Get Free, Friendly, Expert Advice
Call 1-866-244-8796 or email

Designed and Manufactured in Canada Since 1980


AxiomAudio Blog

Blind Listening Tests

Sneak Peek into Axiom’s Current Research and Development

Axiom’s Newest Speaker: The In-Ceiling M3

Wall'O'Fame
Experimental Atmos
Greetings fellow Axiom owners...
Who's Online
0 registered (), 41 Guests and 5 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Financing
Forum Stats
13326 Members
11 Forums
22915 Topics
405111 Posts

Max Online: 378 @ 02/24/13 04:33 PM
Top Posters
Ken.C 17789
pmbuko 16289
SirQuack 13339
CV 11234
MarkSJohnson 10936
Meanwhile On Facebook

Did you get your "Golden Email"? The great gift certificate email giveaway star...

Here's a helpful article for everyone looking at putting a new stereo or home th...

Interesting article about who's getting the money from streaming radio services...

Page 81 of 172 < 1 2 ... 79 80 81 82 83 ... 171 172 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#53409 - 09/12/04 12:30 PM Re: Shooting children in the back?
ringmir Offline
aficionado

Registered: 02/03/04
Posts: 619
Loc: boston
Since I was just commenting on separation of church and state, I think I should say (although I thought I already had...):

The Government should not deal in marriage at all. It should recognize civil unions, and they should be permissible between any two individuals. Marriage should be something recognized by the church alone, and should have no legal bearing or weight whatsoever. In fact a man connected in a civil union with another man should be allowed to get married under whatever religion to some woman. This would solve legal marriage issues with polygamy, homosexuality, etc.

Craigsub, I completely understand your position regarding a corporation then having to deal with extension of medical benefits. I find it hard to believe however, that straight men would enter into civil unions with other men just to offer them the umbrella of benefits. Let me qualify this, I don't think that is any more likely to occur than for a straight man to enter into a civil union with a woman to offer her the umbrella of benefits. Certainly marriages of convenience like this do occur under the current system. But it's unlikely (and I know "unlikely" is a fuzzy word) that the problem will become significantly worse if the government adopted this new policy. And what it will permit, is for a homosexual couple raising a family to have equal standing in society as a hetero couple.

One side effect that I would expect to see is that the adoption rate would increase. If the government permits the union of homosexuals with equal rights as heterosexuals, those unions may be more likely to adopt children so they can have a family. I know that a large portion of the hetero world, myself included, can't fully understand how it would be to be raised in a household like that. But it is still a perfectly viable household, with the same day to day concerns and expenses that any hetero household would have. Why should such a household be punished by unequal medical benefits or tax considerations?
_________________________
[black]-"The further we go and older we grow, the more we know, the less we show."[/black]

Top
#53410 - 09/12/04 01:08 PM Re: Shooting children in the back?
craigsub Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 12/15/03
Posts: 1306
Turbo Dog... When has it been illegal for blacks to marry ? Even under slavery they were allowed to marry, though a slave owner could also sell off either a husband or a wife... which was abhorent, for sure... My family fought in the Union Army in the Civil War to end abuses like this.

Then.... We throw out the Biblical standard of marriage, which I already did in MY statement, you just seemed to either miss or ignore that part.... and discuss only the government sanctioned marriage. I WAS doing that... discussing ONLY the government sanctioned part... Do you get that now ?

Next... you throw all the usual BS insults... hatred, bigotry, THEN say it was not about ME ... well, what you posted was in response to me... so I take complete offense to your ridiculous assertion that my stance against gay marriage is akin to keeping women from working, blacks being allowed to marry, or anything of these other nonsense items. I loathe that type of behavior, and when hiring someone, could not care less about skin color, gender, OR sexuality.

You have not heard a sound argument because you don't WANT to hear any argument... In Today's America, two people have the complete right live together, marry in any church they want, and there is no discrimination about it. That includes gay marriage.

There is nothing anyone can say that WILL sway your position. You don't think people will try to take advantage of the situation. Well, average people WON'T ... But there is a large group of people who WILL ... here are the benefits to someone getting (by government sanction) married...

1. Surviving spouses pay ZERO inheritance tax.
2. Surviving spouses get Social Security.
3. They get retirement benefits from corporations, which are paid for buy the corporation's customers, as all expenses are.

The three largest pools of money in this country are listed above.

So, a question for you.. Can you tell if someone is gay by looking at him or her ?


_________________________
Remember, this is a HOBBY

Top
#53411 - 09/12/04 01:32 PM Re: Shooting children in the back?
dmn23 Offline
aficionado

Registered: 02/01/03
Posts: 649
Loc: Nashville, TN
In reply to:

For example, as a business owner, I provide, to the spouse/children of employees, health insurance. Under the concept of Gay Marriage, I would be forced, by law, to pay for "His Husband's" health insurance. Note the word FORCED, that is an infringement on my rights TO RUN MY BUSINESS. And anyone will be able, under gay marriage, to head to the local magistrate, get married, and show up at my door with a demand that I add his "new husband" to "his" benefits package.




Okay, I'm chiming in here because I'm genuinely confused - NOT because I want to create bad blood or stir up a $hit storm. Craig, you're already providing these benefits to your heterosexual employees who are married. Forget about the logic behind what currently qualifies as legal discrimination (I happen to agree with you, BTW) -- right now, if you elect to provide benefits for your married employees, you don't have the option to pick and choose who receives these benefits. How would this scenario be any different if, all of a sudden, all of your employees were married heterosexuals?
_________________________
M22ti mains, EP175 sub, VP150 center, QS4 surrounds

Top
#53412 - 09/12/04 01:58 PM Re: Shooting children in the back?
pmbuko Offline
shareholder in the making

Registered: 04/02/03
Posts: 16289
Loc: Leesburg, Virginia
In reply to:

There is nothing anyone can say that WILL sway your position. You don't think people will try to take advantage of the situation. Well, average people WON'T ... But there is a large group of people who WILL ... here are the benefits to someone getting (by government sanction) married...

1. Surviving spouses pay ZERO inheritance tax.
2. Surviving spouses get Social Security.
3. They get retirement benefits from corporations, which are paid for buy the corporation's customers, as all expenses are.


So you would deny these rights to honest people living in committed homosexual relationships simply because SOME individuals posing as gays would take advantage of it?

If that is your reasoning, then NOBODY should be able to get married, because sham weddings are already common. And while we're at it, we should cancel all insurance policies because some people commit insurance fraud.

There's really no differrence in logic between these preposterous propositions and your current stance. You DO NOT deny people rights simply bcause some people will abuse those rights.
_________________________
"I wish I had documented more…" said nobody on their death bed, ever.

Top
#53413 - 09/12/04 03:35 PM Re: Shooting children in the back?
craigsub Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 12/15/03
Posts: 1306
dmn23 - It is precisely because I am being told that yet another group could FORCE me to "pay up" ...
_________________________
Remember, this is a HOBBY

Top
#53414 - 09/12/04 03:42 PM Re: Shooting children in the back?
craigsub Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 12/15/03
Posts: 1306
PM- First, They are NOT rights. They are laws on the books. Rights are conveyed in the constitution...

And ALL you guys are TOTALLY Missing where I am TRYING to go. YOU think another law will somehow fix this situation.

I know this is yet another question that will not be answered... but I will try again, and PM - This is for you...

Would you like to see a system where EVERYONE was treated the same, regardless of race, sexual orientation, or gender... Yes, or No ?
_________________________
Remember, this is a HOBBY

Top
#53415 - 09/12/04 03:48 PM Re: Shooting children in the back?
BigWill Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 05/01/03
Posts: 1951
Loc: Corona, Calif. USA!!!
"I have to say that I have never yet heard one sound argument against gay marriage..."

To me the phrase "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. We all seem to agree that marriage is a religous institution. This particular religion, and all the others that I am aware of, forbids the behavior. To have a gay marriage in a church would be the same as having a ceremony where a pair of adulterers are officially pronounced "man and mistress" by the church. To ask a church to sanctify sin with a holy ceremony seems pretty bizarre to me.

Of course gay civil unions will have some costs in the form of lost tax revenues and increased partner benefits, but that does not seem like valid reasons to deprive gay couples of equal legal standing. Given that about 10% (?) of the country has decided to be gay it seems to me they deserve equal protection under the law.

BTW, craigsub, you shouldn't be so sensitive to perceived personal attacks - your earlier post basically called me "naive". I interpret that as a nicer way of saying "stupid", but whatever.
Best advice my Dad ever gave me was, "Son, don't be sensitive. Men shouldn't be sensitive. Women are sensitive."

Top
#53416 - 09/12/04 03:58 PM Re: Shooting children in the back?
craigsub Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 12/15/03
Posts: 1306
Bigwill, There is a HUGE difference between saying "Anyone ... is naive" and being directly told you are "fear-based hatred and ignorance"

Taking offense to being told I am full of hatred is not due to being sensitive...
_________________________
Remember, this is a HOBBY

Top
#53417 - 09/12/04 04:10 PM Re: Shooting children in the back?
pmbuko Offline
shareholder in the making

Registered: 04/02/03
Posts: 16289
Loc: Leesburg, Virginia
In reply to:

Would you like to see a system where EVERYONE was treated the same, regardless of race, sexual orientation, or gender... Yes, or No ?


I'll answer that. Yes, I would like to see a system where EVERYONE is treated the same, regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, and (I'm adding this one) income level.

I never advocated FOR a law granting same sex marriage. I want the gov't to amend its books so it is completely gender/orientation neutral. If that means widening the current definition of marriage OR replacing the term marriage with civil union, I'm all for it.

My previous post was a reaction to your prediction that allowing sam-sex marriages/unions would be the downfall of small business owners. Your logic relies on a reductionist fallacy -- attributing the behavior of individuals upon an entire group.

The idea that it is not a right for ANY two consenting adults to enter into an relationship that affords them the same rights as two different adults is at the heart of this matter.
_________________________
"I wish I had documented more…" said nobody on their death bed, ever.

Top
#53418 - 09/12/04 04:34 PM Re: Shooting children in the back?
craigsub Offline
connoisseur

Registered: 12/15/03
Posts: 1306
PM .. I could write a 100,000 word essay about laws passed that hurt ALL business... but since you answered the question... let us examine freedom... and what real freedom means. We ALL want the best for everyone, and would like to see people get a better life. Here are some ideas to achieve this better life, and we will use benefits to the gay community for an example.

1. Complete eliminate the Estate Tax, which would allow ANYONE to accumulate moneys, and leave said money to the person of his/her choice, not the government.

2. Totally privatize Social Security (or at least allow those who want to to have the CHOICE to put funds into his/her own account). Let those who are on Social Security keep THEIR accumulated moneys. The typical 30 year old gay man would have a couple million dollars which could be left to anyone. More freedom of choice.

2. Establish a Flat Tax, with a generous deduction for families, or heads of households, whether filing separately or jointly... the responsible plans are revenue neutral, close all the loopholes, and allow the lower 50% of the populace to pay no taxes. Under this program, two $100,000 per year gay men living together would get the same deductions as a married couple.

4. Expand "cafeteria" style health plans in the work place. These allow employees to choose whether he/she wants to us a plan. For example, one may choose to use the $4000/year medical savings account, with a basic policy that covers medical costs anuually with, say, a $10,000 deductible. Over years most people actually make money in these plans... and they KEEP the surplus, so, the gay couple could build additional assets to leave to each other... remember the no inheritance tax ?

This is a start...
_________________________
Remember, this is a HOBBY

Top
Page 81 of 172 < 1 2 ... 79 80 81 82 83 ... 171 172 >



Moderator:  alan, Amie, Andrew, axiomadmin, Brent, Debbie, Ian, Jc 

Home  |  Corporate Info  |  Products  |  Message Board  |  FAQs  |  Warranty  |  Site Map  |  Privacy Statement   |  Contact Us

©2014 Colquhoun Audio Laboratories Limited
All Rights Reserved.