Now
Fair
54°
High
51°
Low
29°
Full Forecast

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Letters
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Letters, 6/29: Bad logic on estate taxes

Comments 38 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Thursday, Jun 29, 2006 - 12:12:09 am CDT

Mike Huddleston (Letters, June 24) justifies eliminating estate taxes on the basis of avoiding double taxation. This is not justifiable.

Many estates consist largely of undeclared capital gains which have not been taxed. Estate tax policy should encourage industry, inventiveness and philanthropy and discourage greed and corruption.

Les Lane, Lincoln

A lower class of citizen?

Having just read the articles online in the Journal Star, I was amazed to read about the mayor feeling the citizens of Lincoln are a lower-class citizen than the rest of the state (“Domestic violence groups back concealed weapons ban,” June 23). She believes that we’re far more likely than the people in other parts of Nebraska to commit crimes with our weapons. 

Did she ever stop to think that drive-by shootings are not legal and are usually committed by people who can’t own weapons anyway? Maybe we should ban those in Lincoln. Oh, wait — I think they are banned statewide! 

I’m just curious to see which City Council members will vote against her proposal. I hope they remember that by limiting people’s rights given by the Legislature, they may be limiting the time we as constituents give them in office. 

Oh, by the way, maybe the city can collect more sales tax on new gun sales since we’ve taxed the home-building business in this city into other parts of the county.

Sam Greenfield, Lincoln

Recognize all marriages

It is time to state the obvious.  Those who would save marriage by limiting it to the union of one man and one woman simply are not willing to do the hard work necessary to improve the institution. To anyone who says that legalizing gay marriage would bring official recognition of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons, I say that it’s way past time. 

Gays and lesbians have been denied their full humanity far too long. As for the assertion that marriage sanctions a particular philosophy, I can only ask if we examine the beliefs of different sex pairs who apply for a license. (And of course, this charge assumes that  all GLBT individuals share a single view.) So why should we ask or expect marriage vows to bless the outlook of all persons who happen to be LGB or T? 

The further charge that the fruit of gay unions is rotten flies in the face of the facts. Extensive research presented this spring at a University of Nebraska-Lincoln-sponsored  international seminar  shows that children born to LGB parents suffer no disadvantage in comparison to children of heterosexual parents.

So just what threat does LGBT marriage pose to matches between straight partners? Not nearly so great a threat as we heterosexuals can bring to the sacred institution. Rather than debate the question of greatest danger to the sanctity of marriage, those of all shades of belief can unite in helping each couple work toward making their unique marriage all it can be. 

Vernon Williams, Lincoln

On tree removals by LES

I am a resident of Barrington Park and would like to take exception to two statements made by Lincoln Electric System to the media (“Residents want LES to pay for trees,” June 17). LES planned a meeting with the Barrington Park people for discussion of the removal of trees and then canceled it. They wanted to have personal contact with the residents, which is commendable.

The personal contact consisted of two men coming to the doors of the residents (most of the people work and others were off on personal errands), leaving the material in the doors for us to look at and examine.

The other personal contact (delivered in the same manner) was the concession of LES to shorten the distance from the center line from 35 feet to 20 feet. This was not a concession as all of the trees are in the 20 feet from the center line. It took two men two times to deliver letters to those who were at work or not at home, and again left them in the doors, when they could have been mailed for 39 cents.

Donna Berkland, Lincoln


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Letters > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
GBT wrote on June 29, 2006 1:56 am:
" Sam, you must really forgive our mayor. She's old, senile and I'm sure very paranoid. The reason she doesn't trust us Lincolnites to carry a weapon is because she knows how hopping mad we are with her "reign" in office. (paranoia) She remembers the days of the old west and how matters were settled then. (age) And she just can't understand that banning weapons does not get rid of them from our city, state, country or even planet. (senile) And with so many council members on the next ballot, and the people mad, I'm sure most will vote against her. But how many of them re-elected will flip flop on issues once they are back in. That's what I'm curious about. We citizens seem to too easily forget or over look mistakes made early in. We only focus on where a person stands on current issues at election time. Yet past history has always been a wonderful indicator of things to come. (I didn't vote to put our current mayor in place. Why? I was one of her students and it was my opinion she couldn't manage a classroom worth a hoot, sure didn't trust her to manage an entire city.) In my opinion, the best thing we can do for our city is to vote them all out and start all over with brand new. They have all become too comfortable in their positions. There is absolutely no difference between our city government and a 2 year old released in a toy store. Gimme, gimme, gimme, I want, I want, I want. "

 Brian in Lincoln wrote on June 29, 2006 7:51 am:
" the only thing is the city govt 2 year old are spending our money and don't know what it means when they hear no ! While we are on the subject of great leadership, explain to me again why we can't build a wal mart on 84th and Adams? What a disgusting display of leadership in this city. "

 c.h. wrote on June 29, 2006 7:57 am:
" Council members: I think it would be a great deterrent to street crime if the criminals knew that a prospective victim may be armed. I have a relative who is a delivery person. He was called to a vacant apartment to deliver food, and was robbed at gunpoint when he knocked on the door. Clearly, it was a setup. Would this happen if it was generally known that people in vulnerable positions (delivery people, cab drivers, elderly, women alone, etc.)are likely to be armed? I think the number of victims would be greatly decreased. Let Lincoln's citizen's at least have the option of defending themselves! "

 Chuck wrote on June 29, 2006 8:59 am:
" I have no doubt arming people would reduce the number of robberies. I would suspect that it would increase the number of shootings, but I have no supporting evidence. Let's just use the general public as our stage for experimentation and see what happens. As for the LES tree situation, surely these folks would be complaining if all they got was a flyer in the mail. If a tree is within the LES right-of-way (within 20 feet of the center line no less), I have not one shred of sympathy for the Barrington Park residents. None. "

 pj wrote on June 29, 2006 9:02 am:
" I find it interesting that someone that owns a 5 year old log house and 2-4 acres of land in Carroll Iowa pays the same amount of taxes as someone who owns a 1 3/4 story house that was build in 1918 with very little land. It is very tempting to leave this great statae of ours. "

 Five thousand years wrote on June 29, 2006 10:25 am:
" of homosexuality have not produced same sex marriage. Yet today's pop-culturists believe that their wisdom has miraculously eclipsed the wisdom of the ages. How arrogant, to put it bluntly. The sexual revolution did not impart anything close to wisdom. It only provided cover for the systematic trashing of the concept of morality, and the ability to shed any social restraints. Thank you so much for taking us down that road. Because of your revolution, marriage vows mean very little, sexual promiscuity is rampant, and our media is brimming with sexual content of all orientations. Like a swarm of termites, you have been nibbling away at the moral underpinnings of society, and now you have come to the final pillar, marriage. Oh... don't concern yourselves with any thoughts of collapse. Once the social canopy collapses, you can still chomp away on the rubble that is left behind. "

 Marv wrote on June 29, 2006 11:35 am:
" If the sanctity of marriage is so sacred. Could someone explain to me why there are so many divorces. Why are divorces evcn allowed. As for the gun issue I dont feel comfortable with the idea of concealed weapons. As we have seen on numerous occasions how people lose their tempers how many people will lose there lives. "

 Locke wrote on June 29, 2006 11:41 am:
" I wonder if the same complaints were lodged at abolitionists as they protested slavery. It was around forever. And it is mentioned in the Bible. Perhaps, we should bring slavery back and that will help create a more moral nation. Just because something has a long history does not make it righ. "

 LD wrote on June 29, 2006 12:00 pm:
" The heterosexual married couples that appreciate and respect the laws of marriage are the ones that want to uphold the sanctity of marriage. We can't control the divorce rate. There are just too many people in this world that don't give a crap anymore. We all shouldn't have to pay the price for that. "

 Mark wrote on June 29, 2006 12:14 pm:
" Les, you are correct along the lines of "undeclared" capital gains taxes escaping taxation. For those who are unfamiliar with the wealth transfer process, an heir receives a "stepped-up" basis in certain property (stocks, real estate, etc.) to the fair market value on the date of the decedent's death. Thus, any capital gains tax can be avoided upon subsequent sale of the asset by the heir. For example, if a decedent had stock with a fair market value of $100,000 which he had purchased for $10,000, his heir would receive the $100,000 in stock with a new basis of $100,000, avoiding $90,000 in gain taxable at 15%. What most people are not aware of is that along with a FULL repeal of the estate tax will come a partial repeal of the step-up in basis rule. I believe the last exemptions I heard were a $3,000,000 exemption to property passing to a spouse and a $1.3 million exemption to a qualified heir, but these are subject to change as the legislation is tweaked. If the estate tax were to be repealed fully, how long do you think capital gains taxes would remain at the 5% to 15% levels we have now? Not very long, I can assure you. This will effect EVERYONE, not just the affluent. I am in full support of estate tax reform that would make exempt $5 million from an individual's estate and $10 million for a couple (with proper planning) and would retain our step-up in basis. This would bring the number of taxable estates well under 1% and would provide for much more simplicity and stability in the planning process. I saw a commercial for Ben Nelson the other day saying he would "fight to repeal the federal estate tax". It's funny nobody mentions anything about Nebraska's Inheritance Tax. Oh, yeah. We've got one of those, too, that has been "decoupled" from the Federal Estate Tax. I haven't heard anyone crying foul about that yet, but it's early. The bandwagon is just getting rolling. Make no mistake about it, we are all going to give up our pound of flesh one way or another. The only question is when and how much. "

 Amazed wrote on June 29, 2006 12:14 pm:
" Wow! Arm pizza delivery people with concealed weapons? Guess I'll HAVE to include a tip now, huh? As for the Barrington Park residents: Did they NOT notice those big ol' power lines overhead when they purchased their property?? If they want trees up the wazoo, they should move to an acreage and plant mighty oaks until they're blue in the face. Until then, I wish they'd quit complaining! "

 jeb wrote on June 29, 2006 12:15 pm:
" Barrington Park residents...Get over it! I love the comment one of the residents said about moving there because of the trees. Obviously they didn't notice the huge electrical towers (that were there many years before the area was developed), running right through the trees. Oh, that's right, when one is a "blue-hair" one sees only what one wants to see and overlooks everything else until it's "in their back yard" (no pun intended). "

 What price? wrote on June 29, 2006 12:43 pm:
" LD, what price are YOU going to pay? There is no valid argument for keeping this discrimination in place. None. Marriage started out as a legal contract, nothing sacred about it. The churches created a sacrament out of it. Great. Let's take it out of the legal realm and put it into the churches. And then some churches would start marrying homosexuals. Long traditions of anything don't make it right. The arrogance of those who fought for interracial marriage rights? The arrogance of those who married for love instead of the tradition of having it arranged for them? The arrogance of getting married for reasons that have nothing to do with child bearing but everything to do with companionship and, once again, love? Keep hiding behind the fallacies. Again, it just scares you and if you took the time to befriend and truly understand homosexuals and their lives, the fear and the discrimination would go away. You would at the very least be left with "Morally, it's wrong but who am I to tell homosexuals they can't legally do this, or churches that they can't bless this, or parents and families that they can't support this." "

 Brian wrote on June 29, 2006 12:58 pm:
" Where do you draw the line on marriages that have to be acknowledged? Should we allow mutiple wives/husbands? Should we allow a person to marry an object? Should we allow two 14 year olds to get married? Should we allow someone to marry an animal? You could go on and on. Marriage has, and will forever, be a union between man and woman. No religion involved, no divorce stats. If the people of this state, and many others did not believe this, they would not fight so hard to maintain this. It's a disgrace to every happily and un-happily married couple out there that think a marriage certificate should have a rainbow on it. PLEASE ! "

 GMP wrote on June 29, 2006 1:24 pm:
" LD -- My husband and I are a heterosexual married couple that appreciate and respect the laws of marriage and want to uphold the sanctity of marriage. We just can't figure out why the laws and sanctity can not include committed, loving gay/lesbian/transgendered couples also. Another loving married couple could not endanger our marriage in any way. "

 M wrote on June 29, 2006 1:50 pm:
" Nowhere is anyone asking for a rainbow on a marriage certificate, they are in fact asking for the same rights that heterosexual couples have. The problem with the antigay marriage argument is that they think glbt people are asking for special rights, when in fact they are not. they are asking for the same rights extended to the heterosexual population. heck, I know many glbt couples that would as soon as not get married but would like to just have domestic partners benefits. What I think is truly sad is many anti gay marriage individuals also say this state needs to grow, but yet they are pushing away individuals and this state shrinks because of its biogtry. It is truly time for Nebraskan's to wake up and realize that the lack of support this state gives to anyone who is not deemed perfect in the eyes of the conservatives is costing this state dearly. "

 Oh yes... wrote on June 29, 2006 2:08 pm:
" ...I really want to wake up and mimick San Fransisco, that mecca of enlightnement that hates world war II battleships. Dang it... we are half way there already! "

 Another smokescreen wrote on June 29, 2006 2:28 pm:
" Here we go: Polygamy is not a deeply held sexual orientation. It is a certain religious tenet, much like the morality question against homosexuality. Anti gay marriage folks want their religious tenet to apply to all, why not polygamy, too? That's actually your burden to defend. 14 year olds have been long determined not to be of an age of consent, whether gay or straight, so no discrimination there. And marrying an object or animals has no basis of comparison. Homosexuality has a long history of two consenting adults wanting to share a bond with one another. Animals do not have an ability to consent to a marriage, nor do objects. And while someone may argue that animals have this ability, no one with any credibility supports that notion, while societies and their people throughout time have understood that homosexuality, as a consenting practice between two people, has existed forever. "

 Brian wrote on June 29, 2006 3:05 pm:
" If GLBT want benefits as married folks do? That is the point of being married !!! You just dont get it, do you? This is more than property rights, death benefits etc, this is a practice that has gone on for 1000's of years, not just the near term that you all are defending. Just as getting married is a choice, so is your chosen lifestyle. Maybe your choices are not the best? "

 mp wrote on June 29, 2006 3:18 pm:
" I can just see a pizza delivery guy showing up some place and being confronted with a robber with a gun and the delivery guy says, "Wait while I pull out my gun and shoot you." Contrary to popular belief, if a person wants to rob you, they won't be thinking about if you are armed or not. The training people claim to get when they get the permit just makes them more likely to try and do something stupid and get hurt worse than someone who complies. I have yet to find someone faster than a bullet. BTW, murder rate in the US is up this year despite concealed weapon law in 47 states. Also, violent crime has been steadily decreasing in Nebraska without concealed weapon law. IMO, the people who want these concealed permits have an ego problem pure and simple. "

 Ace wrote on June 29, 2006 4:04 pm:
" I always love the hear the ignorant argument of "the CHOSEN gay lifestyle." "

 Gary wrote on June 29, 2006 4:29 pm:
" mp, the reason theives aren't considering whether their victims are armed or not is because they know they are not armed!!!! And apparently you can read minds or see the future, because the training course is still under development, and there's no telling what kind of training will be given or how it will affect someone's thought process. And while murder rates across the country are indeed up, to say that has anything to do with a lack or a presence of CCW laws is ridiculous. Wow, Lincoln's murder rate dropped a whopping 66% from 2004 to 2005...a decrease from 6 murders to 4! Amazing! I'm not worried about the rest of the country, I'm worried about Lincoln and Nebraska, and which witnessed an overall increase in violent crime...perhaps with a CCW law, those numbers will decline. And stop with the whole "gun-toters are on an ego trip" tirade...it may only be an opinion, but it nullifies your argument by making you look petty. I have no problem with an over- or under-inflated ego, I have a problem with being at a tactical disadvantage to better-armed criminals. "

 JoeMerchant24 wrote on June 29, 2006 4:31 pm:
" MP: If concealing a firearm was meant to soothe our egos, why do we want to conceal it? Wouldn't the egotist, in the words of Willie Nelson, "to wear his gun outside his pants, for all the honest world to see"? If this was about the feeling of power that people accuse gun owners of needing, then we'd all be clamoring for an open carry law (which we have now). No, ego has nothing to do with concealed firearms. Your example of the pizza boy drawing down on a gunman is foolish. It's just money. You hand it over and let the mugger go on their way. The concealed firearm is only used when there are NO other options. Those who will seek this permit will understand that responsibility. IYHO, all guns are evil and those who want to survive a violent encounter are as well. Contrary to popular belief 9except apparently yours), if someone wants to rob, rape, or kill you, they won't be swayed by a ban on concealed weapons either. "

 Drew wrote on June 29, 2006 5:44 pm:
" If the issue 'gay marraige' is the term 'Marriage' then call it something else, just give the same legal rights to it that come with 'Marriage'. Of the 5 couples I know in Lincoln that want to be....um... 'Unionized'(the suggestion of calling it a 'Civil Union') their primary concern is that they have no legal standing as a couple. Unfortunately, this is not simply a semantics or legal issue, but that of one group with their moral code trying to hold another group to that same standard. This moral high grounding can not be resolved overnight. Most christian denominations in this country are still wrestling with the idea of the ordaination women into the clergy. You can easily tell which side of this debate I am on, however, I don't agree with drastic, overnight changes. All sides must be respected with due consideration by everyone so that discussion can procede in a civilized manner to reach a conclustion or nothing will result except hostility to one's neighbors and distraction from outside threats to our country. "

 Nash wrote on June 29, 2006 6:17 pm:
" mp, with all due respect, there are plenty of news reports of victims who have complied with their attacker, only to be raped or murdered. Compliance can get you just as hurt or dead as non-compliance. While I don't believe the money in my pocket is worth the taking of anyone's life, it is quite plain to me that an unarmed victim has little choice but compliance. Also, your comment about people who would seek a concealed weapon as a defensive tool reminds me of that old comedy line, "Pot...meet Mr. Kettle." Since I am confident that you have not met all of the people "who want these concealed permits" I feel that your estimation of their character is quite out of line. "

 Bi-Poly Pagan wrote on June 29, 2006 6:23 pm:
" Historically speaking, marriage for love is a rather new concept....only been around for a couple hundred years. It has since EVOLVED ***gasp*** into what it is today. And it should keep EVOLVING to include any an all consenting adults. Again I say consenting adults!!!!! But, the same folks against GLBT Marriage are the same who are against EVOLUTION!!! "

 Whether wrote on June 29, 2006 7:05 pm:
" you are born gay or not. You still have to choose to live the gay lifestyle. You can choose to remain celebate. In fact, if you have gay tendencies, you can still choose to live a heterosexual lifestyle. Many have done so, and have discovered that they may not be as gay as they thought they were. And just because you don't want to hear that, it does not make it false, nor does it make me "ignorant". "

 JT wrote on June 29, 2006 8:08 pm:
" Let's skip the concealed weapons and move straight to something more lethel. Maybe antrax, nuclear bombs or something, then noboby would attack anybody else!!!!!! MORE WEAPON MORE WEAPONS!!!! "

 Irrationality Detector wrote on June 29, 2006 9:50 pm:
" First of all, if the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution isn't important to you, then we may as well throw out the 1st Amendment and all the others. People of this country are guaranteed the right to keep and BEAR arms. Notice the part that says... BEAR arms. That means that the people of this country are constitutionally guaranteed the right to carry their arms with them... thus the meaning of BEAR ARMS. From there, it hardly matters whether law abiding citizens carry their arms on their belt, over their shoulder, or under their jackets. If you want to be robbery/rape/assault bait, you are free to play that role. For those who would rather not, they can optionally bear arms. If you can't understand the constitutional rights when they are clearly spelled out as they are, then don't even try to decipher some of the more abstract ones, like the one that says women have a right to abort their babies. "

 rational criminals? wrote on June 29, 2006 9:54 pm:
" The whole 'concealed protects' argument requires the assumption that criminals are rational human beings who carefully consider all of the possible consequences of their actions before committing a crime. The threat of the death penalty or life in prison doesn't deter murderers, why would a 22 year old woman who *maybe* has a gun in her purse deter a criminal? If the criminal does consider the possibility that their intended victim might have a concealed gun, they will also consider whether or not they believe they can subdue their victim before the victim is able to properly use the weapon against them. In the end, criminals are not deterrable and are a segment of the population that thrives on taking risks! "

 Gary wrote on June 29, 2006 10:19 pm:
" JT, while your post barely deserves the attention I'm going to give it, I will say that the weapons you speak of are the tools of terrorists, meant to strike fear and kill hundreds, thousands, even millions of people at a time...while LEGAL (read it, learn it, love it) concealed weapons are meant to provide a means of defense against would be doers of harm. Your comparison is ignorant, at best, and borders on downright idiotic. "

 AJ wrote on June 29, 2006 10:20 pm:
" JoeMerchant - the problem is that concealed weapons WILL be used when there ARE other options. People who feel the need to carry will also feel the need to use them even if the crime they are confronted with isn't violent. Face it there are no real legal reasons for a concealed weapon other than ego. Self protection in the face of a criminal doesn't work as a reason since the criminal will already have his/her weapon drawn as part of the crime. If you reach for your weapon the criminal will simply shoot you before you can shoot him/her and the criminal will probably have a more powerful weapon since he/she isn't concerned with concealing it or if it is a legal weapon. "

 Gary wrote on June 29, 2006 10:32 pm:
" "Bi-Poly Pagan"...stop with the sweeping generalizations. While I oppose the homosexual lifestyle (not homosexuality), I am also well-educated enough to know that evolution through natural selection, whilst not scientific law, is a very strong, and well-documented theory. However, since you bring up evolution, you should consider the fact that natural selection, the force that drives evolution, would seemingly lead to a termination of the homosexual gene (as you and others claim it to be genetic). As a homosexual cannot reproduce without engaging in heterosexual sex, the homosexual gene would appear to be a terminal gene, a trait that would be self-destructive. Yet, here we are today with millions of homosexuals throughout the world...I can't explain it, neither through natural selection nor through intelligent design nor through creationism. And if a homosexual did indeed have heterosexual sex, it would seem to indicate that there IS indeed a choice to be made. As a matter of my humble opinion, I have come to believe that bisexuals are actually homosexuals who have made the CHOICE to engage in both forms of sex...you choose a woman or a man. The remainder seem unwilling to admit that they could actually make the same choice for themselves. "

 From Dana, to: five thousand years, Brian,Whether, and Drew wrote on June 30, 2006 1:16 am:
" To those of you saying that same sex marriage should be illegal because marriage is historically between a man and a woman, since when is it always right to do things because that is the way they have always been done? It was once completely legal to beat your wife as long as the stick you used was no thicker than your thumb. Should that rule have stayed in place? It was once commonplace to stone a woman and kill her if she had sex before marriage and that death by stoning was the charge of her father. That rule has changed, but if you want things to stay as they have been, then by all means, lets gather up some boulders folks! How many of you would be willing to stone your children? Some changes are for the good believe it or not. As a woman, I am very happy that I can own property AND I can vote. For those of you who think that same sex relationships are something new, here's a fact from one of my college text books... In ancient greece the highest form of romanitc relationship was sexual love between two men. Also, for those of you who want to call a same sex union something other than marriage, but with the same rights... separate is not equal, and if same sex couples are signing a different contract than heterosexual couples, who is to say that down the rode changes can't be made to one contract excluding the other. If you want marriage to be a religious term only, then call the legal contract for all couples a civil union and call your personal, non legal relationship a marriage (but allow anyone else to call theirs what they like as well. I plan to stick with the word marriage). Also, Whether, it is not fair to expect people to squash their sexuality when heterosexuals are so blatant about theirs and I promise you that getting married to someone you are not attracted to will not change your sexual orientation, it will just make both your lives miserable. I chose to be honest with myself and my partner by embracing all aspects of my sexuality, and I do think that you sound rather hateful and you are quite obviously ignorant. When did you chose your heterosexual lifestyle? Do not expect me to sit content in a world where I am expected to pretend I am something I'm not. Marriage should be a union between consenting adults. "

 mp wrote on June 30, 2006 5:43 am:
" Gary, Nash and JoeM, So you admit that the CCW will not reduce crime but isn't that the reason most claimed by supporters? You would like to carry it out in the open but are afraid of being questioned by police so you want to hide it. I would much rather see you display it proudly instead of hiding it like a criminal. BTW, there is currently a CCW law on the books but you actually have to show a need in order to recieve it instead of just wanting it. Joe, no I don't think all guns are evil. I believe everyone has a right to own one. I just don't think a rational person needs to conceal it. Display it proudly and make a statement that how cool you look! "

 To Dana wrote on June 30, 2006 6:46 am:
" You Greeks and Romans suffered the consequences of their enlightened forms of expression. Rome went from the top to ruin. There already is a relationship which represents the union between consenting adults, and it is called a friendship. It is possible to have a deep, personal, intimate friendship without applying sexual aspects. "

 Gary wrote on June 30, 2006 8:50 am:
" Whether it reduces crime really isn't important to me, I could give 2 cents less about all the other people in the world who aren't willing to take the necessary steps to defend themselves, I am worried solely about the safety of myself and my loved ones. "

 Mikey wrote on June 30, 2006 10:23 am:
" Interesting conversations here. Being gay is a choice. Homosexuality has existed as a form of EVIL in our world for as long as man has been around. Evil working to degrade and enslave the human soul, taking as many with it to it's death. Don't fool yourselves. Homosexuals really BELIEVE that they are born that way. We have to accept that they may never change this mentality that they can't help themselves for being gay. We need to continue to love and tolerate gays, because, they are really suffering from and mental, physical and spiritual sickness. Only love will conquer that. No argument ever will. But, but must stand strong against attempts to change morality and ethics in our country. Just because they think they are in the right, doesn't make it so. We must stand strong, with love, and reject their attempts to force society to condone and put a stamp of approval on their disease but legitimizing 'marriage' for them. "

Ads by Yahoo!