well it isn't what i want, but I don't understand the rationale for passing the costs of ones religious beliefs on to those of us without a religious affiliation
The arguments for tax exemption of & tax deductability for donations to churches and religious org's are that they are not profit making businesses and they do good for society. At least as much good as the Heinz and Ford foundations, Greenpeace, etc.
I looked him up on wickedpedia.....
He was an EAGLE Scout who was an assistant to the scout master, and his crime was admitting he was gay. He didn't molest anyone or do anything wrong, he was gay. The Scouts in that case condemned him for being innocent. What a pack of weasels.
They didn't "condemn" him, they said he couldn't be a scout master, or assistant scout master, which would allow him to go out with a group of kids under his control. Groups have the right to make determinations like this in the interest of minimizing the chance of kids being victimized. Do you really want to persecute organizations which won't allow anyone who wishes to supervise children to do so?
Why should anyone build a social life in a group that discriminates?
Freedom of association. Why do want to dictate other's social lives?
To be an Eagle Scout means you have spent a lot of time in Scouting. To suddenly be shut out means that you have wasted all that time, and that every friend you thought you made within Scouting is just another Bigot.
Scouting is for young people. Most people grow up and move on as this guy should. It doesn't mean they wasted their time. As for scouts, they aren't bigots just because they don't allow some guy like James Dale to supervise kids.
Better to end the Scouts completely.
Ah yes. If it doesn't meet my ideal, it should be outlawed.
I am not "trashing marriage" I am actually suggesting that those who are married step up to the plate and agree that they get a rather sweet deal on taxes and things like health care,
Not taxes, that is normally a penalty area for married folks.
and that perhaps in order to protect the sanctity of the institution that they should give up the financial perks and pay for stuff out of their own pockets.
How would giving up family health insurance coverage and survivors pension benefits protect the sanctity of marriage?
Gay couples can never get the same benefits as a heterosexual couple with no children no matter how long they are together.
Neither can two same-sex heterosexual friends who room together. Is it okay to discriminate against such folks just because they don't screw one another? We don't have to accomodate every living arrangement with family status.
So why not do the right thing, cherish the religious significance of Marriage and agree that childless couples, or couples whose children are grown, should give up those perks.
Why should single people who are a couple, have to pay extra to support a couple who have had a few religious words said over their union? So marriage should be stripped of financial and tax benefits, so that people are equal.
Equality as a concept is overrated. I don't understand people who go around looking for reasons to feel they're being treated unfairly. Life isn't fair.
But as I said before, if you can convince enough people of your views, you can achieve them via the ballot box if you want. I won't be voting for your views but you can work on all the other folks out there. |
