minx

OK it's just me. I didn't say that heterosexual folks couldn't/wouldn't use the term marriage in a legal/secular context. Just that there has been discussion of the use of the term "civil union". I didn't specify if it would only apply to homosexuals or not. Just that it has been proposed as an option for homosexual couples. I didn't say eliminate

Panther-- google it. the information is out there. it's more than a theory. i wouldn't say it lives up the standard of "fact" yet. there is plenty of scientific evidence that indicates that its not a choice. i thought the concept had been fairly well covered by the media. in fact it adds to a certain measure of my frustration that there is a simple practical solution to the disagreement and people can't even get behind that. those that i know with deeply held religious beliefs feel that even a secular civil union is more than they can bear. even though it wouldn't provide any measure of religious sanction to the union, it's still not OK. the thing i find funny with the genetic argument is that there are several species that exhibit homosexual as well as bi-sexual behaviour. it seems to be a normal, although less common behaviour in multiple species. why are we so freaked out about in humans.

I was waiting for someone to say that... What do you think natural selection has to say about homosexuality? since it tends to reduce the population in over populated ecosystem, not much.

panther, two things 1) i disagree with you about homosexuality being a choice. don't have time to look up old studies but it seems that homosexuality is a genetic thing 2) is this the first you've heard of people giving marriage a different title in a secular context? if so i find that frightening b/c the concept has been around a while. if you haven't heard of it clearly many of the religious side may not be listening to all the arguments and possible solutions either.

"legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The "separation of church and state" you refer to is Jefferson's position that there should not be neither state sanctioned religion nor restrictions on its practice. At issue here is whether our Judeo/Christian influenced collective morality should impact our country's law-making. The constitution also guarantees equal protection under the law. I interpret this to mean that the right of secular marriage should be extended to all people, including gays. That is probably a more specific point of argument than where the morality embodied in our laws (including this one) comes from. The sources of that morality are historical, complex, and, if you go far enough back in time, probably unknowable. tvarsh--nice response to this. the issue regarding judea/christian values should influence are lawmaking really disturbs me. there is a not insignificant number of people in this society who are religious but not christian. what the hell makes christians so certain their way is the only way and that there morals should dictate the lives of others?

a particularly salient point for me. i would've had no problem in joining in a "civil union" rather than a "marriage". I don't care what you call it. the practical end point is the same. if gay folks want to get married in a religious ceremony then they should joing a church that's not got a problem with it. i don't believe religions should be forced to accept it if they don't believe it. however, what the heck is the problem with the civil union?????? provide a gay couple with the same financial and legal protections as a heterosexual couple is a problem how???? hell, homosexuals should start their own religion and then demand to be able to marry. then what? we've really muddied the waters then.

"legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" At issue here is whether our Judeo/Christian influenced collective morality should impact our country's law-making. No it shouldn't

the religious people who are against gay marriage/abortion/etc use the bible as the foundation for these opinions. i don't have a problem with this these same people feel compelled to push for laws based on these non-secular beliefs. i have a problem with this. the underlying argument is that they are compelled by god/bible/jesus to prostelytize or convert non-believers. they believe that they are obligated to try and make not only this society but every society conform to the rules/beliefs set forth in the bible. fine--move to a society that wasn't founded on the separation of church and state. it frustrates me that issues being decided in the secular arena are decided based on the religions of people. i've given up. there is no room for discussion with the relgious folks about these issues. i don't believe. i'm not going to believe. they can't consider the fact that the bible/jesus/pope/priest/pastor might be wrong. if they hold a belief outside of their religion they're sinners. that's a pretty big burden to bear if you are religious. it's a pretty big wall to talk to if you're not. there is no room for negotiation on these issues. i wish we could keep church and state separate but apparently that makes some folks bad christians.

I didn't realize that atheists made up 5% of the population. I figured that the number would be smaller. interesting.

facts are neutral. morals are not.

not that you're wrong to do it. not that i wouldn't do it. but that's one reason why it's hard for retail, brink and mortar business to stay in business.

trix is a fantastic pitch. i remember that the roof can be done w/o the bolts on epiphany? might be wrong it's been a while. it does seem like a waste to have crossed the route like that. leads to a bit of cluster at times. i remember being terrified on the upper part of geophysical. still a fun climb. then again, that's about as hard as i ever lead so it's probalby pretty easy and fun for a better climber.

shapp--good to spring mtn get some luv here. can't say as i've been there in an eon or so but i never see it mentioned these days. certainly not the greatest crag ever but definitely provides an enjoyable day!

thank OW!!

OW- i hate to correct you. i don't care or want to know who he is. i want the drama out of the climbing forum.

Depends if it is an individual or when they die. By 2009 the exemption will be up to $7 million for couples, $3.5 for an individual. There's a bunch of wonky calculations with some deferments as well. But - if it happened today then yes, it would likely be subject to the federal estate tax. And thanks to the Republican Congress you cannot deduct the state estate tax as you once could. Guess they favored the federal coffers rather than the local state ones. Jim--I wasn't asking about the federal estate tax. Income tax pure and simple. Say I come into a chunk of money gambling, I'm supposed to report it as income. If win a car on the price is right.... report as income. if i fall into some money from a dead relative...income? kinda sucks a little bit extra if that money is getting triple taxed. 1) when earned by now dead relative 2) estate tax (federal and local) and 3)me...as income. just trying to gather some info.

you deserve a rash

I get taxed every year in a progressive tax system based on my income. My property is taxed every year for real estate taxes. After years of paying my taxes, I die. The government has no damn business taxing my estate, when I leave it to my family, no matter how big it is. you, comrade! stupid question from an undereducated taxpayer. if my family member keels over and leaves me 5 million, do I then have to pay federal income tax on that money? i assume so. at least we don't have a state income tax.

OMFG! stop it!! take your stupid petty personal dispute to PMs. pick a time and a place to meet behind the monkey bars and settle the matter. don't subject the public to this crap.

yes, please waive the bottle of vermouth somewhere near my gin. vodka goes on the rocks with or without a mixer. choice of mixer is correlates directly with the number of times you woke up in the backseat of someone's car.

gin...gin should be the only option.

Now that is fucking hilarious .

no, obviously he's not drinking the cool-aid.

metronatural --nudist metrosexual?

no. it was done jus to piss people off. i think maybe i'll move just the second page back to the rock climbing forum.