SCOTUS makes a good call for once!

[sudden valley gunner]

16th amendment did not create the ability to tax anything and everything.

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 16-17 (1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at 112 (1916

Still not overturned by SCOTUS decision.

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Talk:Income_tax FUQ- that states that the income tax is a direct tax and in fact Justice White writes that the income tax is, in its nature, an indirect tax. This means that logically speaking the income tax is an indirect tax. The Supreme Court in two post 16th Amendment, Unanimous, landmark cases , that have never been overturned, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 16-17 (1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at 112 (1916), stated that the income tax is an excise tax (indirect tax). Therefore my questioned is derived from the proper definition of an excise tax (indirect tax). The Supreme Court defined an excise tax as such:

“A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax.
Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, at 502 (1930)”

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Seems being gay isn't the only reason for high suicide rates......


http://www.ksl.com/?sid=24937434

FUQ- SALT LAKE CITY — Utah ranks in the top 10 for suicide — the region is known as the "suicide belt." But an even more concerning statistic is that the state is ranked fifth for youth suicides.

 

[solus]

There is some evidence to suggest that homosexuals are hurt by being homosexual.

To wit:

Men who have sex with other men remain among the highest risk category for HIV/AIDS as well as other STDs. According to a 2010 report from the CDC men who have sex with men are about 40 times more likely to contract STDs including HIV/AIDS than are others. This despite the fact that homosexual men are about twice as likely to use condoms as are heterosexual men.

Homosexual / bisexual men are 5+ times more likely to attempt or commit suicide than are heterosexual men.

Piper did you even read the study on suicide before you posted the data. especially since it is from 1987 and concerned quote…statewide survey of junior and senior public high school students. Unquote. 336 7th to 12th graders to be exact. Data was taken from the ‘adolescent health survey’ given by the MN school and then the data was modified.

Homosexuals are much more likely than heterosexuals to be depressed, and to abuse alcohol and other recreational drugs.

Your cite to the website on substance abuse has a caveat under their about header stating: quote: Unless otherwise noted, the information presented on the HealthyPlace.com website (not including the social network and chat) is produced by writers employed by HealthyPlace.com. These employees are journalists who specialize in writing health articles and content. They are not doctors, therapists, or medical professionals of any type.

snip...

Whether society/government should use the tax code to encourage socially desirable conduct or whether the 1st amendment places limits on the taxing of churches are fine debates. What is not debatable is that homosexual voices are now openly calling for the elimination of charitable status for churches . The linked article calls for an end tax exemptions for all non-profits. But others have targeted primarily those that hold to the Biblical definition of marriage. Pure content based discrimination against churches.
snip...
Charles

piper, once again you have maligned the data to suit your own purposes...
1. there are approximately 1.2 individuals, 13yo >, who currently are infected with HIV out of 300M citizens?
2. your suicide cite used manipulated data from 1987 MN adolescent health surveys ya 336 seventh to twelfth graders...garbage in garbage out...
3. your depression cite website states they are journalists and not producing peer reviewed articles, again garbage in garbage out...
4. no where in the TIME article does it say a bloody word about 'homosexual voices' calling for churches to lose their precious tax breaks..

btw, a personal side bar...would actually love to see the religious faction lose their exemptions because quote: You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion — to the tune of about $71 billion every year. unquote: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...cost-of-religious-tax-exemptions-71000000000/

really, surely you can do better that this to make your point...tho maybe not.

ipse

 

[Dave_pro2a]

btw, a personal side bar...would actually love to see the religious faction lose their exemptions because quote: You pay for them indirectly, the same way local, state, and federal governments in the United States subsidize religion — to the tune of about $71 billion every year. unquote: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friend...cost-of-religious-tax-exemptions-71000000000/

really, surely you can do better that this to make your point...tho maybe not.

ipse

They have representation, so tax the hell out of them.

Religious freedom, doesn't literally mean "FREE." And it doesn't mean "FREE LOADERS." So yeah, they can pay to play like the rest of us. TANSTAAFL! Unless you say you're a church, and don't feel like paying taxes -- for now, hopefully.

 

[Logan 5]

Just as you and I have certain inalienable rights, the freedom of choice is clearly the most paramount yet least recognized. The right to gay marriage, in essence to marry and to love and to spend the rest of your life with IS a human right. Is homosexuality a form of mental illness as it once was called? Perhaps. I find it interesting when I find more homosexuals interested in a dedicated monogamous relationship than "straight" or "normal" people.

If anything they do it for the legal status really. Insurance, and the like. IMO, if they earn it, what the hell? Maybe you have a wife that's Romanian or French. You can't be married to her! You just lost your insurance! Or maybe she's a blond and not a redhead. Same thing. Stupid, huh?

But remember- I'll respect your right to have a spouse of the same gender if you so wish, but you will respect MY choice of gender as well.

 

[OC for ME]

For context.

...

Presumption and unsubstantiated opinion. Or, is it a matter of magnitude. Ask the kid(s) who dad, or mom, comes out and then walks out.

Hurt? You do not get to decide who is, or is not hurt, by the lawful acts of gay/straight folks.

Anyway, this thread is not far removed from the individual rights vs. government intervention thread.

... No one is directly hurt by gays being gay and you know it.

Again you presume to define who is and who is not hurt. If this is your opinion, then state this. If you have facts to demonstrate that "no one" is "directly" hurt, then provide them.

Also, the use of the term "directly" is nothing other than you stating that incidental harm is OK. Degrees of harm.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

For context.

Again you presume to define who is and who is not hurt. If this is your opinion, then state this. If you have facts to demonstrate that "no one" is "directly" hurt, then provide them.

Also, the use of the term "directly" is nothing other than you stating that incidental harm is OK. Degrees of harm.

You want me to provide facts to prove something did not happen... Kinda childish.
This is how people argue their point when it has weak footing.
Prove that no one is harmed by any degree by you OCing.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

--edited by moderator--

Are you calling me a pervert or is that just the title of your post?

 

[WalkingWolf]

I think the ruling has someone butt hurt. :uhoh:

Pun intended.

 

[DrakeZ07]

I've reported Birdman to Grapeshot, Mike, and John, hopefully they'll be around quickly to give him a spanking for his reckless breaking of the forum's rules, and for his rude, harrassing, and insulting posts.

I do find it unfair, as I'm sure if I would have used a TENTH of Bird's hatred, in the forum of anti-religious posts, I'd probably be banned indefinitley from the forum before I could click the refresh page.

But I will say this, Bird, and his ilk, are the main reason why I've converted from atheism, to anti-theism...

 

[WalkingWolf]

You can't really blame theology, just like you can't blame guns. Blame the people who misuse it for evil purposes.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

I've reported Birdman to Grapeshot, Mike, and John,

Awww. Party pooper. You know he's going to swing wild and chop the last 3 pages entirely
Or ****** the whole thread.

But I will say this, Bird, and his ilk, are the main reason why I've converted from atheism, to anti-theism...

Reminds me of that Southpark episode (hmm all my values seem to come from Southpark)

"I think I'm gonna become an atheist!"

"That's a good idea. I'm gonna be an atheist too."

"Let's all be atheists!"

"Yeah, let's kill God, yeah!"

"Well uh, let's, let's just be atheists."

"...Same thing."

 

[DrakeZ07]

Awww. Party pooper. You know he's going to swing wild and chop the last 3 pages entirely
Or ****** the whole thread.



Reminds me of that Southpark episode (hmm all my values seem to come from Southpark)

"I think I'm gonna become an atheist!"

"That's a good idea. I'm gonna be an atheist too."

"Let's all be atheists!"

"Yeah, let's kill God, yeah!"

"Well uh, let's, let's just be atheists."

"...Same thing."

I love South Park.

Hey, we can still try [to kill god]! The Klingons killed their gods, why can't we?!

 

[georg jetson]

I understand your unwillingness to answer the questions :monkey

But I'll answer yours. Possibly. Whether they are or not we cannot condone actions that hurt other people.
No one is hurt by gays being gay.

Yeah. Kinda like being born with less of an ability to resist addiction... say alcoholism. The addiction doesn't hurt anyone but the addict. However, it would be best for the addict to see the addiction as a problem and seek treatment. I think we do a great diservice to those that may have a mental disorder affecting their sexual preference by ignoring the possibility that it is a problem, not something to be encouraged.

As far as the actual ruling... Im in agreement with those recognizing that fighting for permission to get permission is exactly the type of thing those in power relish. The only winner is the ever growing gov.

 

[georg jetson]

I love South Park.

Hey, we can still try [to kill god]! The Klingons killed their gods, why can't we?!

I thought we did... bout 2000 years ago.

 

[solus]

Yeah. Kinda like being born with less of an ability to resist addiction... say alcoholism. The addiction doesn't hurt anyone but the addict. However, it would be best for the addict to see the addiction as a problem and seek treatment. I think we do a great diservice to those that may have a mental disorder affecting their sexual preference by ignoring the possibility that it is a problem, not something to be encouraged.

As far as the actual ruling... Im in agreement with those recognizing that fighting for permission to get permission is exactly the type of thing those in power relish. The only winner is the ever growing gov.

georg...sorry, your statements about addiction(s) do not hurt anyone but the individual living in the grip of the substance. I believe you are neglecting the loved ones who have to watch the individual's life diminish as work, social, economic factors probably affect their legal status. all society loses.

most who are addicted are well aware yet treatment only has a 7% success rate at long term recidivism.

now to your most disturbing belief you are espousing as a truth: sexual preference is not a medical, mental, or any type of disorder, therefore there is no problem to treat or ignore.

finally, your analogy about permission to get permission sounds like the Texas OC w/privilege card...only winner was the texas government's concealed dept profit center.

ipse

 

[georg jetson]

georg...sorry, your statements about addiction(s) do not hurt anyone but the individual living in the grip of the substance. I believe you are neglecting the loved ones who have to watch the individual's life diminish as work, social, economic factors probably affect their legal status. all society loses.

most who are addicted are well aware yet treatment only has a 7% success rate at long term recidivism.

now to your most disturbing belief you are espousing as a truth: sexual preference is not a medical, mental, or any type of disorder, therefore there is no problem to treat or ignore.

finally, your analogy about permission to get permission sounds like the Texas OC w/privilege card...only winner was the texas government's concealed dept profit center.

ipse

I agree with your observations about addictions, but some of the same things can be said about homosexuality.

I didn't espouse my belief as "truth". I specifically used the word "possibility". However, you state that the reverse IS true ...because you say? Your statement is better described as your attitude towards the issue and not actually something grounded in fact. That's fine.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Those who think a religious book should be used to set law.....

I know many of my christian friends do not feel this way much respect to you.

This was just too funny not to share concerning a few of the posts in thread.

 

[WalkingWolf]

If they want outlawed homosexuality they should move to Iran.

 

[georg jetson]

Those who think a religious book should be used to set law.....

I know many of my christian friends do not feel this way much respect to you.

This was just too funny not to share concerning a few of the posts in thread.

+1

Hope nothing in my posts indicated government should be involved in any of this.