DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Seamus on October 09, 2008, 08:52:59 PM
-
Can someone who is FOR Proposition 8 and is a Californian please help me understand why we want to change our constitution to limit rights of some citizens, please?
-
Okay... Looks like there are no Californians here that can help me understand. What about non-Californians?
-
Prop 8 does not change the US Constitution.
Long time no see. seamus.
-
No, it changes the State Constitution.
And yeah... This place raises my blood pressure... I need to take it in moderation. :) :P
-
I`m a californian but I`m not for it so i thought i shouldn`t step in.
but now that you opened the floodgates.
judging from the ads
prop 8 would protect churchs from losing thier tax exempt status since they do exclude gays.
pretty much it boils down to if gays get married all religions will be threatened
the ad I heard on the radio stated along list of things that will happen
shame I was dozing when i heard it
as a conservative I think any religion that can`t handle 2 guys getting married ain`t tough enough for my concern.
looks pretty wimpy to me.
-
What it does is enshrine the traditional definition of marriage into the state constitution. Depending on the verbiage it may or may not offer the option of civil unions.
Since marriage is the province of the states should they not legislatively define what it is?
-
Well, I haven't lived in California for years, and I'm actually pretty ambivalent about gay marriage one way or another. But here's some interesting thoughts on the matter....
http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html (http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html)
-
Thanks for the replies, everyone... :) I really appreciate the help in trying to understand this.
Basically, I think that the churches and religions have every right to believe that gay marriage is wrong, and to promote their beliefs to their congregations. I also believe that those faithful SHOULD NOT condone the lifestyle.
What I am still having trouble with is the idea that we need to change our Constitution that affects ALL Californians, regardless of faith and non-faiths, to specifically limit someones rights.
Basically, I see it as, women and men are supposed to be the same, treated the same in the eyes of the law. If a man can marry a woman, then a woman should be able to also. And visa versa. But even if I believed that it WAS wrong, that would be between me and my church, not for me to legislate for someone else.
Still, more input would be appreciated...
-
Here's a thought! Let me try to reword my question...
Under what circumstances do you feel it would be okay to change the State Constitution to limit a subclass of citizens rights?
-
Under what circumstances do you feel it would be okay to change the State Constitution to limit a subclass of citizens rights?
State constitutions and by extension statutes limit the rights of subclasses all the time.
Drinking ages, driving ages, gun ownership and voting rights for felons.
How about medical treatment being forced on those sects who don't believe in it.
They have also always had the right to define what it is they are regulating, whether it be motorbikes or marriages.
-
True... But for the most part, the Constitution PROTECTS rights.
But, you didn't answer my question. :) When do YOU feel it's okay? Do you think it's right that prostitution, or drinking at age 20, is against the law? Why?
Thanks! :)
-
Why vote for any amendment restricting anyone from doing anything that does not harm either yourself or them?
No one is proposing to make gay marriage mandatory.
If gay relationships are a true threat to society, they should arrest and jail all those guilty of gay cohabitation--send them to hetero reform camps, like they do in Cuba. Telling them they can diddle away all they wish, but cannot call themselves Man and Man or Wife and Wife is stupid.
If not, just let them alone. It will change nothing for you if Adam & Steve, your gay neighbors are married or can take advantage of a minor tax deduction.
The state getting involved in this is just meddling.
-
That's my question! :) I'm wondering WHY... it doesn't make sense to me, but I was hoping that someone here would be able to explain why we WOULD vote for any amendment that restricts a sub class...
-
I can`t give you a good answer but I can point out the very idea of gay marraige( not gay union )is to a very large voting population a very unpopular idea.
most folks will vote for gay rights but the deal breaker will be gay marraige.
everybody says they have gay friends,but rarely will those people say they are for gay marraige.
note prop.9 is in california a state with a very large gay population .
gay marraige,abortion
these are the subject that will kill a political career
-
That's my question! Smiley I'm wondering WHY... it doesn't make sense to me, but I was hoping that someone here would be able to explain why we WOULD vote for any amendment that restricts a sub class...
=========================================================
I donlt think it actually makes sense to any thinking person, but tpo some people, gays are an abomination to God, and actually, according to the Bible, should be stoned to death. Of course, once gays realize that overt gay activity will get them killed, they limit themselves to covert activity.
The Bible-thumpers cannot get enough votes to get sodomy aka "cornholing" declared illegal as they one did. They cannot get gays arrested for living together, either, so they tell the rest of the Christians that the least they can do is to prevent the gays from getting married. Of course, no one is forcing any preacher to marry gays, but when these 'Christians' think about a couple of gay guys or lesbians putting on fancy duds and having their own weddings with cake and champagne and dancing and throwing bouquets and all, it just sorta spoils it for them, like finding a cockroach in a bowl of shrimp bisque you just ate.
So they vote to preserve wha thay call the "sanctity of marriage". It's a good way to get the morons, the rubes, the hicks and the yokels to the polls, where they will be able to exercise their keen logic in choosing a president and other officials.
-
it doesn't make sense to me, but I was hoping that someone here would be able to explain why we WOULD vote for any amendment that restricts a sub class...
Does an amemdment defining marriage restrict a subclass?
or does it simply define marriage?
-
Precisely. As far as I can tell, there's no restrictions to anything 2 gay individuals might wish to do, with getting hitched. Simply that it's not called a marriage. But the 2 can still arrange for full legal support to each other, benefits, the works. I'm not sure what the problem is, outside of the usual sematic political correctness trying to ride roughshot over traditional Christian morals
-
I'm not sure what the problem is, outside of the usual sematic political correctness trying to ride roughshot over traditional Christian morals
You mean roughshod, as in wearing extreme terrain footwear. shod is derived from the word "shoe".
I don't think that many gays are asking to be treated as married couples because they want to offend Christians at all. I suppose some Christians see it that way, but martyrdom and victimhood are an integral part of all the desert religions.
I do not think that the IRS allows gay couples the possibility to claim one another as dependents as is the case with married couples, even in states where they can marry. Hospitals allow visitation based on hospital policy, rather than the law. No one should have to call in the police in cases like this, but I am sure it has happened.
Does the church own the word "married" like the Coca-Cola company owns the word "Coke"? I do not think that this is the case. Why not just let people do as they wish? It harms no one, at least other than themselves.
-
Best try to avoid being some queen spelling nazi, when you can't even be honest enough to answer a direct question, or at minimum, apologize for being a tad hyperbolic in you accusations
-
You did not ask a question.
I said nothing even mildly hyperbolic.
I apologize for nothing.
-
I did
You did
Your choice, your credibility
-
You are delusional about these "questions" of yours.
I fear you would not recognize a hyperbole if one bit you on the pattootie.
Were I capable of creating such a hyperbole, I would do so.
Alas, there are no hyperboles with teeth or even better, fangs.
-
Not questions, just 1 question. And of course, you couldn't answer it because you wouldn't have been able to find a quote to back up your asinine insinuation/accusation
Glad we got this cleared up
-
THERE WAS NO QUESTION.
-
Sirs: And please, can the Obamamites explain how increasing taxes on precisely the enterprises that create jobs, (medium <--> large corporations, medium <--> large businesses), and create much of the money this economy makes, is a "good thing"??, in light of the current economic condition of this country Huh
===================================================================================
Xo: Of course, only those who have so little and earn so little that they cannot open businesses should be taxed.
Care to cite the quote that even implies such, much less advocates such??
Now, wish to destroy another one of your claims?
-
The purpose of taxes is not to create jobs. The purpose of taxes is to raise money for the government to survive on. If the government merely prints more, then we have inflation.
At no point has Obama said that the purpose of taxes is to create jobs. There are ways other than giving the filthy rich tax breaks to create jobs. The Gramin Bank idea works in Third World countries, and might work here.
If we do not tax the people who have most of the money, and someone must be taxed, and they must, then who will it be? Those who lack enough money to start a business. It is as I said. Follow the model of Louis XVI. That is a valid answer to a poorly conceived question.
It is also a totally false assumption that people who make $250,000 in salary are in fact the same people who start small businesses. Most of them are executives who have no time to do this.
If you cannot afford to pay KFC for a franchise and still wish to sell fried chicken, you can come up with your own plan. Any business that has a prospective customer base will be successful if it delivers the proper service or product as desired.
-
The purpose of taxes is not to create jobs. The purpose of taxes is to raise money for the government to survive on. If the government merely prints more, then we have inflation.
At no point has Obama said that the purpose of taxes is to create jobs. There are ways other than giving the filthy rich tax breaks to create jobs. The Gramin Bank idea works in Third World countries, and might work here.
If we do not tax the people who have most of the money, and someone must be taxed, and they must, then who will it be? Those who lack enough money to start a business. It is as I said. Follow the model of Louis XVI. That is a valid answer to a poorly conceived question.
It is also a totally false assumption that people who make $250,000 in salary are in fact the same people who start small businesses. Most of them are executives who have no time to do this.
If you cannot afford to pay KFC for a franchise and still wish to sell fried chicken, you can come up with your own plan. Any business that has a prospective customer base will be successful if it delivers the proper service or product as desired.
Taxes and and do destroy employment .
BHO says he will lower taxes on more of us than actually pay taxes , but he plans to raise taxes on the rest.
How could this possibly result in anything but greater unemployment?
Right now our unemployment has risen to be fully half of France's unemployment rate.
Can we bear to put up a fully French ujemployment rate?
-
Can we bear to put up a fully French ujemployment rate?
===============================================
No, since we do not have France's unemployment benefits. I question your statistics, by the way.
Only 2% of the population makes over $250K in salary. A much, much smaller number of these people actually create new businesses. If they want the business to grow, they can pay themselves less than $250K in salary and probably squeak by somehow.
You have been listening to ratwing radio too much and it has affected your thought processes.
-
>>Only 2% of the population makes over $250K in salary.<<
I know it's a waste of time but .... source?
-
This figure was in Newsweek in the last issue.
-
Do we really depend on 2% of us to pay for everything?
Good thing they make a lot of money.
-
from time to time I`ve seen this pop up about the 2% paying most of the taxes.
To me it`s just looks like those 2% think the other 98% ain`t working hard enough.
it just don`t bring sympathy for the 2%
-
It's not supposed to Kimba. It's supposed to re-introduce both objectivity & fairness into the discussion
-
It's not supposed to Kimba. It's supposed to re-introduce both objectivity & fairness into the discussion
Sine there is NO WAY that 2% could produce such a huge amount of goods and services for the society, it indicates that the distribution of rewards in our society is hideously skewed and very unfair.
The LEAST we can do is to force these guys to pay for their fair share of the governance of the society that benefits them so much more than what they actually produce.
-
The LEAST we can do is to force these guys to pay for their fair share of the governance of the society that benefits them so much more than what they actually produce.
Seamus,
This is another example of laws passed that take away rights from a sub class.
-
Tax money and rights are different things. The assumption is that everyone is born with the same rights.
If everyone were born with the same sum of money, progressive taxation might not be necessary.
People should pay according to their ability to pay, which is largely identical to the amount that this society benefits them.
No court in the existence of the country has ever ruled that progressive taxation is against anyone's rights. Even if this is true theoretically, the 16th Amendment authorizes progressive taxation.
So what you really need to do here is to abandon the bogus argument that money equals rights and campaign for a Constitutional Amendment that bans progressive taxation.
Steve Forbes campaigned unsuccessfully on his flat tax, and it was insufficiently popular to even win him the VP nomination, so it would be an uphill fight.
As Spongebob once said to Plankton, when Plankton announced his plan for world conquest "good luch with that".
-
So what you really need to do here is to abandon the bogus argument that money equals rights and campaign for a Constitutional Amendment that bans progressive taxation.
Money is property. And ownership of property is a right. The taking of property by the govt is limited by the constitution.
It is illegal for me to charge you more for a standardized service because of your race, creed, nation or origin or gender. Why should the same not apply to the size of your portfolio.
Philosophically you are advocating treating one class differently than another. And the reason you can get away with it is because that class is small.
-
It is illegal for me to charge you more for a standardized service because of your race, creed, nation or origin or gender. Why should the same not apply to the size of your portfolio.
The size of your portfolio does not determined your "class".
You have no control over your race, national origin or gender. Your religion is a guaranteed right apat from the others mentioned. Your income is determined voluntarily, by what you choose as an occupation.
The reason is, as I described. The XVI Amendment says that the income tax can be whatever Congress has specified. It has been a progressive tax since the Amendment was passed.
Philosophically you are advocating treating one class differently than another. And the reason you can get away with it is because that class is small.
No I can say this because we have freedom of speech.
The government can do what it wishes because people elected the Congress that decided the XVI Amendment, and presumably, could change it . Until this happens, it is futile for you to go on and on about unfairness. I do not make tax policy. I do, however, favor a progressive tax, and I consider this to be inherently fair. Rich people consume more government services, unless you refer to jails.
I favor the abolition of the Electoral College and limited terms for Supreme Court appointees. I think the people should decide which justice is the Chief Justice, too. But it is futile to bitch about how this is unfair, because I see the limitations involved in changing this.
-
So what you really need to do here is to abandon the bogus argument that money equals rights and campaign for a Constitutional Amendment that bans progressive taxation.
Money is property. And ownership of property is a right. The taking of property by the govt is limited by the constitution....Philosophically you are advocating treating one class differently than another. And the reason you can get away with it is because that class is small.
BINGO
-
Again and once more: a business person making $250K is benefiting far more from the system and probably from the government as well, and SHOULD pay more, being as he is getting more.
Denmark has abolished poverty and nearly everyone there lives better and longer than here, not because Denmark is blessed with more resources than the US, but because incomes are more equitably distributed. Their sysytem offers a greater good for a greater number than ours does, because this nasty selfishness is not built into their system.
-
Again and once more: a business person making $250K is benefiting far more from the system and probably from the government as well, and SHOULD pay more, being as he is getting more.
Since the govt is collecting the taxes how does a successful person benefit far more from this same govt.
-
Personal Message (Offline)
Re: California Prop 8
« Reply #40 on: Today at 07:04:13 PM »
Reply with quoteQuote
Quote
Again and once more: a business person making $250K is benefiting far more from the system and probably from the government as well, and SHOULD pay more, being as he is getting more.
Since the govt is collecting the taxes how does a successful person benefit far more from this same govt.
Duh. he is benefiting from government streets and highways to deliver his merchandise or service, he is benefiting from the Dept of Commerce in selling it abroad, and police protection so he does not get ripped off.
Capitalism, once more, does not reward people based on their service to humanity. The rewards are due more to chance than anything else. Luck, chance, being in the right place at the right time, perhaps being more intelligent. A progressive tax makes things more equitable. There is not an infinite pie here: for every guy that makes $250,000, there is someone else who makes a tenth as much and may actually contribute more.
-
Duh. he is benefiting from government streets and highways to deliver his merchandise or service, he is benefiting from the Dept of Commerce in selling it abroad, and police protection so he does not get ripped off.
Well duh, back to you.
If he is using the streets more he is paying more in fuel and ad valurum vehicle taxes at the state and local levels, and his police and fire protection comes fom the higher property taxes he pays for commercial property, and if his business is a print shop what deos he need the DOC for?
Please explain why he should also pay higher income taxes.
-
and if his business is a print shop what deos he need the DOC for?
There are very few printers that could conceivably pay themselves a $250K salary.
Here in Miami, the second largest industry is printing: there are at least 30 magazines destined for Latin American and the Caribbean that do some or all of their printing here, mostly because they have lower rates. I imaging that the DOC has a lot to do with them getting those contracts. Selecciones del Reader's Digest and all the Venezuelan de Armas publications are printed here. I don't think their CEOs make any $250K a year, either.
Again. the tax is not confiscatory. I think that the paltry after-taxes $175K after paying the IRS would not be all that hard to live on.
-
There are very few printers that could conceivably pay themselves a $250K salary.
I can name at the minimum one in Atlanta. Quality printing has margins of 30-40%. Figure a mid size company does 10 million in sales and 250k is a low salary for the owner and principal stockholder.
-
Sine there is NO WAY that 2% could produce such a huge amount of goods and services for the society, it indicates that the distribution of rewards in our society is hideously skewed and very unfair.
What?
This is a very strange concept.
Could more than 2% of us play in the majors?
It isn't a strange idea at all that only a few are extremely productive.
Further ,there is a social utility in the collection of a fortune, if there were no fortunes there would be very little risky investment.
-
Please. The ability to administer a company is not the same as a simple physical talent like throwing or hitting a ball.
There is no way that anyone should be paid 400 times as much as a regular employee. There is no way that that much money is needed to lure them to take that job.
-
Please. The ability to administer a company is not the same as a simple physical talent like throwing or hitting a ball.
There is no way that anyone should be paid 400 times as much as a regular employee. There is no way that that much money is needed to lure them to take that job.
Do you think that a company that offered a lower compensation to its CEO would have a compeditive advantage?
Seems as if sheer Darwinism would make this problem self correcting.
-
Do you think that a company that offered a lower compensation to its CEO would have a compeditive advantage?
Seems as if sheer Darwinism would make this problem self correcting.
===========================================================
It isn't, because the boards of most companies are more often toadies of the company presidents.
European companies pay their CEO's a lot less, to no measurable disadvantage.
Observe that there are telephone companies that have paid their presidents many times more than the president of the US. It is hardly a tougher job to run a phone company. It is very unlikely that a phone CEO would have to be as knowedgeable of the world as the president of a country.