The Debt Is the Homosexuals' Fault
what nonsense. but...let's pit groups against one another and have a little fun...
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Want to get rid of your deficit? STOP SPENDING MONEY YOU DON'T HAVE.
And this goes DOUBLE for the idiots in the US.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...
_____________________
"My own definition of Socialism, as a policy which aims at constructing a society in which the means of production are socialized, is in agreement with all that scientists have written on the subject. I submit that one must be historically blind not to see that this and nothing else is what Socialism has stood for the past hundred years, and that it is in this sense that the great socialist movement was and is socialistic."
— Ludwig von Mises, "Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis," Preface to the Second German Edition, pages 9-10, or page 20 (Page numbers vary depending on the edition)
How would I know?
What did the government subsidize for LGBT individuals or groups?
I'm gay but I disagree with most of the political positions of the various lbgt activist groups. My sexual orientation only affects who I want to have a relationship with, not my views toward government favoritism for any group. And frankly I detest when people are lumped into groups of any kind. Those groupings are based on one, single attribute of its members and it's an attribute with no meaning since it's always something over which they have no control.
Being black or latino or a woman or a man or gay or straight or any other of the ridiculous attributes that we're constantly supposed to *celebrate* is just an accidental fact of a person's identity. You cannot take credit for being black, it simply happened to you and therefore is inappropriate for "celebration." Do we celebrate being blond or having brown eyes?
Ugh, this rant has gotten a bit off course but it's a real hot-button issue of mine.
Other than protecting the legitimate rights of everyone the government shouldn't even acknowledge the existence of any special interest group. Doing so can only lead to discrimination and trampling the rights of people who do not belong to that (artificial) group.
Jan
I don't approve of homosexual attitude or practice. But since, as the Alan Guttmacher Institute observes, they make up not more than three percent of the population, they could not *possibly* have any significant part in racking up the world's debt.
[attitude: In psychology, a mental position with regard to a fact or state. Attitudes reflect a tendency to classify objects and events and to react to them with some consistency. Attitudes are not directly observable but rather are inferred from the objective, evaluative responses a person makes.]
I can't wait for you to describe how I think and act based solely on my sexual orientation. The only reasonably consistent "attitude" across the homosexual population would be how we classify and react to ignorant straight people.
I just don't want to f* other men, the defining characteristic of male homosexuals.
I believe (but cannot prove) that sexual orientation is innate. Life would be much more convenient if I loved women, so disapproving of my gayness is the same as disapproving my blond hair.
But even if you believe that homosexuality is a choice, disapproving of my gayness is like disapproving of my dislike for broccoli and cilantro. It doesn't affect you so why do you care?
Two words: gay marriage.
Can't have it both ways.
Can't claim to keep it in the bedroom on the one hand and then on the other insist the rest of us accept it as normal and healthy... in public.
[Doesn't affect?] Yes, doesn't affect! I ask again, how does two men or two women getting married affect you?
Speaking for myself, I don't give a shrugging demigod whether you accept me or not. What you consider normal and healthy is up to you, in public or private. The only thing I insist on is that you don't deny me any legitimate rights.
We of the gay mafia (TIC again) never claimed we wanted to keep anything in the bedroom. What we said is that what we do in our bedrooms is nobody's business but our own.
And just like you and your sweetie can walk down the street holding hands, hugging and giving pecks on the cheek why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing without the fear that my boyfriend and I won't get our skulls bashed in?
I always wonder why people object to homosexuals getting married. Nobody has ever suggested that religious organizations recognize gay marriage. We only want the *government* to acknowledge them. That recognizes that we should be able to inherit property, make medical decisions in an emergency, file taxes jointly, all kinds of legal stuff that we can't get any other way.
A lot of "you people" scream, "do what you want, have all the rights and privileges of marriage but JUST DON'T CALL IT MARRIAGE!" Well, aren't you special! Next thing you know Ford, GM and Chrysler will be screaming, "Go ahead, build a gizmo with four wheels and an engine, JUST DON'T CALL IT A CAR!"
My position in all this is that government should divest itself of involvement in marriages of any kind. That would be a more honest approach to what marriages really are: a religious recognition (for those who believe in mystical super-beings) and a separate recognition by government of an agreement under civil law. Civil agreements, aka contracts entered into willingly by all the parties involved, are already honored by government and enforced or dissolved in the courts.
On a strongly related note I am *absolutely* opposed to people and businesses that are fined for refusing to provide services (like wedding cakes, wedding venues, etc) for gay weddings. But I also oppose laws that force businesses to serve anyone that they don't want to - so yes, a business is within its rights to discriminate on any grounds it chooses, including race, gender, the whole shebang. It's only government that should be compelled not to discriminate.
It redefines marriage and makes the institution meaningless. It forces people to accept an oxymoronic proposition. You might as well suggest that two lawn chairs getting "married" doesn't affect me. The institution has been under enough assault over the past half century.
Homosexuals *already* have all the rights and privileges of marriage, and can call it marriage. All a homosexual has to do to get married is the same thing I have to do; find a willing, adult member of the opposite sex.
The reason marriage is recognized and government has involved itself in marriage is in response to the benefits marriage provides to the society. Just as the government likes to discourage the use of gasoline and tobacco through taxes, it likes to promote marriage through tax breaks. It also, before the country became mentally ill, was a tacit acknowledgement of the dominant culture of the nation, the culture that built and maintained the nation. Of course, we can do away with that culture now, and absolutely none of the deterioration of the country can be attributed to the "improvements" the progressives have made, including pretending that homosexuality isn't a mental/emotional illness (or dysfunction, if you prefer).
For the record; I do not object to homosexuals getting married. I object to calling a tail a leg and forcing me to pretend it is one. I object to calling the association of two homosexuals marriage and pretending it really is. I object to pandering to a vocal minority bent on destroying society so that they don't have to feel abnormal.
Again, you want to pretend an equality that doesn't exist.
It's probably true that a higher percentage of gays are progressives than society at large, but I've met plenty of conservatives, too. And of the two conservative gays that come to mind, I remain friends with one and I kicked the other one to the curb (neither were romantic, just male friends who happened to be gay). That's because one is a nice guy and the other turned out to be an unreliable idiot with poor manners who only contacted me when he wanted something.
That sounds just like a thousand straight people I know.
And as for your denigration of Jan, Objectivism recognizes that we all have our own hierarchy of values and we must live our lives based on those values. What you really said is that you find Jan's morals wanting. But considering the most basic of all morals, the golden rule, you are the one that fails the morality test, not Jan.
Jan
Or, more likely, have a perverted sense of values.
Plus, there's also the underlying premise (which needs to be checked) that a public welfare system always leads to an increase in national debt. Personally, I'm not convinced that's the case. National debt is created when the government borrows money. Yes, much of that borrowed money is then used to finance public welfare, but there is no logical reason to believe that a public welfare system *has* to be financed through debt. Those who have read Robert Kiyosaki's book "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" will know that what *really* matters is having a sufficient cashflow to pay for all your expenses. In theory, it could be possible to finance public welfare without raising the national debt at all simply by funding the system with the profits generated from the country's productive enterprise. Just because it's a bad idea to buy luxuries on credit, that doesn't mean it's a bad idea to buy luxuries at all. If you want to have luxuries, you CAN have them, just so long as you have the cashflow to cover them.
However, that's irrelevant since you cannot ever mistake government for a business. Government never produces, it only consumes. You want to avoid public debt by "funding the system with the profits generated from the country's productive enterprise."
I'll rephrase that more directly: we can avoid public debt by forcibly confiscating the fruits of productivity and lavishing it upon the non-productive.
Now we're just splitting hairs as to which kind of thievery is more desirable, stealing wealth by debasing the currency with debt or direct confiscation from society's productive segment.
I choose door #3, no thievery at all.