text:
This conversation is closed.
Gay Marriage Rights
Obviously this is an extremely significant issue that has become a daily topic in many households. I am pretty young, starting high school next fall, and I have always been curious to listen to people's opinions on the topic of Gay Marriage, because it is an important part of my life.
I am a triplet, with a sister and a brother, and I suppose one could say I have a unique lifestyle. My siblings and I have been raised in two households our entire lives, the reason being that we have four parents. All of them are gay, meaning my mom's live together, and my dad's live together.
Both of my biological parents are in law enforcement, while my other dad and mom are stay-at-home parents. My mom's have been together for 20 years, and my dad's have been together for 19. We live in California, but my parents live 100 miles apart, with one house being located by the beach, and the other in the countryside. My dad's raise all kinds of animals, and they always teach us important values, along with my mom's as well.
My mom's got married a few years back, when gay marriage was okay in California for that short period of time. My dad's have not gotten married, but with the new laws, they are engaged now and hope to be married as soon as possible.
One of my dads is from Mexico, and he has been here for about 25 years. He is not a citizen, and now that he can get married to the person he loves, he will finally be recognized in the country he loves. My parents have always taught me to accept everyone, and I find it easy to get along with many different varieties of people.
I am starting this debate mainly because I am aware of the religious standpoints, and want to hear more about others outlooks and perspectives on gay marriage, and equality. I am open to all opinions and would like to hear all and every reason as to why you feel that way.
Jul 2 2013: The solution is simple:
If you believe gay marriage is wrong, don't get "gay married".
If you're a church/organization and your religion says gay marriage is wrong, then don't perform gay marriages.
"Oh, no, but then we can't stop cousins from marrying each other or a woman marrying her brother!"
Unfortunately it's not your place to stop them in the first place.
"Oh, no, it will corrupt the minds of our children! It will disrupt the meaning of a family!"
Im pretty sure divorce has a higher chance of doing this than gay marriage, and it's been legal for years..
"Oh, no, they can't reproduce alone so they shouldn't be married!!"
Seriously, the world is over-populated as it is, let the gays soar with open wings.
Jul 2 2013: The solution IS simple, but conservatives and others that oppose gay marriage always feel like they need to change something, or leave something as is, even if it doesn't affect them. I appreciate the way you expressed your opinion. Thank you for sharing your perspective.Aug 1 2013: Paul and all,
This question has gotten way off base. We are discussing a situation that is mostly applicable. to California state law and US federal laws.
I did the research on this subject when prop 8 first came out. US marriage law/philosophy is based on the European model from the middle ages.
I brought up the history of spousal contracts that go back.... 10,000 years, and that most cultures have civil and spiritual unions is acknowledged.
My point is and has been that US culture and law got into the marriage business way back when and blurred the lines between civil and religious unions.
I have come to conclusion that civil authority should recognize all spousal contracts and provide equality under the laws.
Civil authority should not use the term marriage as they, by our constitution, are not to promote any religious
Marriage was a Roman Catholic ceremony held in the highest sanctity from the middle ages and adapted by other Christian religions.
Religious organizations are private and should be able to provide marriage ceremonies as applicable to their beliefs and standards.
.Jul 30 2013: Jessica, This like many issues is not as simple as it appears. It has become a political issue .... some support it only for votes .... and some are sincere ... some are honest in their rejection of it for various reasons. Religions speak of the "Bibles" stand on the issue and have labeled it a sin to cohabitate with the same sex. Finally what I think is the major objection and the bases for some of the other objections .... money.
If legitimacy is granted in a legally accepted marriage ... that the rights of a spouse is granted ... that includes insurance and legal claims.
What you see is people .... what most others see is issues.
I wish you well. Bob.Jul 29 2013: Marriage, which seemed like a simple concept for many hundreds of years, has clearly become more complex, and we're in the middle of a process of reevaluation that may take a long time to get through.
Some in this thread have wondered what the church has to do with marriage. Historically it has had everything to do with marriage. For many centuries, European governments left "moral" issues, including marriage, to the church. You could not get married outside the church, which also made rules about divorce. Some have wondered what the state has to do with marriage. As soon as governments decided to make special tax and inheritance rules for married couples, in order to protect the wife who was financially dependent on her husband, the state also needed to determine who were married.
Back to the present: Other than religious motivations against permitting same-sex marriage, it seems to me that the main objection comes from the tax benefits mentioned above. But times have changed, and a wife is no longer dependent on her husband, so these benefits ought to be canceled. Then there will be no tax consequences of marriage.
What I see in the future is a change to a kind of secular union based on contract, where any number of persons can contract together on self-selected terms. These could include specific financial or other responsibilities, a dissolution clause and even a termination date if that's desired. In other words, people in charge of their own relations, which would be nobody else's business. (There would be some official interest in minor children.)
With such a system, the contracted parties would neither expect nor get any particular legal benefits, other than those they award one another in the contract. We could call such a group of people "married" if we want, though I suspect another term would develop. We might leave "marriage", "wedding", etc on the religious scrapheap, letting the churches continue to perform whatever ceremonies they please.
Jay Lee
Jul 9 2013: There's only one non-religious argument against gay marriage that I am aware of - but it is actually an argument against all marriage.
- 0
Basically it is the idea that the state should not be involved in your private choices about love, sex or commitment at all.Jul 8 2013: Really, honestly, who cares??
What is so wrong with humanity, that we have to label and box everyone, or question everyone's sexuality, like it even matters.
What is wrong with the mentality of authors and readers who demand to know if a "fictional" character is gay. Think about that.
Why do you need or require or even seek the "state's permission" with something that has nothing to do with the state. This is YOUR life, not the governments.
I think humanity is still in it's teenage years, it sniggers at sex and does not understand that sex is not love, it's scared at the sight of naked flesh, it shy's away from issues, it titalizes them instead of rationalizing them, it tries to label people, and people want to be labeled, it falls back onto beliefs systems, instead of realizing, the most important part of a person is (quite crudely) not what's between their legs, but what's in their hearts.
Me for one, i just don't care, simply put - I've elevated my thinking.Jul 8 2013: here is the libertarian point of view:
any two persons can decide if they want to live together or not, have sex with each other or not, or engage in any kind of activities as long as they don't damage or take other people's property or threat or harm them.
no couple have the right to have recognition from any 3rd party. they don't have the right to be treated as a married couple by any hotel, church, transport company or any other person or organization. it is because recognition exists in said 3rd parties' minds, and nobody has a claim on other people's minds.
nowhere in my analysis i used the fact that said couple would be gay or not. it has no relevance whatsoever. any 3rd parties can recognize or not recognize a couple's status based on any arbitrary properties, like age, skin color, religion, details or existence of a ceremony, etc. if a hotel refuses to treat couples of mixed color (like white-black) as married couples, it is its right to do. it is also okay for people to boycott the hotel for being racist.
Jul 29 2013: It seems that "the libertarian point of view" is limited to "any two persons" and "couples" in your recitation.
Surely the right of non-recognition extends to live-in groups of whatever size and composition.
Jul 29 2013: your logic is faulty. "any two persons can" does not imply "any three persons can not".
Jul 29 2013: Cute, Kris.
Specifying 2 usually means 2.
You didn't come clean about what we should conclude. I illogically concluded that when you said 2 you meant 2. Did you mean to include 3, 4, or 20? Help us out.Jul 29 2013: i exactly meant two. i said any two people can do this and that. i did not say anything about 3 or more people. thus you can not deduce my position on what triples can do. modus tollens?
Jul 29 2013: I know I can't deduce it, and I didn't deduce it. That's why I asked. Does "the libertarian point of view" include the same rights for married groups of greater than two persons? Like polygamists.
There's a clear question.Jul 29 2013: where i came from, questions end with a question mark. this is not a question: "It seems".
if you meant to ask a question: quite logically, the libertarian position is that any number of men and women can form any kind of relationship as they see fit.
Jul 30 2013: Good answer, though it took a little while.
(You're right, of course, that semantic customs vary. Where I come from implied questions are usually understood, while in other places a question mark is needed. Just differences in custom.)
Cheers.Jul 8 2013: Jessica.
I know that peaches come in varieties and so do apples.
I guess I never thought of using that word in regard to people.
What variety am I?
I have no idea. My parents, excuse me, my enemies, the two people who raised me and tried to destroy my entire identity, would never tell me what I am.
Anyway, "in all the places we were hiding love, what was it we were thinking of?"
It is people like you who will help bring about the greatest change in the world, that the world needs so desperately.
That change is the prejudice against others, for whatever reason.
Americans still conduct witch-hunts, a la Salem.
They still demonize others, hunt them, lock them up and turn millions upon millions into robotic-hating machines that don't think. They only do what they have been told to do based on what they were told to think, based on what they were told to believe and they say what they were told to say. A common refrain of theirs is, "what was I supposed to think?"
Well, the answer was that they, "were supposed to think," for themselves, based on real, factual information and not lies they've had embedded in their psyches.
Racism. A lie. One of the most evil lies embedded into the human psyche along with Catholicism.
Homosexuality. Another lie. Heterosexuality. Another lie. What's the lie? That it is a moral issue to begin with. It isn't.
Sex doesn't have an inherent, essential and intrinsic moral nature. Virtually nothing does, except for one.
That one, that moral nature, is in how we treat one another and the moral majority and those of their ilk, thirst for blood-letting, torture, imprisonment, control and oppression.
"In all the places we were hiding love, what was it we were thinking of?" Peter Gabriel
Jessica: To thine own self be true
The world as it is now, will change as it will, but the change is for you and those of your age, experiences, reality and desire for peace (I hope), and love (I wish) and union between all people.
It isn't for older fucksJul 6 2013: Why do some of you call Jessica's family having "Issues"? She has stated she now finds it easy to get along others because of it.
She has a wonderful balance in her life. That's a lot more then most families have.
History is loaded with all sorts of marriages/joinings/partnerships/unions, etc. that list goes on & on.I feel most of those have been because of love. And that is the key word here- Love!
For those of you who are NOT Gay, think about this: Would you knowingly, allow most of society to ridicule you all of your life because of your sexual feelings? To be thrown in jail, beat up, & even killed for your feelings? Of course not!
But that's what been happening to Gays in this country for far too long.
People with disabilities get married & some of those can't have children either.
Gays can adopt and do so, even children that have disabilities. There are way too many children in foster care that have been tossed off and need loving homes. Lesbians can have artificial insemination (know lots about this) & do so, to have a child.
In a nut shell: Let those who wish to marry do so and I speak about all peoples. Let them all have equal rights as the laws are written (or changed as need be).
It's not up to any church or government to say who what where. It's about the 2 people (or more) who are involved & not anyone else.
P.S. I have an adopted son who is TOPS in his classes at school, great personality, opened minded, and he has lots of friends. I am not the birth mother but my name is on his birth certificate as the other mom. It was well worth living through years of hell to see Gay marriage bill pass. Now I can die happy!Jul 5 2013: Jeff, I will start by saying that I don't have a dog in this fight. I have some personal opinions, but I won't be found standing on a line supporting either side of it.
What I have found interesting is the issue over "marriage" versus "civil union". Obviously the conservative church holds a view that marriage is between a man and a woman, add to that "in front of God". They have a strong opinion about the wording, and based on those beliefs, rightly so. No value judgement, it just is.
The language of "civil union" came up as a substitute for "marriage" during this debate. Surprisingly, the strongest opponents to using "civil union" were those who supported gay marriage. The argument basically went "I don't want to be in a civil union I want to be in a marriage". That cry was far louder than the conservative church over the issue of marriage.
Today, if we base the language on the church view, anyone married outside of the church is in a civil union not necessarily a "marriage" based on that definition. If the ultimate goal of the "gay marriage" folks is to seek the benefits of married couples, then it doesn't matter whether it is called a civil union or a marriage, they are both the same under the law and mean the same thing. It appeared to me that the issue was a redefinition of the word as much as an issue of equality and fairness.
Personally, I don't care what you call it. Marriage, civil union, etc. it does not matter to me. Ultimately, you are committing yourself to another person for a long period of time under the eyes of the law. That value, of itself, has broken down in our country and commitment is based on perspective. If we want marriage to have some value, maybe we should do something about the divorce rate and lack of commitment. That is a more important point to discuss than the language to me.
Jul 5 2013: I have to agree. If government is interested in spousal contracts for census or tax purposes, so be it. For whatever reason, religious organizations have seemed to grasp the term marriage, so be it. Here is my question, isn't there a church that would provide a marriage ceremony for gay couples? As I have said, European countries have sidestepped this problem by having a "civil union" with all the legal issues resolved and then the religious ceremony. Would some gay couples would be satisfies with legal union and others want a religious ceremony? I can't see any question as why that shouldn't be a choice.
Jul 8 2013: Mike, I believe that you are right. The main issue is the "legal" side of "marriage" for the tax benefits and such. There are also churches that are willing to provide a "religious" marriage ceremony for gay couples. So, I see no problem with this separation of civil union versus marriage. Others, well, don't think so openly about this topic.
What I am waiting for is the couple, and it will happen, that sues a church because the church won't marry them. Then the ensuing legal battle where, at some point, a court will say the church can't discriminate against the couple. In which case it turns into a 3 ring circus rather than a legitimate issue.
This issue does not directly affect me on a personal level so I don't get to hung up with it. I would be satisfied with the system in Europe or some version of it if the US were to go with it. We shall see how this plays out in the long - term though.
Jul 9 2013: The U. S. Constitution said the equal rights is granted to marriage, and it should be extended to gay marriage, interpreted by the Supreme Court recently. But there is no stipulations on why the church has to perform the marriage ceremony or issue the marriage certificate. Since a court judge can also perform the marriage certification, therefore the supreme court can't order the church to do it if the church doesn't want to do it. Otherwise it would be interference of religious activities by the government. Is that so?Jul 9 2013: Bart, the U.S. Constitution does not explicitly state that equal rights are granted to marriage and thus extended to gay marriage. The interpretation of the Constitution has stated that.
Just because there is a separation of church and state does not mean that someone would not bring it to court in a lawsuit. And, a court would hear it in the right place in the states. Doesn't mean that they would win, but it is not a pipe dream that this could occur.Jul 4 2013: Gay marriage rules.
But to satisfy those against it, and to pint out to the real fact, it needs to be named Gayrriage!
Keith W
Jul 4 2013: Government should just not get involved in marriage to begin with. What is marriage.. it has become reduced only to a legally binding contract. forget it why does the state need to get involved in everything anyways..
- 0
Jul 29 2013: I can agree with you, Keith, that government ought to stay out of marriage, and it obviously follows that government shouldn't write tax laws to benefit married persons. Each person pays his/her own tax. Simple.Jul 4 2013: Before you get to involved about marriage and all a little history will put things into perspective. In the old days it was about spouses. It seems at first, if you had some land and wanted to farm, the cheapest labor were children, so you took a couple of goats down the road to an old farmer who had daughters. You traded your goats and in time you had help on the farm. As we became more civilized these arrangements where finally recognized. In ancient Rome, unions were announced, big parties were held and the spousal unions were recognized by all. there were gay unions at this time.
Marriages really didn't come until about 600 years ago. Europe was a bunch of little kingdoms at constant war with each other. The Roman church wanted to stop all this mayhem. So, they came up with a brilliant solution. If a prince is married to the princess next door, in-laws wouldn't go to war. So, they established marriage, gave it a very high place in the church's religious order and proceeded to marry royalty all over Europe and most of the small wars stopped.
There were no gay marriages in this scenario, as children were to bind the kingdoms together. So, now there is the USA. In the beginning marriages were religious ceremonies. There were some states that had spousal ordinances.
But somewhere along the line states got into the marriage business. It had to be the worse violation of church and state
ever, but....
To make matters worse, the states began to give married couples special benefits and tax breaks. Now gay couples saw the marriage rules as discriminatory and here we are.
I attended a marriage in France some years ago. It was not a gay couple but the rules are the same for all.
The couple goes to the city hall and applies for a license. Then they return and complete a spousal contract before a legal official giving oaths and signatures, etc. This couple is now recognized by the state and have all rights and privileges..Church weddings are optional
Jul 4 2013: I saw an issue being tackled in C-span a long time ago and one of the panelist did give a good argument protecting against Gay marriage. He argued that because marriages produces children.. to put in simply... children generate markets, as workers, employees, buyers etc... so the state does prioritize heterosexual marriages. Although this is of course just less than half of the total picture. Focusing on this issue, I wonder if somebody ever did a study the effects of homosexual couples without children on the world economy... my opinion is... i doubt of if any effects exist at all given the small number of gay couples.
Jul 4 2013: In our conversation, there seems to be children to bolster economic concerns.Jul 29 2013: "Marriages really didn't come until about 600 years ago."
I first though you were joking, Mike, but your discussion makes it clear you're not. In any case, by 600 years ago marriage had been a flourishing institution all over the world for many thousands of years, certainly back before the beginnings of written history.
Jul 29 2013: Paul,
Marriage as it is commonly used today came from the Roman Church for reasons rendered. Even the wording of the vows by your local JP is ripped right out of the Sacrament of Marriage of the Church.
Now as I also mentioned Spousal Contracts have been going on since... 10000 BC. A young man cleared some land, raised some sheep and took a couple down the road and traded them for an old farmers daughter... he traded for a spouse. ..... a contract. And if you read the history it's all there.
After 12000 years, the price is gone way up past a couple of sheep, I speak only of my contract of fifty years ago....
Jul 29 2013: Ah, you were talking about specific wording in the Roman Catholic vows. You're probably right that that language is not ancient. When you said "marriages" I thought you meant marriages.
Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists today are still using the vows they've used for a thousand years. (Long before the Roman church.) They think they're married. Let's not tell them they're not.Jul 29 2013: Paul, all sarcasm aside...
the conversation is about this girl who lives in California. Marriage as of I speak is a European / Western Civilization/ Roman Church institution. The term comes from latin origins through middle english to us today. States have taken this ceremony and made it their own and that is the problem
Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists have ceremonial spousal unions but I am not sure they are using latin terminology.
Aug 1 2013: OK, Mike. We'll both just look up the "history of marriage" somewhere, and then we'll both be wiser. You're right that this is an irrelevant branch, but that's often how it goes here on TED conversations. Always good to talk with you.
PaulJul 3 2013: You have an unusual situation... What will gay marriage do to the world? I seriously doubt it would turn the whole world gay and make humans extinct. Is it evil and should be avoided at all cost? - probably a lot more people died of drinking alcohol and alcohol isn't evil. I don't know what the fuss about gay marriage is about.. some people push the issue into "incestous marriage", human extinction, Punishment from heaven, turning the entire world gay,.. yadda yadda..
Its just binding two people together and recognizing that bind.
Anyway, what matters is you have parents that will take care of you and love you. Gay or not it is what matters for human society.
Jul 4 2013: Every time I hear something like "God hates gay people" I think it is ridiculous. If two people love each other, then they have the right to be married and have the same benefits as anyone else. Its all the same love, and the way a person is shouldn't bother others, considering the fact that it probably doesn't affect them personally. Thank you for your opinion, I am glad that someone has similar thoughts to what I believe.
Jul 4 2013: People sometimes have a funny way of putting their thoughts into God's word.. For the most part, religion is mostly human ideas.. They read a few lines from the bible and think they know everything and preach everything. Sometimes I do wonder what does God really think about all this...Jul 2 2013: You seek non-religious viewpoints on this issue? OK, here goes: Two Dads? Two Moms? What is the definition which allows for having two of them simultaneously? I am curious, in a strictly lexicographical way. Also, how must the definition of marriage change? No longer can it be said, "one male and one female joined etc". Do we now say, "Two humans joined etc".? Then what do we do with Grandparents? With two Fathers are there two Paternal Grandparents and no Maternal Grandparents? In terms of genaeology it seems this issue is going to wreak havoc on the Family Tree. When the new definitions are established and legal how will we respond to the next challege when someone demands to know why marriage is limited to two humans? Why not three, or more, humans; or one human and one non-human; or two non-humans?" There seems to be a few associated words which are directly dependent upon the definition of the word "marriage".
Jul 8 2013: Edward,
those seem like very frivolous concerns.
Who cares about the definition in the long run? It doesn't matter.
The Family tree will take new roots, new shape, as trees do. That's looking for problems that don't really exist and sound more like sound bites you've been told to believe than any thing of real value or concern.
Actually what does and would matter would be if we all, humanity, were in union, matrimonial or otherwise, with one another.
If someone demands to know why marriage is limited to two humans, well then, explain it!
And why not three, or four or more? Why not love between all of us?
Isn't that what Jesus was ultimately about, wanted, preached and demonstrated?
I completely believe Jesus was killed because he was gay and preached love.
Believers and followers of God believe less in love and more in hate, in my opinion.
All these things you mentioned. You're certainly grown up enough to handle them and to help others handle them just like Jessica Blue is doing, has done and continues to do.
All the best
Jul 8 2013: The OP asks for outlooks other than religious-based (" I am aware of the religious standpoints, and want to hear more about others outlooks."). I offered a non-religious contribution. You come along and impose your unsolicited and irrelevant rant against people who believe in God. Six paragraphs of your off-topic opinions in an effort to make this a religious issue in direct opposition to the posted request is a bit much. There might be some interest in what you believe about homosexual marriage, but I doubt there is any interest in what your assessment is of my personal opinion. Why not simply stick to the topic and keep your analysis of other people's opinions to yourself? Work on it.Jul 2 2013: And I thought I had a whacky family,If we were all the same we would probably be extinct by now.Jul 2 2013: Jessica, you have an incredibly complex situation that you are facing with a myriad of challenges.
My personal views have changed over time, and honestly, I am not sure I am completely comfortable with the whole idea of gay marriage. However, if the issue is primarily tax benefits and recognition as a "married" couple under the law, I have no issue with this. Well, personally I may have an issue with it, but professionally and from a public standpoint, I don't see this as a significant issue that affects me personally. At the end of the day, I work with some amazing people, who happen to be gay. They do great work and they deserve to be happy in their lives and relationships. That doesn't affect their work and it doesn't affect me personally.
Jul 2 2013: I suppose there are less worries when a gay couple has the same benefits as a heterosexual one, but I believe that gay people just want recognition. They want to be equal to other straight couples, to be accepted into society. Of course, I get this idea from listening to my gay parents converse about the issue so I wouldn't know otherwise. I admire that although you might not be okay with, or support gay marriage personally, you think that they deserve happiness. I really appreciate that. Thank you for your outlook.Jul 2 2013: religious zealots inboundJul 2 2013: Government does not belong in the marriage business. That is for religion, church, or non-government social groups to control.
Marriage is a religious term long before it is a legal one. The legal governmental interests can be covered in Civil Union legislation which should be available to any two consenting adults regardless of sexual orientation..
By eliminating the word marriage we can build law for families that will be more realistic to the country's needs and less pushed out of balance by political considerations.
Jul 2 2013: David, the issue that keeps coming up, at least from what I have seen, is the desire to remake the word "marriage". The term "civil union" though completely appropriate and applicable, is not acceptable for those who want to be "married". I agree with your sentiments, I have just see the battle over the word "marriage" escalate.
Jul 3 2013: Everett, help me understand. Im curious as to why the need for distinction between "marriage" and "civil union"?
Is it because most wish the term "marriage" be kept in sanctity and within the bounds of religion as a binding for life?....
but if divorce in a country is legal and heterosexual couple have the capacity to utilize this.. wouldn't "marriage" be just the same as "civil union"? How can you have been married (for life) and yet underwent divorce?
Jul 29 2013: It's a legal issue, with no connection to religion.
All states (in the US) have laws giving certain financial benefits to "married" persons.
The term "civil union" can be defined in law to give certain recognitions and benefits, without giving all the (tax) breaks that are automatically connected with "marriage." Thus same-sex "C.U." is permitted in a number of states that choose not to permit s-s marriage.Jul 2 2013: This issue is about the proper power of government, and equal rights.
If the government is given the power to prohibit gays from getting married, then the government has the power to prohibit anyone, any group, any individual, anyone from getting married, just for being who they are.
Only a foolish population would give the government that power.
Jul 2 2013: Quote: "If the government is given the power to prohibit gays from getting married, then the government has the power to prohibit anyone, any group, any individual, anyone from getting married, just for being who they are".
Your counter punch seems to be unreasonable. Who wants the government to ALLOW MARRIAGE BETWEEN ANY TWO PERSONS? That is just not realistic and makes no sense. Just like what I said in my post, how about if a brother and a sister from the same parents want to be married? Or, If two sisters want to be married to each other, what would you say?
Jul 2 2013: Let them get married. The real issue with incest is having children. There are methods available to assure that couples have no children.
Society has a legitimate interest in the welfare of children. Society has no legitimate interest in regulating intimate relationships among adults.
What many people thinks "makes sense" with respect to marriage is based in the past. When examined rationally, most of the traditional ideas about marriage no longer make sense.
Comment deleted
Jul 2 2013: I completely understand why you might think that gay marriages are more about financial benefits, and in many cases that may be true. Although I believe with every part of me that my parents love each other. I have seen so many heterosexual couples divorce over the years, and I have seen many gay couples split up as well. But, my parents have been together for 20 years and I don't think they expected all of this change to occur 20 years ago. I suppose all I ask in an opinion is a valid reason as to why they believe something, and you gave me that. Thank you for your opinionsJul 2 2013: You have two loving families. It is only wonderful that your parents will be able to add the advantages of legal marriage to your lives.
Jul 2 2013: Thank you! I truly appreciate that.Jul 1 2013: My opinion is completely "divorced" from religious consideration. I am also perfectly agreeable with the notion that if two people love each other, it's perfectly all right to live together and the community at large should pay no disrespect to them.
I also believe that when a homosexual couple get married, the employer should treat them as other heterosexual couples. And homosexual couples should enjoy the same advantage of tax treatment and other rights such as hospital visiting rights and serious medical decisions.
However, I do have a reservation about certain tax and retirement pension laws on homosexual couple . First of all, certain definition if tax laws are based on that the government should award certain tax advantages to a marriage between a man and a woman because they would procreate children for them to nurture and support. The law does not distinguish between a married couple of heterosexuals whether they have children or not, as far as tax advantages are concerned. This could be quite consequential about inheritance of the entire wealth of one sppouse to the other. For instance, the widow or widower will inherit the entire estate without paying taxes when one of them dies. Now if homosexual couples also going to enjoy the same tax treatment, theoretically it's OK. But now suppose there are two sisters who, of course, normally love each other, so there are no reason to deny them to marry each other. Then there will be lot of such marriages for the sake of the tax benefit. This "advantage" also applies to social security benefit as well. Now, if the "marriage" occurred to a brother and a sister, it can be denied because of the genetic defects to the potential offspring to such marriage, but it doesn't apply to homosexual (bro to bro, sis to sis) marriage. There is nothing morally wrong or unfair for this new problem, but it would cause a fiscal problem for the government, or actually for the ordinary taxpayers as a group.
Jul 2 2013: The government gains if a stable household is established period regardless if it can procreate or not.
That is the reason for the tax breaks and other advantages given in law to families.
It costs a society less per person to have more families than singles in its population mix
They will be able to adopt and raise children We have more than enough in orphanages and foster care...
Jul 29 2013: Good try but not so good history.
All the laws that have given advantage to married couples - largely tax, pension and inheritance rules - have had one purpose: to protect the wife/mother who by social convention (and often by rules and laws) did not participate in a career outside the home. The husband was the breadwinner, and if he died the widow would be penurious, which would be a burden on society.
These laws came about as a direct result of the financial dependency of the wife on the husband in the standard family when the laws were enacted. The women's revolution in the later part of the 20th century changed the financial workings of the standard family, and as a result many two-earner families are now getting tax breaks that were not intended for their situation. The need at present is to revise the codes to remove such benefits in situations that do not reflect the original reason for the laws, so that all are treated equally. The recent push by homosexuals to get in on these benefits illustrates the folly of allowing them to continue, at a public cost, and will probably motivate Congress and legislatures to make the needed revisions.


text:
Man Who Sold The World guitar tabPlayed by Nirvana
Other resources
- Nirvana sheet music, scores and songbooks at Sheet Music Plus
- Nirvana CDs and DVDs at Amazon
- Nirvana at Tab Heaven
- Nirvana bass tabs at Total Bass
Tablature viewing and downloading is currently disabled.
Tablatures will not be online again until an arrangement has been found with the Music Publishers Association.
More Man Who Sold The World tabs @ 911Tabs
Rate It!
Difficulty : 2.7
Quality : 4.0
See also
Link to this page
Man Who Sold The World guitar tab

subset: commoncrawl


text:
The browser you are using is out of date and is no longer supported. To view and use this site correctly, please update your browser to the latest version.
2 March 2010TWO young photographers gave Culture Minister Fiona Hyslop a special sneak preview of their winning images that will soon be seen in more than 40 countries around Europe.
For further information


text:
The impact of last weeks tax accord in Congress -- officially known as the American Tax Relief Act of 2012 -- is likely to be far wider and more complex than many have imagined. And many of these complexities will directly impact financial advisors.
All Bank Investment Consultant articles are archived after 7 days. REGISTER NOW for unlimited access to all recently archived articles, as well as thousands of searchable stories. Registered Members also gain access to exclusive industry white paper downloads, web seminars, blog discussions, the iPad App, CE Exams, and conference discounts. Qualified members may also choose to receive our free monthly magazine and any of our daily or weekly e-newsletters covering the latest breaking news, opinions from industry leaders, developing trends and growth strategies.


text:
Now we're email buddies!
You have chosen to receive our #NAMED_LISTS# newsletters at #EMAIL_ADDRESS#. You will receive an e-mail shortly confirming your subscription. So excited to have you!
Refinery 29
Please upgrade your browser for the best Refinery29 experience. Read more.
"Really people? Really? You're supposed to be New Yorkers. Have some self respect please!"
So writes one angry Yelper. Let's be honest: Despite the fact that it is the time of year for ghosts and ghouls, there is almost nothing more frightening than an angry group of Gothamites who take to the internet. In fact, the only thing scarier is when they've been waiting in line...for hours.
When we started thinking about what we wanted to do with our pals during the spooky season, we headed to that ol' trusty guide, Yelp, to get the scoop on some of the city's most popular (but not necessarily most liked) haunted houses. Which is when we noticed: People write the craziest stuff. From hair pulling to butt touching, these NYC-ers share ridiculous stories and insights from their own haunted house experiences that are more LOL-worthy than frightening. But, then again, a whole lotta peeps, alcohol, costumes...plus a little adrenaline — that's New York at its most interesting, right?
Click through to read our favorite ridiculous Yelp comments about NYC haunted houses!
Designed by Ammiel Mendoza


text:
Now we're email buddies!
You have chosen to receive our #NAMED_LISTS# newsletters at #EMAIL_ADDRESS#. You will receive an e-mail shortly confirming your subscription. So excited to have you!
Refinery 29
Please upgrade your browser for the best Refinery29 experience. Read more.
Models! They're just like us! Okay — take away a few inches, unconventional work environments, Amazonian genes, and add on a few (dozen) pounds, and we're basically there (almost). But, peel away those superficial characteristics, and you'll see what we mean.
We all listen to NPR to kill some time, crave Mama's home cooking, and harbor dangerously obsessive loves for Instagram. So, we tracked down some of our favorite catwalkers, and asked them all of our burning questions about the vocation: We got the dish on the best freebies, worst injuries, and tips for beating extreme boredom between the shows (which will come in handy since you've beaten World of Goo on your phone three times through now). Ahead, let the off-duty models tell you what's up.
Photographed by Craig Arend


text:
- Independent
- The Enterprise
- The Recorder
After just one year of competing as a bodybuilder, La Plata resident Paige Townley has picked up her pro card after a monumental victory in Baltimore last month. Her first love of competitive cheerleading laid the foundation for her, and now she's enjoying every bit of what she's worked so hard for in this new arena of competition. Townley, who turns 24 next month, competed at the Organization of Competitive Body Builders Charm City Classic on Oct. 19 in Baltimore and captured the overall win. She defeated 30 women, therefore solidifying her professional status.
She won the bikini open and the bikini novice as well as the overall.
"I think I'm still on cloud nine," Townley said in a phone interview recently. "I have huge dreams to make my name in the fitness industry, and this is just the beginning. I think this show that I got my pro card at was one of the best days of my life. It was the hardest we'd ever trained to get my body in the best shape."
Townley now is an official International Fitness and Physique Association Pro Fitness competitor and will begin competing on the IFPA pro circuit in 2014. Her trainer, Heather Traven at La Plata Fitness, is pushing her even harder to help her meet her goals.
"It's become a lifestyle for me," Townley said. "I'd like to eventually get my certification in personal training and nutrition. I see what it can do for the average person to help clean up your diet, but for now I have some personal goals I'd like to achieve.
"I didn't want to go home with second place. I wanted first in my division overall, and I wanted my pro card, and I got it."
Townley originally was motivated after gaining some extra pounds while in college at Salisbury University where she graduated with a bachelor of arts degree in history and a minor in psychology. Townley is also a 2007 graduate of La Plata high school.
"My whole family is very fitness oriented," Townley said. "My mom, Leslie Tomaselli, has been a fitness trainer for over 30 years, and my brother is very athletic, and when I came home from college, I wasn't feeling so great and thought, 'Gosh, I've got to get back in better shape.' I got into the gym, and my mom and my boyfriend, Ritchie Reynolds, encouraged me. I started eating a totally clean diet. No processed foods whatsoever."
Townley said after six to seven months she started seeing some changes in her body and friends were noticing, as well. Her hard work was paying off.
"People starting asking me if I'd ever thought about competing, and I said, 'No, I'm just trying to get in shape'," Townley said, "but I went home and did some research on the fitness industry and the competition. When I was a cheerleader, I loved being on stage. I'm like a ham on stage. I just love it."
Townley knew that hiring a personal trainer in January was the way to go, and she was willing to invest the money to meet those goals.
"I was supposed to meet with a couple coaches one day, and I walked out of there knowing that [Heather Traven] was going to be my trainer," Townley said. "She saw through me what I wanted, and I liked her philosophy. We were just on the same page."
Townley then became interested in the bikini division because it offered her the opportunity to remain feminine in a sport that she once thought wasn't, and she got on a 12-week plan to start competing in March.
"I'd always looked at the industry as being these big muscular people. Well in the bikini division the judges judge you on being muscular and you have an athletic build, but you still have a femininity about you," Townley said, "and the women were glamorous."
Townley placed second in the NPC Eastern USA Championships in the novice and the overall divisions.
"I was looking at these 30-plus women in the competition, and everyone looked great," Townley said of her first competition. "You're looking at the best of the best here. They pulled out the first top five on stage, and I was called. That was my goal, to place in top five. They called my number up for second and I thought I was going to faint."
Townley said she knew that competition was in the arena she wanted to compete in for a very long time.
"I loved it." Townley said. "Unlike a team sport that I'd participated in growing up, this was all my hard work. This was my diet. Other than all the work that my trainer puts in, this was in a way a totally different self accomplishment. Now I'm pretty hard on myself."
Townley said she had to keep a balanced body image and not overly examine herself. She still keeps a strenuous routine and works out in the gym twice a day. She starts the day with a cardio session, and after working a nine-hour day, she comes home and works a different body part each day. She is most proud of the fact that she, at 113 pounds, is squatting 225 pounds.
Townley's long-term goal is to win the prestigious Yorton Cup. The competition is being held in Washington D.C., next year.
For those looking to get into body building, Townley said to do your research, definitely hire a trainer and do not cut corners.
"You need someone to hold you accountable." Townley said. "Heather has taught me so much. Everybody can benefit from someone like that in their life. Don't take short cuts. If you give 100 percent, you're going to get 100 percent."


text:
Jon Bon Jovi
Watch Weird Al Yankovic and 13-Year-Old Autistic Singer Jodi DiPiazza Sing 'Yoda' at Night of Too Many Stars
Also catch Jon Bon Jovi and Will Forte's midriff perform "Wanted Dead or Alive."
Radio.com Minimation: Bon Jovi Revisits Tommy and Gina from 'Livin' on a Prayer'
On our latest installment of Minimation, Jon Bon Jovi discusses writing about two characters from one of his biggest hits in an interview from 2010.
Will Ice Bucket Challenge Lead to Jon Bon Jovi/Richie Sambora Reunion?
JBJ called out Sambora, as well as Tico Torres and David Bryan, when he passed the challenge along.
Jon Bon Jovi Says He Plans to Keep the Bills in Buffalo
Good news for Buffalo Bills fans: Jon Bon Jovi plans to keep the New York football team right where they are.
Jon Bon Jovi Rumored to Be Considering Buying Buffalo Bills, Moving Team to Toronto — and Robert Duffy Isn't Happy
An investment group that includes Jon Bon Jovi is looking to buy the NFL team the Buffalo Bills, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
Avicii Recruits Jon Bon Jovi, Chris Martin, Billie Joe Armstrong & More for Next Album
"It's going to be a lot more song-oriented," the DJ and producer explained. "True was an attempt at that, getting electronic music in a song format."
Bon Jovi Donates $1 Million To New Jersey For Hurricane Sandy Relief
The money Bon Jovi donated will help the Hurricane Sandy New Jersey Relief Fund efforts to assist organizations that are helping with the home repairs and rebuilding projects throughout the state.
Bon Jovi Will Move Forward With Tour In Sambora's Absence
It was nearly a month ago when Richie Sambora took a sudden leave of absence from Bon Jovi, leaving the band without its longtime guitarist.
Watch Bon Jovi Complete Their "Because We Can" Video Trilogy
The latest video from Bon Jovi completes the star-crossed tale of Astrid and Duddy, two kids who are just trying to hold on to what they've got. Sound familiar?
Watch Bon Jovi Live On Radio.com!
Spend your Friday night with Bon Jovi and Radio.com. On March 1 at 7:30 pm EST, fans can watch the band perform live from Tampa, FL right in the comfort of their own home.


text:
Hang tight!
Recipe by ALYSIAB
"This is a very basic, very easy to make meat lasagna."
Hmm. None of these ingredients are on sale today.
Show ingredients on sale
Sort stores by
Save money at local stores when ingredients are on sale!
Watch video tips and tricks
1 1/2 pounds
ground beef
1 teaspoon
garlic powder
1 (28 ounce) jar
sausage flavored spaghetti sauce
1 (8 ounce) can
tomato sauce
1 teaspoon
dried oregano
1 tablespoon
olive oil
4 cloves
garlic, minced
1 small
onion, diced
1 (8 ounce) package
mozzarella cheese, shredded
8 ounces
provolone cheese, shredded
1 (15 ounce) container
ricotta cheese
1/4 cup
1/2 teaspoon
dried oregano
lasagna noodles
1/4 cup
grated Parmesan cheese
I made this recipe tonight as my first attempt at making lasagna for my husband. After reading the other reviews, I followed their advice and doubled the amount of sauce to two jars. I also kicked up the garlic a tiny bit and used a combo of ground beef and ground, Italian sausage. I found real, block provolone and shredded that, but I'm sure that it would have worked to simply dice up some sliced provolone from the deli, if necessary. To save the mess of an extra pan to clean, I first sautéed the garlic and onions, then transferred them to the saucepot. After browning the meat and draining it, I added the sauce and meat combo to the garlic & onions. I also precooked the noodles about 5-6 minutes so that they wouldn't soak up too much of the sauce, and baked for 35 minutes covered and 20 minutes uncovered. Perfect! I was worried the whole time that the noodles wouldn't cook properly, or that it would dry out, but it didn't need any extra sauce on the side since I'd doubled the amount to begin with. The addition of sausage and second jar of sauce was key. Can't wait to have leftovers! Thanks for this great recipe!
Instructions were unclear. Still waiting to taste it. Hope its worth the mis-informed instructions.
524 Ratings
This lasagna was FANTASTIC. I made a few changes, however. As suggested, I used 1/2lb mild Italian sausage in addition to 1 lb ground beef. I omitted the provolone, since I didn't have any left. I mixed together in a bowl 1 500g tub of extra smooth ricotta and 1 250g tub of cottage cheese. I added some parsley and black pepper to the cheese mixture. I layered mine sauce, pasta, sauce, pasta, cheese, pasta, sauce. I then sprinkled some grated mozzarella and a bit of old cheddar on top. I used the oven ready lasagna noodles for this and had no problem at all. Baked it at 350 for about an hour, uncovered.
I actually used 2 8" square foil pans and for this recipe. Had one the next night for dinner and the other one is frozen. My boyfiend, who is Italian, LOVED this lasagna. So did his mother!! ;)
Very good lasagna. Good idea on doubling the sauce and adding some italian sausage. Tip for those who don't want to boil the lasagna noodles...just soak them in some hot tap water for five minutes or so to soften them up. Works great.
I used my own homemade sauce with one can of drained no-salt diced tomatoes. I added about 1/2 tsp. of fennel seed to the sauce and I used fresh garlic. I also used small curd cottage cheese and I added 1/3 c. of Kraft parmesan cheese in with the cottage cheese and eggs. Really tasty lasagna. The provolone really was a surprize to me. It made the lasagna taste a little creamier, if that makes sense. I liked that when I made this, the lasagna wasn't too wet and it didn't fall apart when cut. I think using your own sauce is key.
I'm sticking with this one!! I made it for dinner party and had nothing left but a smudge on the bottom of the pan. The only thing I added was some mild Italian sausage for extra "bite",
I have tried to make lasagna many times and this recipe has been the best and the simplest. I have found some good ones that just require too many ingredients. I do add more sauce it seems like the pasta and ground beef soak up the sauce and leave it dry so I add an 8 oz can of tomato sauce. very good recipe.
Fabulous recipe for a "Basic Meat Lasagna" and a great recipe for times when you want lasagna but don't have the time to make it from scratch! This is very easy to throw together and perfect for a hearty weeknight meal. So if your're in the mood for Italian but think you don't have the time - think again. I used 1 lb. of ground beef and 1 lb. of mild Italian sausage. I also doubled the sauce using Classico Marinara and added a little red wine and some fresh basil to give a bit of a flavor boost. I just layered everything as I usually do using no boil lasagna noodles which really makes things easy and topped it with a mix of shredded Parmesan and mozzarella cheeses. Great with garlic bread! (leftovers freeze well)
* Percent Daily Values are based on a 2,000 calorie diet.
Alysia's Basic Meat Lasagna
Serving Size: 1/10 of a recipe
Servings Per Recipe: 10
Amount Per Serving
Calories: 567
Calories from Fat: 283
We have so many top-rated chicken recipes, you'll never run out of dinner ideas again.
Imagine dinner making itself in the slow cooker while you relax or do other things.
Delicious recipes, party ideas, and cooking tips! Get a year of Allrecipes magazine for $7.99!
This top-rated recipe is lasagna made simple.
See how to make a meaty lasagna in the slow cooker.
Discover the two keys to a great lasagna.


text:
This conversation is closed.
Will you make a pledge to give away all the income you make over the national median in your country/state/or province?
I am not saying this is the right thing to do, so please no hate mail. But if anyone would like to make a pledge to give away all their salary above the national median in their country/state/ or province, feel free to do so here. You can give away the money to a worthy charity or a neighbor, it does not matter. This was inspired by the President of Uruguay, known jokingly as the poorest president in the world (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-20334136). He does this. I was hoping atleast ten people could pledge to do this, and we could stay in touch over the next couple years, sharing how it has changed our life. In years we make less than the national median, we can pledge to give 10 percent. Thanks for reading.
Dec 22 2012: No.
I pledge to do the most good I can with all the wealth I generate, to the best of my ability.
tomas jones
Jan 8 2013: I'll pledge to give 100% of your money away. I have no problem with that. You see, that is why communism doesn't work. A Polish buddy of mine put it well. He said, "Why should I break my back and work hard when the person next to me is picking his nose and getting paid the same." In this case, people would pretty much give up working after they hit the median because what do they get after that?
- +1
John Smith
Jan 8 2013: You are assuming everyone gets paid exactly what their contribution is worth, that is an absurd assumption. The free market is an amoral mechanism, not god's instrument of rewarding the good and punishing the wicked.
- +1
Jan 11 2013: I suggest market approaches etc are human constructs.
Suggest absolutely free markets do work well.
At the very least markets probably work better if participants are not free to lie and coerce.
There is probably no perfect system, but the best practical approach is probably a mixed one that leverages our greed, but with some limits, and some sort of safety net and collective contribution to infrastructure etc.
If we had lots of resources and information we could better Taylor support to individuals to desperate the freeloaders from those truly needy.
I'm okay if a few freeloaders get a pass in order to support those truly needy. Just like I'm against the death penalty in part to protect the innocent being murdered by the state, not to protect those guilty.
Ben Jarvis
Jan 8 2013: some of the comments here are very narrow minded. there's a big difference between saying "i'll pay more tax but it's OK if no-one else does" and "i think we should all pay more tax".
- +1
Ben Jarvis
Jan 8 2013: sounds like the definition of a drop in the ocean to me, and it also enables the greedy to keep hanging onto their greed. say i make $100 over, that $100 i give to my neighbour who's getting minimum wage because his boss wants his company to be as profitable as possible; net result is i'm giving my money to some rich guy who feels no obligation to reward his hard-working employees with honest pay.
- +1
i have a counter idea. most people are familiar with benjamin franklin, but i think not so many are familiar with his story. by his 40s he had become very rich from his printing business, and he realised he was getting enough income that he could live very comfortably without even working. he decided to retire and worked on his inventions, none of which he patented, so the people who had made him so rich (the general public) could also benefit and have their lives improved. all the rich are free to make this choice however only a handful feel any obligation to give back to the world that has given them so much and allow others to rise as well, so i suggest we tax all income over 100x the national average at 100%. perfect capitalism! you have an incentive to work hard and be rich, but you can't have so much that there's none left for other hard workers.
Tracy Oniya
Jan 8 2013: You know folks... my income is quite significantly below the national median, in fact I am considered to be in 'poverty' for my country, and I still manage to give back, sometimes even monetarily, albeit in very small amounts. From a very human standpoint helping others is a rewarding activity - whether you do that by volunteering, donating to charity, or even by (from time to time) just quietly and cheerfully doing more than 'your share' in keeping a shared space clean. Why all the defensive aggression towards a simple idea one person has for an enriching activity for themselves and anyone so moved to join them?
- +1
Jan 8 2013: Good for you, Tracy, to be giving what you can in the ways you can.
Anil Philip
Jan 1 2013: To the originator of this conversation (and why are you hiding behind a generic name?):
- +1
Can you list for us your gross annual income the past 10 years, and then how much you gave away each year, and to whom?
I like to see people actually 'put their money where their mouth is' - I respect those who do. As they say, "Talk is cheap".
Unfortunately, people who have grandiose dreams often never look down to see the people in their lives who directly need help today and in small ways - and perhaps even in ways not requiring money.
So I urge you to actually start giving away your money and make notes on your observations and feelings and experiences. And then let's see how much you gave, for how long, and how you felt.
tomas jones
Jan 1 2013: I think what you are proposing is great. Good luck with the project this year. I am interested to see how it makes you feel. I think for most people, as some of the comments reflect, giving is not really encouraged in this society. You see in the comments a lot of "Me" and "I" and this is typical in western cultures. We primarily believe that whatever we earn, we should keep. I hear people say often "Why should I work any harder if the government is going to take it all in taxes." If people have a problem even paying what is required, it is twice as hard to get them to freely give their money to someone else. I think what you are doing is a noble act, and I do hope you can find others to join you.Jan 1 2013: LOL You may find a few, but their money will just be wasted on stupid projects or the military.
- +1
Dan Geurin
Dec 26 2012: No. I will be using my money that I earned for my own life.
- +1
I will give to charity if and when I see fit.
This all sounds like a lot of white guilt to me.Dec 21 2012: I commend this president. At least, he cannot be accused of corruption. Is he a good president? That's a different question. Is this his plan to make everybody in the nation wealthier than himself? :-)
Although I admire people like this, I would let everyone choose their own lifestyle and leave the question of how much they give away to their consciousness. Doing charity for PR is not considered a huge virtue, as far as I know.
John Smith
Dec 18 2012: "Will you make a pledge to give away all the income you make over the national median in your country/state/or province?"
- +1
If I know it will end up in the right places and other people were doing their part too, especially the rich (I'm not gonna be their sucker), then yes, I think I would, but then again that's easy to say now since I make less than the national median, maybe I'll become more selfish once I start making more money.
Dec 19 2012: Maybe you can commit to 5%? Thank you for your reply! If you are worried about accountability, and are thinking about giving to international charities as opposed to your neighborhood, charities that supply mosquito nets to prevent malaria usually have the highest amount of money going directly to the cause. I think most of my donated money for the first year will probably go to a UK based charity called WaterAid, but I have not decided yet. Thanks!
Dec 19 2012: I already donate, though it's more like 1-2% of my income, but as I said, I make less than the national median (a lot less for the time being). I will donate for as long as I live because I don't expect the world to have solved its major problems during my lifetime. What I'm worried about though is that the poverty problem is more and more becoming a distribution problem: somewhere along the line something is fundamentally wrong when the lower middle class is donating so the poor can have medicines while the rich are reaping huge profits off those medicines and paying the poor too little to be able to afford those medicines, that makes ordinary people, people like me, feel like suckers when they donate.
Dec 19 2012: I don't no what to say to the other part, but thanks for donating!Jan 11 2013: I'll volunteer to send you a copy of Atlas Shrugged, the book. If you promise not to shred it up and line your hamster cage with it. :)Jan 8 2013: ok
Jan 11 2013: Thank you Mr. Park. I will post another message in Korean on Monday if this is hard to read. Can I private message you on here? I would like to talk to you on the phone or through email. Also, we can meet in Seoul anytime that is good for you if that is ok. I can be there any Sunday . I hope we are friends for many years to come. please PM or email me at email@example.com. Kumsamnida
Comment deleted
Jan 11 2013: Thank you Kate, please email me at email@example.com. I can send you any verification information you like if you are sure you want to do this. Thank you for your time, I hope to stay in touch.Jan 1 2013: NO !!!
Reading the replies posted I noticed that most of them are negatives. If people don't like to give part of their income away, why is it that actualy the same idea got Mr.O a second term in the office ?????
People voted for their income to be taken away and given away by others.Dec 22 2012: Congratulations. If donating your income in this fashion is making you happy, that is a significant personal accomplishment. I hope you do find others who can share your interesting journey. I will not be one of them.
I can understand why some people might consider your plan to be a challenge to their own beliefs and actions. Some believe that there are better ways to benefit the world. I do no know what is best, and hope that your project continues to bring you happiness.Dec 22 2012: No. I'm already paying nearly fifty percent tax. And donate as I see fit.Dec 22 2012: No. The amount of money I donate will depend on the purchasing power I require, independent of the national median, and how much I believe a charity or a needy deserve. It could be a few dollars, it could be 99% of my assets, but not based on a fixed cut-off point that is established by someone else.Dec 20 2012: No, BECAUSE...
The median is not an accurate reflection of the "average" when the distribution is skewed as it is (stat 101).
If you were talking about the mean, that MIGHT be another story.
The point being made, however, in this question is not about EQUALITY - we are all considered equal in the eyes of the law here in the U.S. but we are certainly not equal in aptitudes, achievement, positive personality traits, etc. (don't bother asking that whether that is a product of nature or nurture - that debate is long over as we realize that we can't separate the two). The point is about EQUITABILITY and JUSTICE, for both the present generation and for those to come.
People say that the children are our future. No, they are not. WE are the future in how we shape our children's lives.
A more appropriate question might be, I think, would you be willing to sacrifice energy and goods in order to promote more equitability among all of us around the globe?
Dec 20 2012: I think I made a mistake in posting the question in that I did not watch the video that I linked to. Maybe there is something in that link that deals with the philosophy of why the Uruguayan president does what he does.
To respond to posts by various people, I do not care about equality, equitability, or justice. I don't believe in god. I don't want to give my money to a college girl who parties all the time. My personal belief (not that it matters or is something I want to discuss) is that communism is an evil system. If there are any other scenarios offered by posters that I forgot to address, I apologize. I care about my life. I am doing something that I know will make me happier, and am looking for a couple of pen pals so we can share stories and pictures over the years. The internet can be anonymous, so I thought this would be a good format. I thought people on a site like TED would be relatively well off, so maybe I could find a couple other people like me. Arguing what is good or bad was not the point of my post, I saw it more of a craigslist ad. If you sell something on Craigslist, you don't get 10 replies with people who don't want to buy the thing you're trying to get rid of, You either get zero emails if nobody buys, or you get one or two from people who are genuinely interested, have questions, or know someone who might be interested. Thanks for the reply, I see the flaws in the original question andI hope that I cleared them up for are any future postersDec 21 2012: Speaking of statistics, it is when the distribution is skewed, a median gives a better idea of the majority of the population than an average. I will let you look up the definitions. Just an example here. If we have 10 people with incomes
10,000; 29,000; 30,000; 31,000; 35,000; 35,000; 37,000; 40,000; 41,000; 1,000,000
The median is 35,000, whereas the average is 128,000.
As you may see, the average is far more disconnected from reality than the median when there are "outliers" in the distribution (such as one individual making 1,000,000).
Dec 27 2012: Yes, you make my point. BTW, a "median", just like a "mode", is in fact an average - a summary statement.Dec 19 2012: I think this applies:
Two girls went to college and one worked hard and got A's but little social life. The other partied all the time and was failing in all subjects. So under the socialist program that we all contribute ... the hard worker should give half of her grades to the loafer so both would have a C.
Sounds like a political party platform ... let the wealthy pay for all of us. Worked well in Argintina.
Dec 19 2012: Then, if you pledge to do this, don't give your hard earned money to someone who parties all the time. You don't have to donate your money to people, it can be things, like building a well where there is no clean water, or cleft lip surgery for children or something, I don't know. I definitely don't think it is a good idea for most people to give away a large part of their income, I'm just looking for a couple of people in the whole world. I don't think this pledge is a good or positive thing for most people to do. Communism is a terrible system, I feel sorry for people who have to live in those countries. Capitalism is great. I'm not saying Uruguay is some kind of great country either, but it is a capitalist country. Thanks for your reply.
Fritzie -
Dec 19 2012: If you are looking for a few people, are there not religious orders to which the members, or members in a certain category, surrender all their earthly goods?
- +1
Dec 20 2012: Thank you for the suggestion. I would guess that there are.Dec 19 2012: Robert Winner, do you actually believe capitalism is a meritocracy, how can you still be so naive at your age? The partygirl likely comes from money and has connections, the hard working girl will end up making her homework for her. The partygirl will scheme and sleep her way to the top while the hard working girl will always stay stuck in the 5 figure salary range.
To say that people who are not rich do not work hard is a direct affront to the laborers, farmers, soldiers, doctors, nurses, scientists and engineers who make the world go around while the rich pretend like they make a positive difference (they literally can't even beat a chimp on the stock market).
You don't get rich through hard work, you get rich through luck, connections, being more ruthless than other people and most of all through starting out with more money in the first place.
Dec 20 2012: John, What does age have to do with being naive. Those wishing to subvert accept that all people are naive. They depend on the masses to take up the cause for them and teach them class warfare the easiest being to hate the rich ... later it will be the middle class etc ... They depend on those people to drink the koolade and pass it around and do their job for them.
John in almost every post you look for the fight .... lighten up .... discussions do not have to be wars .... Just for conversation John from I know not where .. why do you hate the US so much. You never miss a chance to bash the US or Capitalism.
John I wish you peace of mind .... Bob.Dec 20 2012: since you have brought it up, what is your age?Dec 20 2012: You are correct in saying that hard work alone is usually not sufficient to "get rich", but the rest of your statement is an over-generalization based on some flawed assumptions. It is entirely possible to earn a lot of money by working hard and smart, without stepping on anyone's toes or starting out with a financial advantage. I know a number of very successful people who are self-made, successful completely of their own accord, and marginalizing their success by attributing it to luck or ruthlessness is a direct affront to them.
Obviously, there are wealthy individuals who your statement is applicable to, but generalizing, making presumptions, and disparaging the rich because they make an easy target is poor form .
Dec 21 2012: Why do you not scold Robert Winner for insulting a much larger group of people? Why pity the rich, it's not like they care about what you or I say about them either way, they can afford to not care about what the world thinks of them.
"It is entirely possible to earn a lot of money by working hard and smart, without stepping on anyone's toes or starting out with a financial advantage."
Yeah, that's called luck. Working hard and smart can make you do fine, live comfortably (if you live in the right country), but it won't make you rich.
"I know a number of very successful people who are self-made"
I know a lot of people who believe they are self made, but none that are. I myself am not self made either: my parents were poor by Western standards but when I was a teenager my monthly allowance that I didn't have to work for was more than the money made per month by those African women who work harder than you, I and all the people we know, ever will work. My qualifications for this, the same qualification for getting affordable health care and education? Being born in Western Europe.
But it doesn't end there, even if you get rich in entertainment or by opening a business that sprawls out, you're mostly just lucky, you just went viral and as all things viral that depends more on luck than any marked qualitatively difference (Gangnam Style really wasn't THE best song of 2012). It's just chaos theory. In any case it's not very common to become rich this way. Most rich people either come from money and/or got rich in the financial sector or as a corporate executive, whose successes can be explained by stepping on other people and random chance (they just get lucky a lot when they're young, making it look like they are miracle workers).
There's nothing wrong with being lucky, what's wrong is letting it get to your head, taking credit for it and using it to justify keeping other people down., yes, that's human but it hurts society a lot more when rich people do it.Jan 8 2013: Well, it looks like John Smith likes the Garbage Can Model of innovation (Cohen) + Retrospective Rationality, and maybe a piece of the Actor-Network Theory of Innovation (Latour)..
..while most of the others are stuck with their preference to the Bounded Rationality for Innovation (Herbert Simon), with a bit of constructivism.. :)
You know what? Entrepreneurship, just like innovation, can be described by all these models, each of one catches some of the characteristic of the whole, but misses something too. There's no answer more acceptable than the others (although nowadays nobody will sustain olympic rationality is true).
I suggest you all to read about these things in some papers grabbed online, it's very interesting and it helps into understanding this subject. ;)Dec 27 2012: You are all saying the same thing but you all choose to accentuate one part over the other. The fact is there is no straight line to affluence but hard work increases your chances and guarantee an escape from poverty.
Those who started poor all attribute it to hard work but they know better.Dec 21 2012: Robert, when the giving is VOLUNTARY, it's a different story. Do not confuse with mandatory entitlement programs.
Your example is not new. Read the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15:11-32. Who do you side with: the young son, the father, or the older brother?
This is one of the most controversial stories in the NT. It has no correct answer. It's there to spin it in our head over and over to understand our attitude towards giving and the concept of grace. Most people I know sympathize with the older brother. I think, it takes a certain spiritual maturity to "get" this story.
When it comes to morality of giving, I'm sometimes puzzled. On one hand, "Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.", on the other hand, should I do that at the expense of my own retirement or my children's education? Is it a good idea to give to an addict to feed his addiction and harm himself? Is it a good idea to give to a perfectly healthy man with a sign at a highway ramp thus discouraging him from earning his own living? (same idea as "do not feed the bears").Dec 19 2012: No
Dec 19 2012: Thanks for your reply
pat gilbert
Dec 19 2012: You are welcomeDec 18 2012: No.
- +1
I think a person's income should be reflective of many things including how long they work, how hard they work, how much they have risked in preparation for a job, the difficulty of the job, the need for the service, or the innovativeness of the product or service they offer. This concept sounds like something a socialist of communist country might promote.
I think every person should work for as long and as hard as they can in our country. hey should absolutely work until they can pay their own expenses for the rest of their lives. If they choose to not work at some point, satisfied with the lifestyle, they should be free to do so. In the event someone cannot meet the basic needs of life, the government should offer enough assistance to make sure they can survive at a reasonable minimum lifestyle. Failure to do this creates a group of people that are desperate and forced into decisions that could have the potential to diminish the lifestyles of those with no such burden.
Dec 19 2012: I don't think it is good for many people to do as I have suggested. I am just looking for a couple people in the world. I don't think it is a good way for a whole country to live. Thank you for your reply!Dec 18 2012: It has been argued before that if every able bodied person in the world gave just £1 (or its currency based equal) each month, we could fix every problem in the world within our lifetime. Atleast in theory.
Surely there are more realistic ways to go about this issue.
Especially since the median is just that. a median. it obligates the exemption of (typically) the majority (both those ON and below the median) (and the lower majority seems to be the ones who would be the most willing to give money, atleast as I can see).
Dec 19 2012: If somebody is on or below the median and they want to participate, they can pledge 10% of what they make. I am just looking for a couple people in the world to do this. Thanks for the reply!Dec 18 2012: why the national median? why not the world? why not the region? why not the profession?
A Person
Dec 19 2012: The world median is too low to live off of in industrialized countries. I'm assuming most of the people on TED are fairly well off. Region is a good idea. Thanks.
- +1
Dec 19 2012: "The world median is too low to live off of in industrialized countries."
Krisztian knows full well that your landlord and local grocery store won't lower prices for people who took the pledge so people in industrialized countries would starve if they only had the global median income. But your suggestion of sacrificing to help the poor sets off a tingling in his newly developing conscience, which scares the hell out of him (the village libertarian) so he tries to make fun of you.Dec 19 2012: and a national median is too low for a brain surgeon, a successful entrepreneur, or a highly trained engineer.
let me guess, your income is close to the national average.
Dec 19 2012: I'm sorry, I generally don't understand humor very well. A brain surgeon, successful entrepreneur, or highly trained engineer should not take this pledge then. It would not make sense to give away money if you are buried in loans or have some other obligation. Thanks for the reply Krisztian and John, sorry if I offended with a previous post.Dec 19 2012: no humor here on my part.
well, your system won't work too well if nobody participates over the median, will it? i advise to think about my question a little more deeply.
J Chang
Dec 18 2012: It's a noble thought, but not a practical one in my opinion. How would one survive? The median income in the US is less than $30,000 for a family of 4...let's say the medium - higher income propose to do such, with the economy in a state where it is now, wouldn't they rely on the government to subsidize their living, wouldn't that defeat the purpose? I read an article a few years back about a man doing this and he depleted His life savings and relied on the charity of friends and family. I don't think it would be possible now to give that much, BUT I do think its possible to give more than what we are now. Maybe that would encourage more donations...just a thought.
- 0
Dec 19 2012: The Household Median Income in the United States is $50,000 as of 2011. As of 2005 the Individual Median Income in the United States for someone working full-time is $39,300. This pledge is not for everyone. Obviously, if someone has large debt or other obligations, the pledge is not for them. I'm just looking for a couple people in the world to do this. Thanks.


text:
The browser you are using is out of date and is no longer supported. To view and use this site correctly, please update your browser to the latest version.
19 June 2009Evocative carvings at what was believed to be the inauguration site of the ancient kings of Dal Riata have been revealed for the first time in 30 years.
For further information


text:
Start enjoying the benefits of the Club de Amigos of Fuerte Hoteles
These experiences consist in a programme of activities for our guests that will not only be "passive participation activities" but "active participation activities", i.e.: experiences that our guests will never forget.
We will offer our guests the opportunity to get to know different aspects of our culture, our environment and our "responsible" measures.
Check availability with the hotel reception.
Children and families hold a privileged place among Fuerte Hoteles' guests. This is why, each summer, Easter and long weekends, we plan new and exciting activities for children in Grazalema and the surrounding areas. These include everything from children's shows and guided tours to sporting and cultural activities.
Check availability with the hotel reception.


text:
For more sports commentary, follow Reggie Hayes via Twitter at www.twitter.com/reggiehayes1
The NCAA rejected Indiana University's appeal and upheld nine-game suspensions for two freshmen men's basketball players for receiving benefits from a "booster." The benefactor was declared a "booster" because he gave $185 to the school 20 years ago.
Next up as the NCAA investigates IU history for violations: Did another 1992 "booster" at Nick's actually buy a round of cold ones for Pat Graham and Damon Bailey?
Danny Hope was fired as Purdue football coach after finishing 6-6 and becoming bowl eligible. During his four years, Hope could not match the success of predecessor Joe Tiller for one primary reason: He didn't start Drew Brees at quarterback.
Auburn football coach Gene Chizik was fired two years after winning the national championship. He will be paid $208,334 a month not to coach Auburn for the next three years. As a result, the Gene Chizik Sympathy Fund has been discontinued.
New York Jets superfan "Fireman Ed," announced he will no longer attend home games as "Fireman Ed." He had drawn ire from fans for wearing a Mark Sanchez jersey. Expected to take his place will be "Substitute Teacher Skip," wearing a Tim Tebow jersey.
Seattle Seahawks defensive backs Richard Sherman and Brandon Browner face four-game suspensions for violating the NFL's performance-enhancing drug policy, sources told ESPN.
Apparently, the NFL isn't buying their claims that the tests were the result of Starbucks' new Grande Juiced Latte.
The Cleveland Browns canceled a "white flag" giveaway promotion because fans claimed it implied surrender. In an unrelated move, the Detroit Lions took away coach Jim Schwartz's red flag.
Denver Broncos quarterback Peyton Manning had a concussion test after hitting his head on the ground in a win over the Kansas City Chiefs. He was cleared to reenter the game by correctly answering the question, "How many pizzas will PapaJohn's give away this season?"


text:
Meet Jocelyn Sullivan
- Title: Admission Representative
- Email: email@example.com
- Phone: 320-363-5752
- Territory: Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Wisconsin and select schools in Central Minnesota
- Hometown: Great Falls, Montana
- High School: Great Falls Central Catholic
- College: 2012 CSB/SJU graduate
- Major/Minor: Theater/Management (Global Business Leadership)
College Activities: I had the privilege to run cross country and track all four years of college, and I had the opportunity to be a captain for cross country my senior year. Those Blazers are my sisters, and I loved running with my family every day. In addition to running, I was involved in theater productions, worked for the Fine Arts Programming Student Marketing Team, volunteered as an admission ambassador, and participated in an alternative break experience in the Dominican Republic. As a member of Extending the LINK, the student-run non-profit documentary team, I traveled to Nepal to help produce a documentary raising awareness about human trafficking. I also enjoyed getting to know my fellow Bennies and Johnnies, and I loved the opportunity to call the wonderful CSB/SJU community my home.
Fun Facts: I am a self-proclaimed theater geek, NASA nerd, and running addict with a slight coffee obsession. I enjoy writing, baking pies, and making people laugh. Family is very important to me, and I love spending time with my parents and two older sisters. And my favorite fact: I have been to U.S. Space Camp three times.
Plays - A Devil Inside, The Importance of Being Earnest, and Arms and the Man
TV Shows - Big Bang Theory and Criminal Minds
Book - Blind Your Ponies
Food - Gluten Free P.F. Changs Spicy Chicken


text:
Current Students
In addition to other first year required courses, students who matriculate in the PhD program in Biomedical Sciences or Neuroscience must take one of the three core courses, namely, Biomedical Sciences, Neuroscience or Systems Biomedicine, depending on their choice of training area. Upon completion of their first year core course with a grade of "B" or better, students can then choose from a number of advanced electives.
Core Requirements
Learn more about the core requirements for a PhD in Neuroscience and PhD in Biomedical Sciences.
Learn more about the graduate courses offered at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
Multidisciplinary Training Areas (MTA)
Select any of the link(s) below to view a sample of a typical MTA curriculum.
- Biophysics and Systems Pharmacology (BSP)
- Cancer Biology (CAB)
- Developmental and Stem Cell Biology (DSCB)
- Design, Technology and Entrepreneurship (DTE)
- Genetics and Genomic Sciences (GGS)
- Immunology (IMM)
- Microbiology (MIC)
- Neuroscience (NEU)
MS & PhD Clinical Research
Learn more about the curriculum for this program.
Graduate Program in Public Health
Learn more about the curriculum for this course.
Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences
Tel: 212-241-6546
Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
For application specific questions:
Admissions Office
Tel: 212-241-6696
Send email