- Status
L
LilyM
Guest
That’s your own fault (not you as an individual, but the atheists of your country as a group). I’m fairly sure such a law could be challenged in the European courts, and probably successfully.In my government Catholic pastors are paid by the government. And I pay texes in my country, so because of the taxes I pay ,people like you can attend Mass.
If you come to my country and attend Mass, just think about it: I pay for it.
I know that at least some years back there was a similar system in Germany. I also know that those who had no faith could opt out of paying that portion of their taxes that funded churches and their clergy (for example, if they had declared themselves as atheist on the census or similar).
If you don’t want to pay for religious salaries, challenge the law. If you can’t be bothered, or if for good reasons your challenge is unsuccessful, then don’t complain and don’t hold it against people of faith as if they owe you anything.
B
belorg
Guest
For the moment I cannot opt out of paying for religious salaries, nor do I want to do that. I also pay for opera houses and I do not like opera.That’s your own fault (not you as an individual, but the atheists of your country as a group). I’m fairly sure such a law could be challenged in the European courts, and probably successfully.
I know that at least some years back there was a similar system in Germany. I also know that those who had no faith could opt out of paying that portion of their taxes that funded churches and their clergy (for example, if they had declared themselves as atheist on the census or similar).
If you don’t want to pay for religious salaries, challenge the law. If you can’t be bothered, or if for good reasons your challenge is unsuccessful, then don’t complain and don’t hold it against people of faith as if they owe you anything.
So, what makes you think I am complaining? I was just answering ahs’s question, who seemed to think that he was the only one having to pay taxes for something he does not support. I pay lots of taxes for all sorts of things I do not support, including Roman Catholic priests. So what’s the fuss about paying for gay marriages? Most catholics in my country do not mind at all.
W
wjp984
Guest
The abortion one at least is generally easy to deal with:
Just tell them this:
“You don’t like killing 6 million Jews, don’t do it”
The other ones are a little more difficult to deal with because they are not questions involving a right to life.
Just tell them this:
“You don’t like killing 6 million Jews, don’t do it”
The other ones are a little more difficult to deal with because they are not questions involving a right to life.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
Ilict sex only between a married man and women can not produce a STD, as long as niether have illicit sex,( that with someone they are not married to). AS to abortion the odds are heavely that a married couple will not have an abortion.
So yes Illict sex leads to those to things and that cost everyone in society.
A
ahs
Guest
Thanks for the explanation belorg. I’ll continue to complain about it because I don’t want my tax dollars supporting what I know to be an immoral behavior…and I support your right not to pay for my religion. If someone wants to live a homosexual lifestyle or murder their child while still in the womb, I want to right to NOT have to pay for that.
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
The question is not so much the immediate results as it is the idea. That is, what ideas does fornication promote, as opposed to the ideas marriage promote? Yes there are some obvious benefits over marriage as opposed to fornicating, but you bring up the legitimate question of children. Children ARE good, right, no matter where they come from? Yes indeed. But the children of a marriage vs. the children of fornication are disposed to two different ideas of sex: the ideas that value pleasure over unity, and the ideas that value unity over pleasure.
Fornication, no matter what the kind, implies that sex is only an urge, a pleasure. It should not be life-giving or anything more than recreation. Children and STDs are bad things in the mind of a fornicator, for both of these things add responsibility, and God forbid we be responsible. That’s not fun.
Marriage, on the other hand, demonstrates responsibility not only for yourself but also for your significant other and for any children you have. It shows you really care and are united to these people who you not only have fun with but also take care of and assist, while they also take care of an assist you.
In short, fornication affirms the individual at the expense of society. Marriage strengthens the society and the world and reduces many risks, while sacrificing some freedom and pleasure.
Even shorter: fornication is a centrifugal force. Marriage is a centripetal force.
Even shorter still: fornication is alienating. Marriage is uniting.
Destructive vs. creative. This is the choice between fornicating and procreative, committed, married sex.
B
belorg
Guest
Well, I am not sure in which kind of country you would have to live in order to only pay taxes for what you personally like.
For the record: I do not want the right to not have to pay for things that other people find important because, believe it or not, I respect other people’s beliefs.
And do you think that if you do not pay taxes will make any difference on the number of people living a homosexual lifetsyle I think you ought to go and live in Utopia.
A
ahs
Guest
My desire to not want to pay for someone’s homosexual union or abortion has nothing to do with not respecting their beliefs. They can believe what they want. It is their ACTIONS that they want me to pay for. Go and believe what you want, and I assure you I will not chase you down and force my beliefs on you. Ask me to pay for an action? If given a choice I will tell you “no”, (“you” not necessarily directed at anyone in particular…just a hypothetical “you”) because the way YOU choose to live is YOUR choice and YOU need to take responsibility for it instead of asking ME to pay your way.
The whole “if you don’t like it, then don’t do it” is a cop-out. How about, “if you don’t like child-trafficking, don’t do it, and don’t thwart my right to do it…and, oh, by the way, I want your tax money to help me traffic them.”? Sound gruesome? Homosexuality is no less evil. And abortion…there is not a Dr. in the world, not even the avid supporters of abortion who will claim that this does not stop a beating heart. They all know that the baby is alive, they simply give futile arguments about whether or not the baby is actually a human. Really?! A baby rat is a baby rat from the moment it is conceived…how then is a baby human not a baby human from the moment of conception?! Abortion is murder…legalized murder…and if this is part of a lifestyle that YOU choose to live, I legally cannot stop that…but I should not have to support YOUR ACTIONS with MY money, and the child YOU are about to murder has a right to have an advocate speak up for him/her because he/she cannot speak up for him/herself.
B
bobballen_18
Guest
Wait, so for a couple who has sex for the first time, that is, neither of them have ever had sex, it is impossible to get a STD? I am just curious, I really don’t know. For some reason I thought otherwise.
L
LilyM
Guest
Well, they are called sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) because they are transmitted (passed on) by sexual activity. So yes, someone who has never had sex will not have any STDs (how could they?)
And so they will not be able to transmit any disease to their spouse unless they are unfaithful during the marriage.
What on earth did you think sexually transmitted meant?
T
TarkanAttila
Guest
If that is the case, where did the first STDs come from?
Some STDs are inherited from birth - like HIV/AIDS. When a child is born of an AIDS infected mother, the child has AIDS, too.
O
oneGODoneCHURCH
Guest
I have no idea were the first case of all the different STD’s came from i just know how we get them today.=TarkanAttila;8621461]If that is the case, where did the first STDs come from?
That is not correct not all children born to women that have HIV?AIDS have also been born with it.
J
jmcrae
Guest
It was not always so, and in fact I was an adult by the time most of these things became legal to do. For most of my life, they were not only illegal, but commonly understood to be the actions of criminals and insane persons - and when you think about it, what sane woman would invite a doctor to stab her with a knife and kill her unborn child? Just because it’s done under anesthesia doesn’t make it “okay.”
What sane person would invite another person to sexually abuse them on parts of their body that are not even biologically intended for sex?
What sane person, being healthy and having no need of any medical treatment, would ingest or smoke a chemical composition mixed by people who have no formal training in pharmacology, in the hopes of becoming unable to walk or to think straight?
B
bobballen_18
Guest
Well, forgive my ignorance…haha but I thought some STDs transfer from parents to children…so that’s probably wrong then. If it were true though, even if the person hadn’t had sex, he’d still be able to pass it on to his spouse.
It does sound a little absurd, I suppose, to think that a sexually transmitted disease would pass on to a child…but nevertheless, that’s what I thought. I have not always been known for my intelligence, I suppose.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Who can say - probably some kind of unsanitary practices somewhere along the way.If that is the case, where did the first STDs come from?
The disease is not “inherited” - rather, the child gets it while passing through the mother’s sexual organs - so in a way, it is sexually transmitted, but during the birth process rather than while having sex.
Someone born with a sexually transmitted disease would likely not survive long enough to become old enough to get married. Even if they did, they would know that they had the disease, and would most likely choose not to marry.
- Status