's one of my pet peeves. It's such a meaningless phrase. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the word "black," so why avoid it? And, hell, why specify for that matter? Why not just be "American."
I don't see myself as a "White-American," or a "Caucasian-American." I'm just a damn American who hates racism but also hates inanity. -
"I am African-American and a woman. I definitely don't have "equal rights". Should I not pay taxes too?"
NO - if you can GET MARRIED you SHOULD pay taxes.
if not - you should not.
-
-
i say pay your dam taxes! Nobody rides for free!! -
voodooKobra...thanks for your always entertaining opinion. However, I think the subject is taxes. If you don't mind, I will classify myself however I please.
-
You can call yourself whatever you want, but know that I will continue to criticize your erroneous labeling all I want.
-
-
This is a smokescreen.
Its not about equal rights for gays. They already have the same right as anyone else has to marry someone of the opposite sex.
The reason marriage was "invented" was because their happens to be 2 genders.
And, of course its not bigotted or homophobic to believe that marriage should be restricted (as it has since the days of Moses)to two people: One with a penis, the other with a vagina.
Words have meaning and the word "marriage" is no different.
Don't let them intimidate you by calling you a hate-monger.
(Incidentally, if I disagree with a law the majority supports, can I stop paying taxes, too?)-
[They already have the same right as anyone else has to marry someone of the opposite sex.]
Okay, what if you only had the right to marry someone of the same sex? Would that be equal? No, of course not.
[(Incidentally, if I disagree with a law the majority supports, can I stop paying taxes, too?)]
No, and neither can the OP. He's being stupid and irrational.
-
-
Are you kidding me with this question?????
Okay I'm pro-choice, live however you wanna live. But you are humans....you are consuming resources, you have jobs, you do the same things straight people do. Why WOULDN'T you pay taxes???
That makes no sense. Then women shouldn't have to pay taxes either because we arent recognized as EQUALS either!-
[[...can I stop paying taxes, too?)]
No, and neither can the OP. He's being stupid and irrational.]
I think this said, in short, /thread.
-
-
marriage = 1 man, 1 woman and has since the day it was invented.
No genders = no marriage . . . . this is pure silliness.
It's like saying the word "equestrian" should also apply to people who ride camels.-
I see words, but no logical argument. Circular reasoning, yes, but not a logical argument.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
