I'm trying to imagine the cover of Modern Registered Partner Monthly.

I'm not sure such an arrangement will speak to all of the needs people bring to these unions.

PS- It ain't just "Bibleheads [who] have issues with homosexuality" who are against gay marriage.

I don't know. I'm ambivalent.

I would not want to give my daughter that kind of power over me -- especially as I age.

That said I'm hypocritical since I wouldn't mind it in the reverse at all. She's got mental illness that currently is under control. Her current medication is working well and she is taking it because she realizes the importance of taking it. Because she is, she is not only being "normal" but doing well these days, finishing school, seeking work at the end of it and planning further education. Realizing she needs a career, not a job. In fact, she's been taking more off me than on me of late. (Whew!) Yesterday, she had her wallet stolen and was upset about it (of course) but a normal upset. Six months ago, she'd have either collapsed or got psycho. In short, her medicine is enabling her to at last handle.

Should that change, I'd want some power over the situation. Quite frankly, things get nuts fast if she even skips. I think she at last realizes that it sucks but she can't. I don't expect it to change but mental illness is an unpredictable thing so I can't be 100% sure. I'm optimistic at this point but I need to be able to step in and help should that change. To have the legal ability to even though she's an adult.

Of course, however, I somewhat do since I live in New York and, if need be, can invoke Kendra's law.

http://www.omh.state.ny.us/omhweb/Kendra_web/Khome.htm

Believe you me, I am glad of that. Since my daughter is bi, I'm also glad that one of the person's that can seek action under this law is an adult roommate. If she should fall in love with a woman and cohabitate, I'd want that woman to be able to look out for her. Man or woman, I'd hope anyone she ever got that serious with would look out for her this way. If her partner happens to be same sex rather than someone she can legally marry, why should that woman have to turn to me to invoke Kendra's Law any more than her husband would?

My physical health is piss poor. What if I'm not able and T is still underage but she happens to have a female partner instead of a male one? Point made, I think. I'd sure as hell like someone to be able to look after her (no matter who she loves) if I'm unable or gone and T is not old enough.

Gratuitous insults are unlikely to get people to consider your position, regardless of its merits.

Amy - Now I am actually not for Social Security at all or for other marriage privileging. But, if we're going to have Social Security, why should benefits be predicated on romantic success?

Social security benefits accrue to the widowed spouse because a marriage is much more than simply a romantic relationship; it is also a financial and a parental partnership. A married couple is one economic unit, which is reflected by Social Security survivor benefits, which accrue to the surviving spouse or minor children.

The entire purpose of the institution of marriage is to create stable families; to foster stable, child-rearing couples. That has historically involved a division of labor whereby the male was the primary and/or sole source of income. If, for example, a married couple divided their labor in such a way that the male was the income earner and the female performed the childcare and domestic work, that woman would be at a significant disadvantage if her husband died. She would not have the skills or work experience to earn anything approaching a comparable income PLUS she would be saddled with care of any children that were the result of the marriage.

Social Security survivor benefits are, like many of the benefits of marriage, designed to promote marriage as an institution that fosters stable families. Society does not have a pressing need to foster stable romantic relationships, but fostering stable families is an imperative, as can quickly be discerned by comparing the incarceration rate of those who were children of single parents to the incarceration rate of those who children of a married couple. Incarceration rates are just one of many indicators showing how important stable, child-rearing couples are to well functioning society. Government provided protections and benefits accruing to the those stable, child-rearing couples is a good thing.

For those who argue that those benefits should also accrue to those other than those couples that are likely to become families, let me ask this:

If tax credits given to those who purchase solar panels and other renewable energy products are given to anyone who buys any sort of energy, will that foster increased renewable energy purchases?

"For those who argue that those benefits should also accrue to those other than those couples that are likely to become families, let me ask this:" Yup, but how again is this an issue. If gay couples adopt then you have stable multi parent family. If you only give those that have children tax breaks which we do I don't see how this is an argument against gay marriage. If foster care was empty I'd buy the argument.

Not all gays will adopt but neither will all straight people bear kids or stay together if they do.

Well. If nothing else, this proves that those who argue that the push for gay marriage does NOT threaten traditional marriage are full of crap.

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it."

> why should benefits be predicated
> on romantic success?

If you're not for marriage, you're not for gay marriage.

Next issue!.....

MikeMangum,

Well said!

And to those rushing helter-skelter down this "who needs marriage, anyway?" road, tell me this: What sort of society will we have when the personal interest of the individual is paramount to the greater needs of society, now and in the future?

Does the phrase "the tragedy of the commons" mean anything to you, folks?

And I gotta say it (you KNOW I love ya', Amy), but those who leave to others the hard and very expensive work of rearing the next generation of good, tax-paying citizens, while at the same time complaining about benefits conferred on them, are free-riders.

Finally, if "married" is to continue to mean anything at all (and I want it to), then yes, Amy, you are SINGLE. "Married" is much better than "single" if kids are involved, but "single" is a LOT better than "divorced."

" ... those who leave to others the hard and very expensive work of rearing the next generation of good, tax-paying citizens ..."

They can all stop doing it any time they like.

Hey Jay R you ever stop to consider that the reason so many peoplle have stopped caring about society is because society keeps fucking them over?

Amen, luj. And if you think good, tax-paying citizens are getting fucked over now, wait till you see how bad their kids and grandkids are going to get it.

Amy asks:

"the push for gay marriage does NOT threaten traditional marriage are full of crap."

How is your relationship threatened in any way by virtue of others who would be granted the same rights you are?

-----------------------------
First, my comment refers not to MY relationship, but to "traditional marriage." Thus, your question is an "apples and oranges" non-sequitur, and inappropriately personalizes the discussion.

Second, I specifically refer to the "push" for gay marriage, which has led to publicized suggestions here and elsewhere that the "solution" to the gay marriage problem (i.e., if the prohibition is upheld) is to abolish civil marriage for everyone, and even to abolish the distinction between "single" and "married." Doesn't that sound like a threat to traditional marriage to you? ("We had to destroy the village to save it!")

Finally, every child in need of adoption represents a tragedy and/or a parenting failure. Society has an interest in reducing the number of orphans, and does so by providing incentives for the couples who CREATE kids to stay together to rear them in a stable household. The more that marriage is attacked and devalued as an institution reserved for the only procreative model of relationship, the more children ("abortion survivors") will be born who will ultimately need to be adopted. So, yes, in a real sense, gay "marriage" or its flip-side, only civil unions for everyone, does erode traditional marriage. This erosion will lead only to more children who will be raised by single mothers, and/or who will need to be adopted -- by gay couples, I guess. Ironic.

I like Jay R and mike mangum. Very well said.

Pirate Jo:"They can all stop doing it any time they like." This line gets repeated a lot here, from Amy and you and a few others. It's the most stupid, idiotic, insane statement I've ever heard from an adult. You are, in essence, saying "I don't care if humanity ends at my death. I don't WANT to contribute one iota to it!!!!!!". Very childish. Except that really insults children. And it's selfish and self-centered.

It makes me think of the little bully kid who breaks a toy so that if he can't have it, no one does. In fact, that analogy works for the whole gay marriage movement. Selfish.

"So, yes, in a real sense, gay "marriage" or its flip-side, only civil unions for everyone, does erode traditional marriage." Actually the resistance to gay marriage bring up the debate and the idea of civil unions only. So if gay marriage were not so staunchly resisted we wouldn't be having the discussion. No one is arguing abolishing marriage (the binding covenant before God) but getting the state out of the equation. There are no benifits that push for sustaining a marriage. A single mom with multiple kids will get a great deal more money then a married mom with a working spouse. So the ideal solution becomes the boyfriend rents space to the mom and has to pay her support. The feds take up the difference, he get the support tax break, she gets extra support, so they keep his money and then get a load of federal money as well. The feds can only force a given support payment as a percentage of salary. All of which stops the second they get married. So how would gay marriage play into this?

The state does not nor has that I know of conferee any tax benifits or incentives for no procreating marriages. All of the tax breaks are for kids not couples, benifits mind you that are the same or better for single parents.

But as a matter of fact I *wouldn't* care if humanity ended due to the lack of desire to reproduce. That's not selfish, it's simply the truth, like the fact that I don't care for raw tomatoes. I don't see why it pisses you off so much. I'm not doing anything to harm humanity - just don't care what happens to it. And I'm not saying I don't want other people to have kids, just that it makes no difference to me whatsoever, so as far as I am concerned they can stop fishing so hard for a pat on the back for doing it.

"Very childish. Except that really insults children. And it's selfish and self-centered. " So is the certainty that your genes so great and are needed in the next generation to the point where your just going to keep making them.

As far as insulting children, so is mass producing them. When are you going to tell the Duggers to stop making a small army?

As far as the toy analogy well why should they give two shits about a toy they are forbidden from playing with.

Jay R if civil marrige is abolished and returned to the pervue of the church wouldnt that be saving 'traditional' marrige?

I don't care how many kids the Duggars make. They take care of them and support them sans state assistance past that which all parents get in taxes. And take care of them better than most other parents. They seem quite happy and intelligent to me.

Why then should I give a shit about 2 gays that can't marry? Why should anyone give a shit about anything? Let's do away with society. It does nothing for me that I'm willing to admit. Great reasoning there.

I agree with you about the Duggars, momof3. They're a little weird, but so was Jerry Garcia.

"Let's do away with society. It does nothing for me that I'm willing to admit." - momof3 says with contempt for that point of view.

Who wants to do away with society? All I've said (and I realize you aren't just referring to me, but also "others") is that it doesn't matter to me one iota what other people decide about having kids. It's a completely personal matter - other people's business.

I don't care whether you pick the green dress or the red dress.

Somehow the idea that having children should be the outcome of a collection of completely independent, individual decisions, seems to bother you. Yet you seem libertarian.

"Well. If nothing else, this proves that those who argue that the push for gay marriage does NOT threaten traditional marriage are full of crap."

People who really care about saving marriage should be crying about divorce, not gay marriage.

It's simple: a "marriage" between two men has NO efect whatsoever on a marriage bewtween some man amd some woman down the street. None.

"You are, in essence, saying "I don't care if humanity ends at my death. I don't WANT to contribute one iota to it!!!!!!". Very childish. Except that really insults children. And it's selfish and self-centered. "

What a bunch of lying, dishonest hysterics. "...really insults children...." WTF? So now you are the great defender of children? Who appointed you to anything?

Get a grip. Humanity is in no danger whatsoever of ending. We will survive the melt-down of society along with rats and cockroaches - that's just the kind of species we are, that's how we covered the earth, and more power to us. And where do people get off thinking their spawn are some wonderful gift to humanity? Spreading your spawn all across the landscape is the real selfishness. And this is not about being anti-child - I'm fine with my kind of people having lots of kids. It's just selfish when your kind spawns ans spawns and spawns.

Lujlp: "Jay R if civil marrige is abolished and returned to the pervue of the church wouldnt that be saving 'traditional' marrige?"

No, and I don't see how you think it would.

What will "save" traditional marriage? Holding people to their marriage vows, I think. If you promise "to be faithful until death," then we'll hold you to it. If you breach your marriage vows, then you can still be divorced (and automatically lose custody of any kids and pay child and spousal support at the election of the other spouse), but you lose the right to ever marry again!

These rules would go a LONG way to helping folks over the "rough spots," and giving them an inducement to choose a spouse VERY carefully.

"If you promise "to be faithful until death," then we'll hold you to it."

Who is "we"?

Choosing a spouse VERY carefully would mean that most people didn't marry at all. Would you be complaining about that?

I heard the Duggers got a lot of donations from friendly people, without which they couldn't sustain their family. I don't know if it is true or a rumor. If it is true, then on the one hand, it doesn't affect me since people can donate to whatever cause they wish, but on the other hand, it does make me have a low opinion of the Duggers.

How about NOT abolishing civil marriage, but also allowing gays to get married? How does that threaten traditional marriage?

I got married in MA. To a man.

Jay R. And I gotta say it (you KNOW I love ya', Amy), but those who leave to others the hard and very expensive work of rearing the next generation of good, tax-paying citizens, while at the same time complaining about benefits conferred on them, are free-riders.

Pirate Jo - They can all stop doing it any time they like.

Pirate Jo - All I've said (and I realize you aren't just referring to me, but also "others") is that it doesn't matter to me one iota what other people decide about having kids. It's a completely personal matter - other people's business.

No. Jay R. referred specifically to people who simultaneously depend on the child bearing and child rearing of other people and complain about benefits "conferred on them". He called them free-riders, which is true, and will be even more true when they become older and are completely reliant on other people for their income, protection, and health care. I don't see anywhere that you complained about benefits accruing to child rearing families, but consider this: When you are 75 and have a heart attack, who is going to drive the ambulance, or perform the quadruple bypass, or fill your perscription, or any of a host of other things that you won't be able to do for yourself. Not to mention pay the taxes to cover your Social Security and Medicare checks.

You are already reliant to an enormous degree on other people's children. Did you, by chance, mine the silica (and design and build the trucks that carried it, mine and smelt the steel for the rucks, extract the oil and build the refinery for the diesel....), smelt the silica into metallurgical grade silicon, then refine the silicon (and invent the Siemens process to do so), turn that refined silicon into a large single crystal that could be then be cut into wafers, design the processor die, create the shadow mask, design and build the photolithographic tools and the fab that is built on springs to isolate your process from even the tiniest of seismic waves, which you then used to create a CPU die, and discover and build the appropriate ceramic subtrates for the casing, the proper doping levels of the semiconductors, and, and, and...all so that you could have 1 device with which to post a comment on this blog? I could fill a book with the ways in which you are reliant on other people's children for your everyday activities, your health, and your standard of living. Just for you to be able to post a comment on this blog you are reliant on the work of literally tens of thousands of people.

Somehow the idea that having children should be the outcome of a collection of completely independent, individual decisions, seems to bother you. Yet you seem libertarian.

Somehow the idea that governmental incentives to promote certain behaviors which promote a healthy society (or governmental disincentives to engage in destructive behaviors like murder) is a hallmark of essentially every successful civilization seems to bother you. There is a reason few among us know the meaning of the term weregild. I'm assuming from your rhetoric regarding "independent, individual decisions" in this context that you would not call the police if a gang of thugs was attempting to kill you? I guess it did not dawn on you that free individuals can come together and individually agree to a system whereby they each agreed to be bound by the decisions of the majority (or representatives thereof), within certain limitations and with some expressly delineated protections on individual action for the express purpose of maximising their freedom. Tada! A government is formed. Somehow, as soon as the magical word "government" comes into the discussion, a subset of libertarians believe that those individuals no longer have the right to come up with, and voluntarily agree to, a contract that binds them. It's a very strange form of paternalism.

When a person complains about the policies that have created the very society that they draw so very, very much benefit from simply because those policies don't directly accrue benefits to them, at least as far as they have the ability to recognize, it isn't out of line to call them free riders.

But what if your dad ran for President and lost?
How hard would it be to find a mate to register then?

Let's watch!

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-03-02/looking-for-mr-far-right/

"Somehow the idea that having children should be the outcome of a collection of completely independent, individual decisions, seems to bother you. Yet you seem libertarian."

No. I'm thrilled many don't have kids. More shouldn't. I don't think anyone should get married or have kids who doesn't want to. I also have no problem with people who fuck those with matching genitals. I have friends who do. What I do have issue with is people wanting to co-opt marriage into being whatever they personally want it to be at that moment. 2 people who live together (or don't) but won't commit to marriage, do not deserve the benefits of marriage. Gays have 1001 ways to get every benefit accrued married people without deciding they have to radically alter the notion that has worked, with minor variations, for millenia. If you are too lazy to fill out the legal documents needed for official child adoption, or medical power of attorney, or inheritance, or whatever, then why on earth do you think you'd have the energy needed to sustain a marriage for life?

I am libertarian in a lot of areas. Not all. An entirely libertarian society would fail.

Jim, the Duggars and I plan to breed your kind out within a generation. And we will. Heck, we're even going to outbreed the muslims.

NicoleK, do you have issue with all hand-me-downs? It's a vibrant part of parenting life. Heck, of all life. I'm done with my couch, it goes on to someone else. Circle of consumable goods, and all that.

I dont know what my stance is on gay marriage.

I dont understand why the people who bad mouth marriage somehow are in support of allowing more people to get married?

My parents have been married close to 20 years and I see plenty of benefits to a solid marriage. But I was also at my stepsisters wedding last weekend and when people commented on any future plans for my marriage both my parents said "NO she is not getting married anytime soon and we do not want such a thing" I think if I told them I had plans for a marrige they would be very disappointed.

One thing I know for sure is that I am broke because I get taxed so much for being childless. For all you people who have children (momof3)how is it fair that I get the burden of paying for your children?

(and like PJ I couldnt care less if humans go extinct so why should half my check be taken ou?)

The points raised in the article are practical: who can make medical decisions? Who inherits?

These issues can be handled, today, with standard legal documents. In fact, it is probably less difficult to draw up a will and a living-will than it is to get married. In fact, even if you are married, you ought to have these documents, if only to avoid unpleasant surprises and misunderstandings. There is no need to introduce new rules and regulations unless you just like furthering bureaucracy.

Gay activists seem to need some sort of public acclamation and validation for their lifestyles. They go out hunting for signs that someone, somewhere wants to discriminate against them. If they can only be offensive and irritating enough, maybe they can even provoke it.

In fact, most people wish they would just shut up and get on with their lives.

"Jim, the Duggars and I plan to breed your kind out within a generation. And we will. Heck, we're even going to outbreed the muslims." We don't need more grunt labor, we have plenty of that left unemployed. The Duggers sure as shit are not producing entrepreneurs or anything resembling skilled labor. A mechanic with back woods training is not skilled labor. As far as you we'll see in 15 years or so.

"Just for you to be able to post a comment on this blog you are reliant on the work of literally tens of thousands of people." Thousands of people that can very easily be replaced with robots. Ones that don't wine, pray, retire, get medical benifits, or rob people. How much of the US auto industry is in the shitter cause they can't automate the plants due to union issues. The vast majority of grunt labor can very easily be replaced with automation. So no we don't actually need your children. Also as certain jobs shrink due to obsolescence we'll have more skilled labor than needed. So be very glad I'm not making a shit load of kids who I put through college (1 or 2 at most) who would be competing with your for the good jobs, which we don't have enough of to begin with.

"What I do have issue with is people wanting to co-opt marriage into being whatever they personally want it to be at that moment." So if the call it blarg and it confers the same rights as marriage you won't care so long as the word is different, some how I doubt it.

Let's automate out Vlad and be done with him! I could find a random annoying post generator to use in his place. Heck, I could probably get my kid to write one.

"For all you people who have children (momof3)how is it fair that I get the burden of paying for your children?"

How is it fair that I pay for old people's social security, and poor people's medical care and food and housing? It's called being in a society. If you don't care if it ends, feel free to off yourself and start the process. I love how people that think it's so unfair that parents get some tax breaks and tax-funded services (public school, which mine don't go to anyway) always decide it's unfair AFTER they've benefited from it. And I really doubt you'd be handing that tiny-ass tax break back if you ever had a kid. You are not independent, you take plenty from others, so put up (move to the backwoods, live off the grid and be totally self sufficient) or shut up.

"Let's automate out Vlad and be done with him!" Sure be my guest. I'm curios about their knowledge of heuristic systems. Since your so hot shit about their intellect I'd like to see it.

"How is it fair that I pay for old people's social security, and poor people's medical care and food and housing?" Um you mean your husband pays.

Again my point is not why are they getting it but why they "think it's so unfair that parents get some tax breaks and tax-funded services (public school, which mine don't go to anyway) always decide it's unfair AFTER they've benefited from it." Your hubby gets all these tax breaks for you both having kids and yet you bitch and moan about other getting social services.

Vlad, given that I started working full-time at 16 and continued until having kids, I've already paid plenty in social security, and will again.

I don't bitch and moan, I see no reason why people who aren't making the commitment of marriage or who can not fit the definition of marriage should not get the same treatment as those of us who do care if society continues and are doing our part to make sure it does, well.

Who do you think will build all these automated systems? Kids who have already been born and grown up. How did you get here? Same thing. You are dependent on other's kids and other people. It's impossible not to be. Even the unibomber was.

"who can not fit the definition of marriage" That would be YOUR definition of marriage. I'm straight and happily married so I technically do fit your definition of marriage. However there are no monitary benifits to marriage till you have kids.

"Who do you think will build all these automated systems?" We don't need that many people building the systems or quite frankly designing them. As efficiency goes up the number of jobs declines just that simple. Assming we don't have any major reversals in out lives when my wife and I get old we should be able to pay about 65k per year for care takers, out of pocket as the system sucks if you actually have money. Now we can either pay one competent person 65k or two idiots 32.5k. So for care takers two people at the top of the tax bracket will need one person. Most people will be stuck with one care taker for 10. Why cause the job sucks the pay sucks and the benifits suck. I'd assume you'd want you kids to be getting paid real money to take care of the wealthy or develop new tech. Not wipe asses at a fed run nursing home, or sort glass in a recycling facility. There aren't enough of those jobs now and as computers and software gets better there will be even less. That heuristics program your so hot to use to replace me with would have taken months of development and a team of very high level programmers and AI specialists. Now some high school kid could throw one together in a few weekends.

"I don't bitch and moan" About social services and medicaid not marriage.

"When you are 75 and have a heart attack, who is going to drive the ambulance, or perform the quadruple bypass, or fill your perscription, or any of a host of other things that you won't be able to do for yourself."

I guess I'll just croak. Hey, those people who don't die from something must end up feeling awfully silly when they die of nothing. I'm not living forever. I am going to take care of myself until I can no longer do so, and then die. Just like everyone else.

"Not to mention pay the taxes to cover your Social Security and Medicare checks."

I am not going to be getting any SSI or Medicare checks. I've been paying into it for over 20 years, but will not get anything back and hope the thing goes belly-up sooner than later. It's a completely immoral pyramid scheme and never should have been started in the first place.

I may have offspring but I fail to see what the big deal is if the human species goes extinct. Yawn. Now give me something real to worry about.

What? Not enough people to take care of us babyboomers as we age? Good. I don't want to be forced to go unnaturally on and on. I'm gonna die. I'm not afraid of death but dying's gonna suck. It's gonna be painful and gruesome since they don't let us die with dignity. I'd just as soon be left alone to go ahead and die already when I'm unable to take care of myself and it's beyond the scope of my love ones to keep my sorry ass going. Wish they'd give me a lethal dose of something when it gets bad enough -- but they're more humane to cats and dogs than humans.

If we did get off the grid, you'd only accuse us of being another Unibomber (and probably rightly since that's rather nuts). That suggestion is retarded and you know it. Pure bluff. You and I know they don't let you live that way even if you are crazy enough to want to. At the very least, you have to pay taxes on the land you're squatting on. Well, unless you can scam you're some sort of church that is.

Amy,

I think you and Greg absolutely should be able to have this sort of thing.

I meant I'm ambivalent because I could see wanting the protection as regards my daughter but would not want her to have it in reverse towards me. She's not stable enough for me to trust that far. Sad but true.

I guess I'm raising another suggestion. If it'd have to be a partnership, or if there could be one-way type things. (Though I'm not sure my daughter would agree to that.) Kendra's Law has all sorts of protections written in. Something like this could to. No reason why not.

"How is it fair that I pay for old people's social security, and poor people's medical care and food and housing?"

Old people cant choose not to get old and not to die with dignity. As far as the poor, the truly poor I dont mind paying for.

"always decide it's unfair AFTER they've benefited from"

In the future I plan to adopt my children, who will benefit from it? Society. But you dont see me rubbing societies face that I'm doing some sort of "holy work" unlike people who have biological children and need to remind the rest of us that it is our duty for the human species to not go extinct. Explain to me why it's important? There is no God in heaven giving a shit one way or another so why should I? Perhaps by me not reproducing I give an opportunity to another being to move up in life.

So I get half my check taken out despite struggling to make it because I decided not to use up any more resources than I have to by not having children.

You really need a better accountant if you're paying half your salary in taxes. No one does that.

And there's really no other discussion to be had from me with someone who decides nothing matters cause there's no god in heaven. Why not kill people that irritate you then? Even most atheists agree there's right and wrong and good and bad.

So exactly who is claiming nothing matters or advocating murder?

What you can't comprehend in your small little mind is that neither life nor morals need "god" to matter.

You really need a better accountant if you're paying half your salary in taxes. No one does that.

If you count sales tax, property tax, payroll tax, cigarette tax, gas tax, federal income tax, state income tax and city income tax, 50% sounds reasonable. Not reasonable as in "that's a perfectly reasonable amount of taxation," but "it's reasonable to expect that an American might pay that much." (Europeans pay more, I've heard.)

T's whatever, for an illeducated nondegree holding poverty wage level worker who knowingly passed on bad genes, you do like to insult others something fierce. Upping your own self-esteem?

"There is no God in heaven giving a shit one way or another so why should I"

Try reading. You do know how to do that, right? Right?

I'm not poverty wage. I'm lower middle class and, frankly, everyone else's recession is raising me up. Still hate seeing the bad times and other people suffer.

You learn to read. You're putting someone else's words in my mouth. First of all, I'd never say god doesn't give a shit so why should I? There is no god to give a shit or not give a shit.

And "god" is irrelevant as far as morals go. It doesn't take much to realize tearing the world down makes it worse, and building it up makes it better. In fact, morals work best without god since without absolutes dictated by some ancient asshole who wrote a tall tale, they can be based on what affect this or that action will cause in the really real world.

Did I say you had said that quote? Did I? Anywhere? I was responding to the person who did make that quote, which you ignorantly went off on me for. And then you decided I was quoting you. I am done with you. It's like arguing with a frog in every possible way.

Excuse the fuck out of me. My mistake. Must have been confused by the fact that you opened that comment by addressing me. How silly of me.

And I'm the illerate one. Yeah, right. Okay.