Do you see no purpose in someone who's infertile getting married? Why is marriage intertwined with having children in your opinon?
To me marriage is to create a family. That includes progeny. Many, not all, of the benefits, rights, and responsibilities are, or were originally, to support children,
via their mothers, if the fathers died or if the family split. Alimony in childless couples is definitely not compatible with sexual equality; each member of the former family is an adult and supposedly takes care of their self.
Demonstrably, concentrations of CO2 are rising, and have been rising drastically, since the industrial revolution. There isn't some other plausible source to attribute the CO2 to, especially as burning oil produces water and Carbon Monoxide or Dioxide along with soot from incomplete combustion. There was also a [temperature?] dip around the time of Genghis Khan because forests got to grow back after killing so many people. From its physical properties and evidentially through looking at the surface of Venus, CO2 has an insulating effect. With more CO2 being put into the air and less removed via photosynthesis (deforestation for agriculture), concentrations go up.
The only way that humans can't be affecting temperature increases in some way is for comparatively simple physics knowledge to be wrong or for almost all measurements of atmospheric CO2 and historical levels to be incorrect. This includes direct measurements for the past 60 years, which would have been noticed by now.
http://www.science20.com/frank_schnell/blog/the_greenhouse_effect_fallacy-165119 Sums up
one scientific rebuttal.
So you want me paying for your government assistance, but you don't want to pay for my government assistance? I mean, everyone, including, and especially, those in poorer, rural areas are getting government assistance. Farmers want crop subsidies. How are those paid for? Taxes on everyone. Everyone eats.
Police, Safety and Defense suffer from
greater risk of corruption if not paid for universally; they must cover everyone equally without regard for whether you paid your bill. The rest, including subsidy is just adding money into the economic system without any responsibility or accounting, and merely serves to increase prices.
...Who pays for the hospital visit if the person visiting can't? Right now, the government. Would you rather have:
A) the government forces the hospital to pay for the person's care
B) the person to not receive care
C) the government to pay for that person's care
D) the person to be forced to take a loan or something to pay for the care
E) other (please specify)
The person chooses 'B' or 'D'. The person responsible for my health, and healthcare, is me. If
you injure
me, you get to pay, but otherwise, I'm responsible. 'A' just means that everyone who pays the hospital also pays for those who don't pay (the exact same as "taxing corporations"; their customers get to pay taxes twice). One reason Healthcare prices have inflated is because there's unaccountable money (the person with the benefits is not ultimately responsible) injected into the system (Same with tuition prices; grants, scholarships, et. al. merely serve to inflate prices for all). Right now, if a person goes to ER when it's
not life threatening and can't pay, everyone else picks up the tab anyway.
As it is now (and has been for decades and decades) the hospital is required to see the person and prevent them from dying. This prevents places from only accepting the wealthy, and overall improves QOF for everyone in the nation (everyone being the statistical majority).
I don't know the QOF acronym. But I'm a capitalist; I ain't rich at all, but 'pay your own way' is what
I do for healthcare. If you can't, do your best to find a group or individual willing to help, or take a loan. Life. Ain't. Fair. We can't make it so with laws.
The reason there aren't as many private businesses that provide the assistance is because A) they can't do it all and B) they were exploiting the poor and thus regulations had to be put into place as consumer protection. There's still charities. There's still things like churches and mosques to help out. But for every one of those you have a...what's that place called in Texas? And the one in Georgia? You know, with Kreflo Dollar and Pastor what's his name. The people who exploit people's harm to make money.
I'm a heartless bastard who wants there to be a reason for anyone capable of working to have real incentive to work. Those
actually unable to work are either supported by their families, or can seek assistance from a group willing to help them. Making 'poor folks' seek assistance rather than making it 'automatic' (I know that there's a buncha paperwork, but there is with a job too) gives incentive for those who just don't wanna work to do it anyway. And 50% is a bit pessimistic there, dman. You don't hear about anyone doing their job right in the news merely because it doesn't sell.
As for making non-het, or any other group, 'protected' against hate speech or hate crimes, or special employment rules I say fuck off. Equal protection under the law. No group should have special rules. Period.
And....that's the case now? Ish. I mean, right now local, state, and federal servants are trying to make it illegal to be gay... Mike Pence is one of them. Trump wanted to make it illegal to be Muslim. Not sure where he stands on that fully. Is that equal protection? How on earth is that equal protection? You said it was of no concern to you, great, sure, whatever. So why are you not shouting about these people trying to make it illegal? They are trying to make it unequal. Rulings like the one that legalized same-sex marriage made it equal protection under the law. They didn't give anyone special rights. Personally, I think everyone should be protected from hate speech. And that's where liberals want to put things.
You don't get to tell me what I can't say. You can disagree with me. You can oppose my position. You can decry that my words make me sexist/racist/homophobic. You. Don't. Get. To. Shut. Me. Up.
Regarding abortion, my view is that I don't want my tax money paying for, or subsidizing...
Good news then! It never has. Planned Parenthood's government money goes towards things like cancer screenings, checkups, etc, and law prohibits it from going towards abortion.
Incorrect. My tax dollars subsidize abortion by covering those other things.
Here's a good counter argument to the climate change thing. A chart of the history of the global average temperature over human history and a little beyond. You should see why scientists are pretty alarmed by the rate that it's increased.
Yup. Seen that. But what about temps outside human history? Climate. Changes. We aren't gonna turn into Venus.
Okay, PC speech suppression. This is not a thing. PC speech is not calling someone a racial slur. PC speech is not being racist/sexist/whateverist. You can and absolutely should be allowed to voice your own concern, for you and your family(ies). Anyone who is suppressing this, is not a PC police. They are not PC, themselves. However. Someone telling you to stop joking about rape because they have PTSD from being raped? That's not PC police. You are the one who is hurting someone with your words. This is specifically not protected speech under the (original) First Amendment. You are not allowed to use speech to harm someone, just as you are not allowed to use your fists. The ol' 'shout fire in a crowded theater' routine.
These folks say you're incorrect.
1 2 3 4 (top 4, no skipping, on my "who is protected against hate speech?" search)
The closest is direct insult, likely to result in conflict; 'fighting words'. That's it. Even wikipedia shows that in the US, there's no 'hate speech' exclusion. But I can't call illegal immigrants by that name. I can't say that I want
only those people who legally enter the US to be able to stay here, ever. I can't say I want people who come from countries, or
religions, that hold large 'death to America' rallies in their streets to be slowed down and scrutinized harder before entering my country. That would make me racist, and being labeled racist is social suicide. Fine then, I'm racist.
BLM is trying to get police to stop shooting unarmed black men...
BLM is not trying to rein in
any black-on-black killing. Why not? Here's a set of
stats.
Precis: An individual black man is twice as likely to die by gun than a white man. Unless they're each 20-29, then he's about 4.5 times as likely. The white kid most likely killed himself (77%), with a 19% chance it was homicide, and the black kid most likely got shot by someone else (82%), with a 14% chance of suicide. The white kid has about a 1% chance to have died due to 'legal intervention' (Police, et. al. I presume) instead of suicide or homicide, and the black kid a 2.5% chance (last chart, and stats from Wash Post link below).
Wash Post
states that 90% of violent black deaths are perpetrated by other black people, and 82% of whites offed are offed by whites.
It's bad statistics (I never took that), but 0.9 x 0.82 (the likelihood of 20-29 yr old death by gun homicide) is ~0.738. So if a black boy is killed by a gun it's an almost 74% likelihood that he was killed by another black person, 8% that a non-black did it, and another 14% chance that he did it himself, and 2.5% chance a cop did it, the rest being accidental or unexplained.
So I conclude that BLM doesn't care about lives, or else they'd start with the 'low hanging fruit' and teach black kids to stop killing each other before trying to narrow the disparity between deaths by police. I see it that at the leadership level they want something other than what they say they want. Most likely power of some sort.