| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/13/2011 09:15:18 PM · #5301 |
Originally posted by JH:
Originally posted by David Ey:
I think it was Adolf Hitler who first said it. He thought the State was better qualified, not much different than many liberals in America believe today :( |
Godwin's Law has hereby been invoked. |
Oh damn! It only took 5,300 posts to kill it. Now that Godwin's Law has been invoked, this thread will die. |
|
|
|
01/14/2011 04:10:09 AM · #5302 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Umm....
If, like I am, one is an adopted child, then the terms "mother" and "father" aren't technically correct, are they? |
Originally posted by Nullix:
A "mother" is the female person and a "father" is the male person who raised you. I have 2 adopted boys and I am their father (along with my wife being their mother). |
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily make them good parents.....an accident of birth, or adoptive choice, doesn't automatically qualify you as being a good parent. And gender has nothing to do with that.
I grew up under the thumb of a tyrannical, uncaring father, and I wish I hadn't. I'd much rather have been raised with a second loving mother, or no father, than how I was...
|
|
|
|
01/14/2011 11:21:58 PM · #5303 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Umm....
If, like I am, one is an adopted child, then the terms "mother" and "father" aren't technically correct, are they? |
Originally posted by Nullix:
A "mother" is the female person and a "father" is the male person who raised you. I have 2 adopted boys and I am their father (along with my wife being their mother). |
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily make them good parents.....an accident of birth, or adoptive choice, doesn't automatically qualify you as being a good parent. And gender has nothing to do with that.
I grew up under the thumb of a tyrannical, uncaring father, and I wish I hadn't. I'd much rather have been raised with a second loving mother, or no father, than how I was... |
Maybe you should be glad you didn't have 2 tyrannical, uncaring fathers. |
|
|
|
01/15/2011 04:40:20 PM · #5304 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Umm....
If, like I am, one is an adopted child, then the terms "mother" and "father" aren't technically correct, are they? |
Originally posted by Nullix:
A "mother" is the female person and a "father" is the male person who raised you. I have 2 adopted boys and I am their father (along with my wife being their mother). |
Yes, but that doesn't necessarily make them good parents.....an accident of birth, or adoptive choice, doesn't automatically qualify you as being a good parent. And gender has nothing to do with that.
I grew up under the thumb of a tyrannical, uncaring father, and I wish I hadn't. I'd much rather have been raised with a second loving mother, or no father, than how I was... |
Maybe you should be glad you didn't have 2 tyrannical, uncaring fathers. |
Or 2 tyrannical uncaring mothers, or 1 distracted, abusive mother, or 1 absent, emotionally distant father, or 2 opposite gender parents, one a tyrannical father and one an emotionally absent mother, or...
You can put together any group of bad parents. Fact is, families are families no matter how many people are in them, or what genders the parental roles take on. As far as the passport thing is concerned, it is merely a technical response to a changing world. It is in NO WAY WHATSOEVER invalidating ANY parent. That anyone at all would do anything more than read about it and say, "well whattya know", boggles my mind.
Don't try so hard to be a victim, and maybe you won't constantly feel like one.
Message edited by author 2011-01-15 16:40:56. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 08:52:19 AM · #5305 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Let's hope not. People who have chosen the gay lifestyle already have completely equal rights. No changes are needed. |
In a hetersexual marriage of 30 years who is the man's next of kin?
In a homosexual relationship of 30 years (where there would have been a marriage had it been allowed) who is the man's next of kin? |
CHOSEN? gay people dont chose....you are just gay if you are that is |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 12:28:57 PM · #5306 |
Originally posted by Greywolf:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Let's hope not. People who have chosen the gay lifestyle already have completely equal rights. No changes are needed. |
In a hetersexual marriage of 30 years who is the man's next of kin?
In a homosexual relationship of 30 years (where there would have been a marriage had it been allowed) who is the man's next of kin? |
CHOSEN? gay people dont chose....you are just gay if you are that is |
Did you register today just to make this point? IIRC, this point has been beaten to death already and I don't remember the outcome. Maybe it was something about a genetic predisposition. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 03:48:45 PM · #5307 |
| I wonder if search engines can be blocked from reading the Rant forum? |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 04:36:28 PM · #5308 |
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Let's hope not. People who have chosen the gay lifestyle already have completely equal rights. No changes are needed. |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
In a hetersexual marriage of 30 years who is the man's next of kin?
In a homosexual relationship of 30 years (where there would have been a marriage had it been allowed) who is the man's next of kin? |
Originally posted by Greywolf:
CHOSEN? gay people dont chose....you are just gay if you are that is |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Did you register today just to make this point? IIRC, this point has been beaten to death already and I don't remember the outcome. Maybe it was something about a genetic predisposition. |
Oh, Puh-Leeze!!!!
You know perfectly well it's not a choice. If you claim you don't remember, THAT'S a choice.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2011 05:46:40 PM · #5309 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Oh, Puh-Leeze!!!!
You know perfectly well it's not a choice. If you claim you don't remember, THAT'S a choice. |
My wife has that same complaint of me. I admit I do suffer from selective hearing. |
|
|
|
02/14/2011 12:05:31 PM · #5310 |
| I just had to come in to say that that Lady Gaga song is...so...damn...catchy! :) Personally though I was "born again this way". :) Carry on... |
|
|
|
02/23/2011 12:50:16 PM · #5311 |
| One more nail in the coffin of hatred and discrimination. |
|
|
|
02/25/2011 03:18:09 PM · #5312 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
One more nail in the coffin of hatred and discrimination. |
Hatred? Really?
I didn't think Obama could just not enforce the rules. It might backfire on him. |
|
|
|
02/25/2011 03:43:40 PM · #5313 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Hatred? Really?
I didn't think Obama could just not enforce the rules. |
Hatred, bigotry, fear, discrimination... in spades. One cannot defend the indefensible. |
|
|
|
02/25/2011 04:37:18 PM · #5314 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by scalvert:
One more nail in the coffin of hatred and discrimination. |
Hatred? Really?
I didn't think Obama could just not enforce the rules. It might backfire on him. |
The church should also take into consideration that political posturing such as this could have the legislators take a serious look at their tax exempt status.
Ray |
|
|
|
02/25/2011 06:26:20 PM · #5315 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by scalvert:
One more nail in the coffin of hatred and discrimination. |
Hatred? Really?
I didn't think Obama could just not enforce the rules. It might backfire on him. |
The church should also take into consideration that political posturing such as this could have the legislators take a serious look at their tax exempt status.
Ray |
Legislators would have to nullify the first amendment in order to tax churches. That probably won't happen any time soon. |
|
|
|
02/25/2011 06:46:23 PM · #5316 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Legislators would have to nullify the first amendment in order to tax churches. That probably won't happen any time soon. |
Nope -- the laws exempting certain organizations from taxation (IRS 501(c)3 and related) specifically disallow the expenditure of funds (above certain nominal limits) on "political" activies. Furthermore, being as the IRS is more powerful than God, if they say pay up you probably ought to pay up, since dealing with the IRS is a fate worse than Hell ... |
|
|
|
02/25/2011 06:46:28 PM · #5317 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Legislators would have to nullify the first amendment in order to tax churches. |
You wouldn't have to change a single letter of the First Amendment. |
|
|
|
02/26/2011 02:03:15 AM · #5318 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Legislators would have to nullify the first amendment in order to tax churches. That probably won't happen any time soon. |
Nope -- the laws exempting certain organizations from taxation (IRS 501(c)3 and related) specifically disallow the expenditure of funds (above certain nominal limits) on "political" activies. Furthermore, being as the IRS is more powerful than God, if they say pay up you probably ought to pay up, since dealing with the IRS is a fate worse than Hell ... |
Oh... I didn't know that we were talking about a situation where the church was using funding to support political activities.
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Legislators would have to nullify the first amendment in order to tax churches. |
You wouldn't have to change a single letter of the First Amendment. |
Why's that? |
|
|
|
02/26/2011 11:46:58 AM · #5319 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Legislators would have to nullify the first amendment in order to tax churches. |
You wouldn't have to change a single letter of the First Amendment. |
Why's that? |
Because taxation does not consitute an abridgement of a corporation's First Amendment rights. A church may have the right to practice or "speak" freely, but the Consitution does not require the taxpayers to pay for it, which is what a tax-exemption achieves. |
|
|
|
02/26/2011 03:46:01 PM · #5320 |
Anti Gay Church has Tax Exempt Status Revoked by Canadian Government
Who knows, maybe in time something like this could happen in the USA...but I won't hold my breath
Ray |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 12:01:13 AM · #5321 |
I'm sure that it will happen someday, but only on a case-by-case basis like this situation in Canada. I'm still under the impression that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to pass a law requiring all churches to be taxed since the first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 01:13:40 AM · #5322 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm sure that it will happen someday, but only on a case-by-case basis like this situation in Canada. I'm still under the impression that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to pass a law requiring all churches to be taxed since the first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." |
How, in any way, does that relate to taxation? |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 01:29:00 AM · #5323 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm sure that it will happen someday, but only on a case-by-case basis like this situation in Canada. I'm still under the impression that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to pass a law requiring all churches to be taxed since the first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." |
How, in any way, does that relate to taxation? |
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I would think taxing a religion is prohibiting the free exercise thereof. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 01:53:42 AM · #5324 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm sure that it will happen someday, but only on a case-by-case basis like this situation in Canada. I'm still under the impression that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to pass a law requiring all churches to be taxed since the first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." |
How, in any way, does that relate to taxation? |
Not sure. But the IRS seems to think the 1st Amendment has something to do with taxation.
"Congress has enacted special tax laws applicable to
churches, religious organizations, and ministers in recognition of their unique status in American society and
of their rights guaranteed by the First Amendment of
the Constitution of the United States." (italics mine)
//www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
The 16th Amendment allows congress to pass taxation laws, but the 1st Amendment disallows congress from passing any law that prohibit the free exercise of religion. In the case of church taxation (at least according to the IRS) it seems that the 1st Amendment takes priority over the 16th Amendment. I'm not sure what the "special tax laws" are that the IRS refers to, but whatever those laws are they would have to be repealed before religious organizations could be taxed on a national level. If those laws have been enacted by Congress because of the 1st Amendment (as the IRS claims) then it would seem that the 1st Amendment would make it difficult for Congress to repeal those "special tax laws" and unconstitutional for Congress to pass any new law requiring taxation of the church.
Message edited by author 2011-02-27 01:56:19. |
|
|
|
02/27/2011 05:47:10 AM · #5325 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I'm sure that it will happen someday, but only on a case-by-case basis like this situation in Canada. I'm still under the impression that it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to pass a law requiring all churches to be taxed since the first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." |
How, in any way, does that relate to taxation? |
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I would think taxing a religion is prohibiting the free exercise thereof. |
Maybe you are confusing the definition of the word "Free" as used in this instance.
Ray |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 04:46:57 PM EDT.
