Nightingale

Why deduct for donation to charity? To encourage donations to charities, which can do things like providing for the homeless far more efficiently than the government can. I think it's practical to keep some kind of compensation system in place to encourage this. And yes, you are right, everyone should pay at least a little something.

Honestly, I think inheritance tax is the most unfair. Not only has that money already been taxed (when it was earned), but an inheritance tax interferes with what is basically a gift, generally between a parent and child. If someone has worked their whole life to put away money so that their family is taken care of once they're gone, which is a very responsible thing to do, it seems terribly unfair for the government to step in and say "NO! MINE!" What seems the most fair to me is a sales tax on items that are not food or medicine, and a flat income tax on all income over a certain percentage, with the only tax deductions being for donations to non-profit organizations.

Have you ever fired a gun? Have you ever stripped and cleaned a modern firearm? Do you understand how safeties work?

Everyone- AIDS Walk Los Angeles is less than three weeks away! Join our team and come walk with us on October 18 to support AIDS Project Los Angeles! It's a fun day that supports a great cause! If you want to walk, there is no minimum amount you must raise, so please come walk with our team and show your support! If we can register 25 walkers by October 7, we get a meeting table, which makes things so much easier for everyone! Click my link below, then click "My team page" and "Join our team!"

Thanks, Gia!

I'll be getting the vaccines, both the regular flu shot and the H1N1 shot. I spend time caring for my elderly grandparents as well as my twin cousins, who are under a year old, and I won't risk catching anything I could spread to any of them.

Mention it and post a pic. That way, if a guy is intimidated by your jumping, they won't respond, and you won't waste your time. It'll help you weed out the ones you wouldn't want to date anyway.

These are the ones I found in a quick search of the forums. "Blue Skies. This sport glows brightly, and burns incomparibly beautiful images into our memories. That brightness comes at a very high cost. It's the lives of our friends, the blood and the bones of our sky family. That's the dark side, the Black Death. There is no one without the other." http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2569974;#2569974 "You live life forwards, and understand it backwards. " http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=2164509;#2164509

I suspect that the emotionally-charged aspect of the issue actually has very little to do with any particular word, even though that is what a lot of people choose to focus on in their arguments. Well, we learned in "Brown v. Board of Education" that separate but equal is inherently unequal, so we can't have marriage for one group and civil unions for another. That's just not going to work. Marriage for both groups might work, but there's that religious mess in the middle of it. In talking with people that voted for Prop 8, I don't think that they hate gay people, or really feel all that threatened by them... many of them have gay friends or relatives, and are perfectly nice, reasonable people. What it really came down to was that one damn word and that the word had a religious meaning to them that they didn't want to see change. I think if we can go towards civil unions for everyone, we'll see it a lot faster than if we insist on marriage for everyone. Ideas are changing with each generation, and homosexuality is becoming more and more acceptable. To my parents generation, being gay was something to be hidden. To my generation, it's slightly less so. To my teenage cousins, it's a non-issue. I think gay marriage will happen, but it will take a lot longer if we cling to that word to define a legal union.

There wouldn't be any "taking that away." They can have a religious marriage ceremony too. Nothing is taken away. The right of churches to marry who they wish is preserved.

Yep. And I think this is the most practical thing to do for many reasons. I agree that it's the most practical. However, it doesn't take into account the emotionally charged aspects of the issue. I'm looking for the fastest way to get people rights with the least amount of protest.

Isn't that exactly how it works now, except with a marriage certificate instead of a civil union license? Yes, but a court officer would legalize the union, not a church official. A church official would perform a marriage ceremony if the couple wished to have one and the church agreed.

I don't think so... Marriage is a covenant between two people, God, and their community, and a change in legal status shouldn't affect that at all. Current marriages would be recognized as valid civil unions. All it would require is a simple grandfather clause. The church ceremony no longer bestows legal rights, your trip to the courthouse to get your civil union license does that.

This is something I posted on another forum in response to a gay marriage debate. I was wondering what the take on it here would be. __________________________________________________ Honestly, I think the biggest issue here is that we have one word, "marriage", with two legitimate definitions, both of which are currently correct. We have the religious definition, which is considered sacred, and has historical roots attached to it, and tends to bring some very strong emotions to the table. Then, we have the legal definition, which brings along with it 1138 federal legal rights, benefits, and protections, and a whole slew of state rights and benefits as well. This definition also brings some very strong emotions to the table, particularly from the group of people who are denied legal recognition of their relationships. The issue isn't so much that people want to deny legal status, it's that the religious definition they've always associated with the word doesn't fit if the legal definition is expanded to include same-sex couples, and the other side wants inclusion in the legal part of the definition, not really caring if their status is recognized by particular churches. The issue is recognition by the government. It seems as though the simplest solution is to separate the two issues. The government, if it remains in the business of recognizing relationships at all (which is another issue entirely), ought to provide "civil unions" to everyone, straight or gay, because the government is recognizing a civil status, and providing legal rights, benefits, and protections based on that civil status, therefore, the words "civil union" are more appropriate. That way, everyone can have the same thing under the law. This would leave individual churches able to provide the sacrament of "marriage" where they feel it appropriate, leaving "marriage" where it belongs: between God, the individuals involved, and their community, keeping Uncle Sam out of it entirely. People would then be free to have a marriage, a civil union, or both, as appropriate for their situation. Is this a solution people would find acceptable?

Exactly.

Who says it isn't a personal decision? Where is the logic that a 16 year old kid can drive a car but cannot make a (tandem)jump? Is it smart to see young children fire guns they barely can hold? There's a big difference between a 16 year old and the 7 year old in the article, or even John Mitchell's 12 year old. It's really individual with children... some older kids will understand risk, especially DZ kids, but some won't. Yes, it is the responsibility of a parent to make risk assessments for children in certain situations, but really, the sky isn't going anywhere, so why not wait a couple of years until they're old enough to make that risk assessment for themselves? I'm just thinking of what a headline of "Seven year old dies in skydiving accident" is going to do for the sport. We don't need that kind of negative publicity.

I think it's a bad idea. Skydiving is something where the jumper should understand the risk, and children that young aren't really capable of that. Jumping needs to be a personal decision. This isn't a roller coaster.

How do you define "elective"? Honestly, short of treating a condition that would otherwise be terminal, most medical care is, in a way, "elective", and is a quality of life issue. For example, I can "elect" to treat my chronic migraines, or suffer through them... they're not going to kill me, but it's certainly a quality of life issue. Plastic surgery may seem "elective" on its face, but what about surgery for the baby born with a hairlip or cleft palate? Or reconstructive facial surgery for someone in an auto accident? Or treating someone for burn scarring? Surely a nose job would be strictly "elective", but what about the corrective surgery for the kid with the broken nose? Another example, paying for elective weight loss surgery. Some insurance plans cover this, because they feel that paying for the weight loss surgery is more cost effective than paying for the health complications, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, etc, that can result from obesity. Some insurance plans are covering LASIK or other vision correction surgery, because it might end up cheaper than a lifetime of glasses and contacts. Covering birth control can be cheaper than covering prenatal care, and birth control is not always just used to prevent pregnancy (acne treatments, prevent headaches, PMS, etc...)

1. A second floor condo. 2. An alarm system. 3. A shotgun. 4. A couple of handguns. 5. A watchdog. 6. A male roommate. And as for paranoia... I have a schizophrenic stalker who actually IS out to get me, so I'll keep my guns, thanks. You don't have to live in a war zone to have a bad guy break in. All it takes is one bad guy.

It is my understanding that he was a Deist and that his famous "separation of church and state" philosophy is contained a letter and not in the U.S. Constitution. It was an explanation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Since he was around when the Bill of Rights was written and corresponded with James Madison on the matter, I'd put a lot of weight in his explanation. Madison, who was the main author of the Bill of Rights, also referenced a "total separation of church and state" on several occasions.

I'd buy a gallon of Nature's Miracle and let it soak into the mattress. The urine smell should be gone in a week.

Their partner?

You know, I've been wondering the same thing! So what can you tell us about Thomas Jefferson? As he was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence, I've always felt he was of particular importance.

You don't even need an assistant... just a couple of snap caps and a few extra mags. Load the mags and put the snap caps in randomly with the live rounds, and then mix up the mags so you don't know which is which.

and support and encouragement for what you DO LIKE.