Click on the hidden comments. Hiraghm denigrated Jan.

Timelord: I hate like hell that I had to click on comment that was hidden by a moderator to read your perfectly well reasoned response here. And the part about only the government being compelled not to discriminate...anything beyond that is legislated morality and thought control. Cheers to you.

What a curious statement.

thank you.

who is denigrating jan? we know her. she posts regularly and takes on the un-rational. she's a compass type

they shouldn't be

I'm with you. but I don't tow drag. ahem, a metaphor. There are radical movements who want to undermine the process to get their thing. I understand it on a tactical level-however the long game is lost. very close friends of mine are gay and her daughters think of me as their "auntie kaila." I was in the birthing room for Eva, and for Addie, I well, I took care of Eva while their moms were working to bring Addie into the world

There is a flaw in your reasoning. I've read Rich Dad, Poor Dad and I don't recall Kiyosaki saying that the most important economic goal is to have enough cash flow to fund an extravagant lifestyle. On the contrary, he spent a great deal of time explaining the difference between an asset and a non-asset and repeatedly stressed that to become financially successful you must put as many assets to work for you as possible.

However, that's irrelevant since you cannot ever mistake government for a business. Government never produces, it only consumes. You want to avoid public debt by "funding the system with the profits generated from the country's productive enterprise."

I'll rephrase that more directly: we can avoid public debt by forcibly confiscating the fruits of productivity and lavishing it upon the non-productive.

Now we're just splitting hairs as to which kind of thievery is more desirable, stealing wealth by debasing the currency with debt or direct confiscation from society's productive segment.

I choose door #3, no thievery at all.

Based on the homosexuals I've met, they're just as adorable or annoying, honorable or deplorable as the rest of society and with the same probability distribution as the rest of society.

It's probably true that a higher percentage of gays are progressives than society at large, but I've met plenty of conservatives, too. And of the two conservative gays that come to mind, I remain friends with one and I kicked the other one to the curb (neither were romantic, just male friends who happened to be gay). That's because one is a nice guy and the other turned out to be an unreliable idiot with poor manners who only contacted me when he wanted something.

That sounds just like a thousand straight people I know.

And as for your denigration of Jan, Objectivism recognizes that we all have our own hierarchy of values and we must live our lives based on those values. What you really said is that you find Jan's morals wanting. But considering the most basic of all morals, the golden rule, you are the one that fails the morality test, not Jan.

Oh Hiraghm, of course I can't have it both ways, that would make me a bisexual and that's just gross! Damn, I hate bisexuals! (he said tongue firmly in cheek)

[Doesn't affect?] Yes, doesn't affect! I ask again, how does two men or two women getting married affect you?

Speaking for myself, I don't give a shrugging demigod whether you accept me or not. What you consider normal and healthy is up to you, in public or private. The only thing I insist on is that you don't deny me any legitimate rights.

We of the gay mafia (TIC again) never claimed we wanted to keep anything in the bedroom. What we said is that what we do in our bedrooms is nobody's business but our own.

And just like you and your sweetie can walk down the street holding hands, hugging and giving pecks on the cheek why shouldn't I be able to do the same thing without the fear that my boyfriend and I won't get our skulls bashed in?

I always wonder why people object to homosexuals getting married. Nobody has ever suggested that religious organizations recognize gay marriage. We only want the *government* to acknowledge them. That recognizes that we should be able to inherit property, make medical decisions in an emergency, file taxes jointly, all kinds of legal stuff that we can't get any other way.

A lot of "you people" scream, "do what you want, have all the rights and privileges of marriage but JUST DON'T CALL IT MARRIAGE!" Well, aren't you special! Next thing you know Ford, GM and Chrysler will be screaming, "Go ahead, build a gizmo with four wheels and an engine, JUST DON'T CALL IT A CAR!"

My position in all this is that government should divest itself of involvement in marriages of any kind. That would be a more honest approach to what marriages really are: a religious recognition (for those who believe in mystical super-beings) and a separate recognition by government of an agreement under civil law. Civil agreements, aka contracts entered into willingly by all the parties involved, are already honored by government and enforced or dissolved in the courts.

On a strongly related note I am *absolutely* opposed to people and businesses that are fined for refusing to provide services (like wedding cakes, wedding venues, etc) for gay weddings. But I also oppose laws that force businesses to serve anyone that they don't want to - so yes, a business is within its rights to discriminate on any grounds it chooses, including race, gender, the whole shebang. It's only government that should be compelled not to discriminate.

Hey Carol, curious. We always guess (well some of us do) the wrong gender of new comers into the gulch. Are you male or female?

Timelord; Good comments. Thanks for the input. +1