Skip to Next Poll »
7
controversal
okay fellow iquers there a big debate going on here in the Carolina's  about the gay marriage and or if they should get all the benefits that a man and woman couple that is married get they also want to add two people living together also,this is the south and we are always a couple steps behind accepting things like this ,so fellow iquers what is your take on that matter
| Closed on 03/31/12 at 05:00PM
FanIQ Pts? No | Locker Room, Miscellaneous | Multiple Choice Opinion Poll
16 Fans 
56%a. should be the same for all couples
0%b. the bible says
6%c. who cares
25%d. god is great beer is good and people are crazy
13%e. other

 &nbp;
TOP COMMENT * * * * * * * * * * * *
#3 | 941 days ago

The whole debate has an Orwellian feel to it. Remember that line in Animal Farm about, "all animals are equal... except some animals are MORE equal than others." I'm paraphrasing, but that's basically the point. Everybody rallies around freedom and equality, etc. (America eff yeah!), but when you get right down to it some people are more equal than others. It's mind numbing.
should be the same for all couples  
  
36 Comments | Sorted by Most Recent First | Red = You Disagreed
Vote for your favorite comments. Fans decide the Top Comment (3+ votes) and also hide poor quality comments (4+ votes).
#1 | 941 days ago
Nick__ (+)

As far as marriage goes, couples (of all gender combinations) DESERVE the same benefits! If the State is going to allow Gay marriage, then, in my opinion, it is discrimination to not allow the same benefits for all married couple types.

As far as non-marriage when it comes to insurance, when Illinois was a NON-GAY Marriage state, every company had their say on who can receive Health Insurance.  I worked at a company that allowed health insurance to your domestic partner if you lived together for at least 1 yr (regardless of their gender). Whereas another company I worked for considered your domestic partner as gay and lesbian couples only. So, boyfriend-girlfriend combo's were not eligible, even if you were living together for over a year.
should be the same for all couples  
#2 | 941 days ago

i think there are far greater issues that should be placed in such a spotlight, than whether or not humans have the right to happiness and benefits. issues like, the fact that radiohead is actually higher than aerosmith on vh1's top 100 bands all time. really. it disgusts me.
god is great beer is good and people are crazy  
#3 | 941 days ago

The whole debate has an Orwellian feel to it. Remember that line in Animal Farm about, "all animals are equal... except some animals are MORE equal than others." I'm paraphrasing, but that's basically the point. Everybody rallies around freedom and equality, etc. (America eff yeah!), but when you get right down to it some people are more equal than others. It's mind numbing.
should be the same for all couples  
#4 | 941 days ago

marcus_nyce wrote:
The whole debate has an Orwellian feel to it. Remember that line in Animal Farm about, "all animals are equal... except some animals are MORE equal than others." I'm paraphrasing, but that's basically the point. Everybody rallies around freedom and equality, etc. (America eff yeah!), but when you get right down to it some people are more equal than others. It's mind numbing.
god is great beer is good and people are crazy  
#5 | 941 days ago

Who gives a sh*t is what I say.  Give them the benefits.  If they want to miserable like every hetero couple out there....more power to them. 

There are a million issues plaguing this great country that need addressing before this nonsense.  It's like the government getting involved in sports.  They have their OWN governing bodies that handle the issues.  Keep your paws out, Washington.

/end of rant 
#6 | 941 days ago
unopescatore (+)

COME ON BRO!!!!! 

it'll be allowed...although I don't agree with it.....what's next allowing GAY kids programming cause god forbid the gay kids don't have gay role models....sh-t....they already have Bert and Ernie. 
#7 | 941 days ago

ms_hippie_queen wrote:
i think there are far greater issues that should be placed in such a spotlight, than whether or not humans have the right to happiness and benefits. issues like, the fact that radiohead is actually higher than aerosmith on vh1's top 100 bands all time. really. it disgusts me.
Go listen to Fake Plastic Trees Right now..

Where was I? Oh.. The part that kills me the most outside of like Marcus said the unbalanced equality, often times based on religious affiliation, is the fact that there is such a huge fight to preserve the fake sanctimony of an institution that fails 50% of the time.  If people have that strong of a belief in the binding nature of marriage then they should be taking their efforts to outlawing divorce.  Don't pretend something is special, beautiful, and under God's will then a month later find yourself nose deep in poolboy taint because your husband cares more about providing you with a house, food and botox injections than telling you your spanx really DO help lean out your midsection
should be the same for all couples  
#8 | 941 days ago
Nick__ (+)

(Edited by Nick__)
jswol54 wrote:
Who gives a sh*t is what I say.  Give them the benefits.  If they want to miserable like every hetero couple out there....more power to them. 

There are a million issues plaguing this great country that need addressing before this nonsense.  It's like the government getting involved in sports.  They have their OWN governing bodies that handle the issues.  Keep your paws out, Washington.

/end of rant 
Line 1 > Apparently, me too!  indecision
should be the same for all couples  
#9 | 941 days ago

I still say the only solution is to take the State out of marriage completely.  Neither side will be happy but it might be the only option.
should be the same for all couples  
#10 | 941 days ago

I WOULDNT do the gay marriage personally......BUT TO EACH THEIR OWN............indecision
#11 | 941 days ago

The_Real_Stoney wrote:
Go listen to Fake Plastic Trees Right now..

Where was I? Oh.. The part that kills me the most outside of like Marcus said the unbalanced equality, often times based on religious affiliation, is the fact that there is such a huge fight to preserve the fake sanctimony of an institution that fails 50% of the time.  If people have that strong of a belief in the binding nature of marriage then they should be taking their efforts to outlawing divorce.  Don't pretend something is special, beautiful, and under God's will then a month later find yourself nose deep in poolboy taint because your husband cares more about providing you with a house, food and botox injections than telling you your spanx really DO help lean out your midsection
that song just bummed me out. big time. still bought it for those "overthink everything" nights.

i kinda like that outlawing divorce idea. oh god, but then there'd be a massive uprising of back-alley divorces which would inevitably lead to the creation of planned familyhoods performing divorces left and right and the goverment funding to pay for planned familyhood would be taken from the "do not litter" sign budget which would lead to americans being knee deep in garbage...we are so screwed.
god is great beer is good and people are crazy  
#12 | 941 days ago

some insurance companies have quietly told the state legislation f@#$u, I know I know, insurance companies as a whole are disgusting, but, a few have done away with the term spouse, or have added significant other or domestic partner, as long as you have been together more than two years, they are covering your honey, it varies state to state, but I know a few couples that have done this. As to your question Captain, for the past several years, folks have been trying to separate church & state, and done some crazy shiotz, one or the other, not whats convenient.....
god is great beer is good and people are crazy  
#13 | 941 days ago

The_Real_Stoney wrote:
Go listen to Fake Plastic Trees Right now..

Where was I? Oh.. The part that kills me the most outside of like Marcus said the unbalanced equality, often times based on religious affiliation, is the fact that there is such a huge fight to preserve the fake sanctimony of an institution that fails 50% of the time.  If people have that strong of a belief in the binding nature of marriage then they should be taking their efforts to outlawing divorce.  Don't pretend something is special, beautiful, and under God's will then a month later find yourself nose deep in poolboy taint because your husband cares more about providing you with a house, food and botox injections than telling you your spanx really DO help lean out your midsection
If I didn't know better, I'd say SOMEONE had a spotty divorce.  indecision

Anyway ... I don't care who you love, marry, or f**k, as long as it's two consenting adults.  And maybe some barnyard animals, if we're below the Mason-Dixon and if said animal is really asking for it.

But I digress.  I think homosexuals should go to Washington and demand an extra tax refund.  They pay all the same taxes but don't get all the same rights and privileges.  F**k that.  They deserve some money back.
should be the same for all couples  
#14 | 941 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
If I didn't know better, I'd say SOMEONE had a spotty divorce.  indecision

Anyway ... I don't care who you love, marry, or f**k, as long as it's two consenting adults.  And maybe some barnyard animals, if we're below the Mason-Dixon and if said animal is really asking for it.

But I digress.  I think homosexuals should go to Washington and demand an extra tax refund.  They pay all the same taxes but don't get all the same rights and privileges.  F**k that.  They deserve some money back.
And people who own homes and have kids and who make all sorts of other life choices get tax breaks as well.    We should ALL demand our money back !!
should be the same for all couples  
#15 | 941 days ago

It is what it is. give them what they want. America is all about Freedom. Why should I can not judge because I am just me! Good poll!
who cares  
#16 | 940 days ago

ML31 wrote:
And people who own homes and have kids and who make all sorts of other life choices get tax breaks as well.    We should ALL demand our money back !!
Except that people who own homes (sometimes) and have kids DO get tax breaks.  Gay people don't.  And being gay isn't a life choice any more than being black or hispanic or a woman would be.
should be the same for all couples  
#17 | 940 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Except that people who own homes (sometimes) and have kids DO get tax breaks.  Gay people don't.  And being gay isn't a life choice any more than being black or hispanic or a woman would be.
says the big black woman!


I wuv you.


***
Hi blondie.
#18 | 940 days ago

If you are a married couple, not matter same sex or not, deserve the same benefits. I mean if you are willing to marry and put up with someone for life (Or 10-20 yrs, whichever comes first) then you deserve to get bennies!
#19 | 940 days ago

First, I believe anybody or anything should be able to get married and go through a divorce at least two or three times. After enduring that, anybody or anything will be ****ing done with all that ****.

Next, I believe it should cost you a ton to get married. You should automatically lose a house, a boat, at least two cars to get married. Divorce should be free.

I believe anyone who is thinking about getting marriage should be duct taped to the person they want to marry for 6 months, then see where their head is at. 

But hey, that's just me and MHO...
other  
#20 | 940 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
janet011685 wrote:
Except that people who own homes (sometimes) and have kids DO get tax breaks.  Gay people don't.  And being gay isn't a life choice any more than being black or hispanic or a woman would be.
Wow...  Are you saying that only straight white people are allowed to enjoy the tax benifits of home ownership?

REALLY?

I think the point was missed by miles here....


I did not claim being gay or a certain race was a choice.

At all.
should be the same for all couples  
#21 | 940 days ago

ML31 wrote:
Wow...  Are you saying that only straight white people are allowed to enjoy the tax benifits of home ownership?

REALLY?

I think the point was missed by miles here....


I did not claim being gay or a certain race was a choice.

At all.
No, I'm saying that you're saying all these groups, including homeowners and people with children, should ALSO get tax breaks.  you can't qualify that statement with an "as well" since gays don't get their own tax breaks like (some) homeowners and people with children do.

I'm saying that I think they SHOULD get an extra tax break since they live in this country and aren't given all the same rights/privileges as straight people.  If I go to a movie theater and they only let me watch 80% of the movie, I'm not paying full price. Would you?

Oh, and the way you phrased it earlier "...who make all sorts of other life choices get tax breaks as well" made it seem like you were likening being gay to those "other life choices".  If that wasn't what you were saying, then ignore that part of my post and just think of it as a general learning point for others who don't know.
should be the same for all couples  
#22 | 940 days ago
unopescatore (+)

ML31 wrote:
Wow...  Are you saying that only straight white people are allowed to enjoy the tax benifits of home ownership?

REALLY?

I think the point was missed by miles here....


I did not claim being gay or a certain race was a choice.

At all.
I think some lesbo's choice to be gay....most of the dudes are just gay & had no choice....well...they do....they could just force themselves to like vagina, kinda like I use to not like beer and now I love it.....they'll get use to it. blush
#23 | 940 days ago

unopescatore wrote:
I think some lesbo's choice to be gay....most of the dudes are just gay & had no choice....well...they do....they could just force themselves to like vagina, kinda like I use to not like beer and now I love it.....they'll get use to it. blush
You are so stupid.  I can't do this with you again.  laugh
should be the same for all couples  
#24 | 940 days ago
unopescatore (+)

(Edited by unopescatore)
janet011685 wrote:
You are so stupid.  I can't do this with you again.  laugh
what laugh

I gotta go home anyway...the whole house is sick....there's a benefit of being married.....CARRY ON!!!!
#25 | 940 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
No, I'm saying that you're saying all these groups, including homeowners and people with children, should ALSO get tax breaks.  you can't qualify that statement with an "as well" since gays don't get their own tax breaks like (some) homeowners and people with children do.

I'm saying that I think they SHOULD get an extra tax break since they live in this country and aren't given all the same rights/privileges as straight people.  If I go to a movie theater and they only let me watch 80% of the movie, I'm not paying full price. Would you?

Oh, and the way you phrased it earlier "...who make all sorts of other life choices get tax breaks as well" made it seem like you were likening being gay to those "other life choices".  If that wasn't what you were saying, then ignore that part of my post and just think of it as a general learning point for others who don't know.
What do you mean "should"?  Those folks DO get tax breaks.  There are tons of ways to get tax breaks.  Gays do get the same tax breaks as as everyone else except for what comes with being legally married.  They can claim the interest on their home loans and such just like any one can, for example.  I was getting at the idea you presented that only gays should pay less taxes.  Which is ludicrous.  If gays should get breaks for not being married then ALL unmarried people should get the same breaks.  It's only fair.  On a side note, I don't think there should be any breaks at all for life choices like getting married, having kids or home ownership or anything like that.  (I guess that is another argument for another thread)  The kind of choices I was referring to earlier.  Thought that was pretty obvious.  Being gay is not a choice, duh.
should be the same for all couples  
#26 | 940 days ago

ML31 wrote:
What do you mean "should"?  Those folks DO get tax breaks.  There are tons of ways to get tax breaks.  Gays do get the same tax breaks as as everyone else except for what comes with being legally married.  They can claim the interest on their home loans and such just like any one can, for example.  I was getting at the idea you presented that only gays should pay less taxes.  Which is ludicrous.  If gays should get breaks for not being married then ALL unmarried people should get the same breaks.  It's only fair.  On a side note, I don't think there should be any breaks at all for life choices like getting married, having kids or home ownership or anything like that.  (I guess that is another argument for another thread)  The kind of choices I was referring to earlier.  Thought that was pretty obvious.  Being gay is not a choice, duh.
I WAS referring to the marriage thing when talking about the tax refunds.  Obviously gay people get the same tax breaks for other things, I thought my argument was clear.
And there is a difference between not being married because you choose to not get married and not being married because you are not legally allowed to be married.  

As for the life choices argument, I see it both ways.  Marriage and home ownership CAN help stimulate the economy, so I can see where a tax break for such things is valid.  However, it is a choice that one makes, so the government should have no stake in it one way or the other (I just wish politicians would see it that way and stay out of people's life choices, such as who they marry).  But, like you said, that's for another poll, perhaps.
should be the same for all couples  
#27 | 940 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
janet011685 wrote:
I WAS referring to the marriage thing when talking about the tax refunds.  Obviously gay people get the same tax breaks for other things, I thought my argument was clear.
And there is a difference between not being married because you choose to not get married and not being married because you are not legally allowed to be married.  

As for the life choices argument, I see it both ways.  Marriage and home ownership CAN help stimulate the economy, so I can see where a tax break for such things is valid.  However, it is a choice that one makes, so the government should have no stake in it one way or the other (I just wish politicians would see it that way and stay out of people's life choices, such as who they marry).  But, like you said, that's for another poll, perhaps.
The circumstance may be different...  But the end result is the same.   If gays get more of their money back for NOT being married (whether legally allowed to or not) then ALL unmarried people should get more of their money back.   Fair is fair.

No one said our tax system is fair, however.
should be the same for all couples  
#28 | 940 days ago

ML31 wrote:
The circumstance may be different...  But the end result is the same.   If gays get more of their money back for NOT being married (whether legally allowed to or not) then ALL unmarried people should get more of their money back.   Fair is fair.

No one said our tax system is fair, however.
Fine, then I'll amend that statement.  All gay couples who have domestic partnerships/civil unions and are NOT receiving the same benefits as heterosexual married couples (which would be all of them, by the way), should get an extra tax refund.
should be the same for all couples  
#29 | 940 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Fine, then I'll amend that statement.  All gay couples who have domestic partnerships/civil unions and are NOT receiving the same benefits as heterosexual married couples (which would be all of them, by the way), should get an extra tax refund.
So...  Creating more inequality is your way of fixing an existing inequality?   Seems kind of backwards to me.

I think the focus should be on eliminating the inequality rather than creating more of it.
should be the same for all couples  
#30 | 940 days ago

ML31 wrote:
So...  Creating more inequality is your way of fixing an existing inequality?   Seems kind of backwards to me.

I think the focus should be on eliminating the inequality rather than creating more of it.
I think the gay couples can get back the difference between what they would get as a straight married couple and what they receive for their obviously-less-than-in-the-eyes-of-the-government "marriage".  That would actually make it more equal.  
Unless you're delving back into the whole "no life choices should garner tax breaks" thinking.  But I thought we agreed to save that for another poll?
should be the same for all couples  
#31 | 940 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
I think the gay couples can get back the difference between what they would get as a straight married couple and what they receive for their obviously-less-than-in-the-eyes-of-the-government "marriage".  That would actually make it more equal.  
Unless you're delving back into the whole "no life choices should garner tax breaks" thinking.  But I thought we agreed to save that for another poll?
That doesn't make things "more equal" at all.  In fact, all it does is open a tremendous can of worms. 

What it boils down to is an attempt to fight an injustice with still more injustice.   Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 

What is wrong with striving to eliminate inequality instead of creating more of it?  Or is certain inequity OK but other types not?
should be the same for all couples  
#32 | 939 days ago

ML31 wrote:
That doesn't make things "more equal" at all.  In fact, all it does is open a tremendous can of worms. 

What it boils down to is an attempt to fight an injustice with still more injustice.   Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. 

What is wrong with striving to eliminate inequality instead of creating more of it?  Or is certain inequity OK but other types not?
Again, you're referring to your opinion about our current tax code and the exemptions that you feel people should/should not receive.  That's not the topic at hand.  Feel free to create a poll about that, as we discussed.  This is about being more fair about things, given that our country's tax code is what it is.  

Married straight couples receive benefits, including tax breaks, that gay couples (either in a domestic partnership, civil union, or unmarried because they are not allowed to legally marry or otherwise) are not given.  That's discrimination.  Period.

If a store put a big sign up that said "1/2 off everything ... except if you're black", that would be problematic, to say the least.  And you know what, every black person who walked in the store that day would get the 50% off ... or more.  Doesn't even matter if the said person had any intention of shopping there before.  

Our government has a history of f**king up when it comes to minority groups and having to go back to make amends.  This is no different.  And if the gay movement was more organized, like many civil rights groups before them, they'd easily get reparations in a few more years, once the country catches up with the idea of how wrong it is to discriminate against them.  YOU may not agree with it, or think it's unfair (just like many think Affirmative Action is unfair, or exempting Native Americans from some of the state/federal laws on their reservations, etc.), but that doesn't mean it IS unfair.  That's your opinion, which you're entitled to.  I just don't agree.  Therefore, I stand by my statement ... gays deserve bigger tax refunds for not getting the same rights as straight people.
should be the same for all couples  
#33 | 939 days ago

janet011685 wrote:
Again, you're referring to your opinion about our current tax code and the exemptions that you feel people should/should not receive.  That's not the topic at hand.  Feel free to create a poll about that, as we discussed.  This is about being more fair about things, given that our country's tax code is what it is.  

Married straight couples receive benefits, including tax breaks, that gay couples (either in a domestic partnership, civil union, or unmarried because they are not allowed to legally marry or otherwise) are not given.  That's discrimination.  Period.

If a store put a big sign up that said "1/2 off everything ... except if you're black", that would be problematic, to say the least.  And you know what, every black person who walked in the store that day would get the 50% off ... or more.  Doesn't even matter if the said person had any intention of shopping there before.  

Our government has a history of f**king up when it comes to minority groups and having to go back to make amends.  This is no different.  And if the gay movement was more organized, like many civil rights groups before them, they'd easily get reparations in a few more years, once the country catches up with the idea of how wrong it is to discriminate against them.  YOU may not agree with it, or think it's unfair (just like many think Affirmative Action is unfair, or exempting Native Americans from some of the state/federal laws on their reservations, etc.), but that doesn't mean it IS unfair.  That's your opinion, which you're entitled to.  I just don't agree.  Therefore, I stand by my statement ... gays deserve bigger tax refunds for not getting the same rights as straight people.
...
#34 | 939 days ago
unopescatore (+)

janet011685 wrote:
You are so stupid.  I can't do this with you again.  laugh
for some reason I feel you don't agree with me. laugh
#35 | 939 days ago

(Edited by ML31)
janet011685 wrote:
Again, you're referring to your opinion about our current tax code and the exemptions that you feel people should/should not receive.  That's not the topic at hand.  Feel free to create a poll about that, as we discussed.  This is about being more fair about things, given that our country's tax code is what it is.  

Married straight couples receive benefits, including tax breaks, that gay couples (either in a domestic partnership, civil union, or unmarried because they are not allowed to legally marry or otherwise) are not given.  That's discrimination.  Period.

If a store put a big sign up that said "1/2 off everything ... except if you're black", that would be problematic, to say the least.  And you know what, every black person who walked in the store that day would get the 50% off ... or more.  Doesn't even matter if the said person had any intention of shopping there before.  

Our government has a history of f**king up when it comes to minority groups and having to go back to make amends.  This is no different.  And if the gay movement was more organized, like many civil rights groups before them, they'd easily get reparations in a few more years, once the country catches up with the idea of how wrong it is to discriminate against them.  YOU may not agree with it, or think it's unfair (just like many think Affirmative Action is unfair, or exempting Native Americans from some of the state/federal laws on their reservations, etc.), but that doesn't mean it IS unfair.  That's your opinion, which you're entitled to.  I just don't agree.  Therefore, I stand by my statement ... gays deserve bigger tax refunds for not getting the same rights as straight people.
No, I gave my opinion of the tax code as a side note and never returned to it.  I'm talking about fixing an injustice by removing said injustice.  Your solution is to fight the injustice with still more injustice.  Does a fire go out if you light more fires?  No.  The net result is larger fires.

Yes.  Denying something to a group of people that the rest of society gets is indeed discrimination.  No argument there.  The argument is with your solution.  Your argument was to forget about ending the initial discrimination and create yet another kind of discrimination.  Which not only doesn't solve the initial problem but actually creates more animosity.

Your analogy of the store doesn't work.  What you are saying is that all homosexuals should get a special tax break merely for being homosexual in a society that does not afford them the right to be legally married.  Which is, ironically, discriminatory itself.  It also means that unmarried straight people are discriminated against as well merely for a life choice.  I do not see how any rational mind can deem that to be "fair".

But just because you think some discrimination is fair doesn't mean it is.  The fact is most Americans feel discrimination is wrong no matter how it gets sliced regardless of your opinion that some discrimination is OK.

I am forced to give you kudos for your argument that a precedent has been set with reparations for mistakes made in the past.  And I have not been against such a thing where appropriate.  For example, reparations made to the families of interned Japanese Americans during WWII.  I have a friend whose father was interned at Tule Lake as a very small child.  His grandparents got paid off as well as his father.  He tried to get reparations himself but was appropriately denied.  Those reparations should only go so far.

Something to consider...  Why should the children be punished for the sins of the fathers?


PS...  Something else that also just came to mind...  There is a HUGE difference between repairing an injustice and being compensated for one.
should be the same for all couples  
#36 | 939 days ago

ML31 wrote:
No, I gave my opinion of the tax code as a side note and never returned to it.  I'm talking about fixing an injustice by removing said injustice.  Your solution is to fight the injustice with still more injustice.  Does a fire go out if you light more fires?  No.  The net result is larger fires.

Yes.  Denying something to a group of people that the rest of society gets is indeed discrimination.  No argument there.  The argument is with your solution.  Your argument was to forget about ending the initial discrimination and create yet another kind of discrimination.  Which not only doesn't solve the initial problem but actually creates more animosity.

Your analogy of the store doesn't work.  What you are saying is that all homosexuals should get a special tax break merely for being homosexual in a society that does not afford them the right to be legally married.  Which is, ironically, discriminatory itself.  It also means that unmarried straight people are discriminated against as well merely for a life choice.  I do not see how any rational mind can deem that to be "fair".

But just because you think some discrimination is fair doesn't mean it is.  The fact is most Americans feel discrimination is wrong no matter how it gets sliced regardless of your opinion that some discrimination is OK.

I am forced to give you kudos for your argument that a precedent has been set with reparations for mistakes made in the past.  And I have not been against such a thing where appropriate.  For example, reparations made to the families of interned Japanese Americans during WWII.  I have a friend whose father was interned at Tule Lake as a very small child.  His grandparents got paid off as well as his father.  He tried to get reparations himself but was appropriately denied.  Those reparations should only go so far.

Something to consider...  Why should the children be punished for the sins of the fathers?


PS...  Something else that also just came to mind...  There is a HUGE difference between repairing an injustice and being compensated for one.

Post a Comment   Already a user? Sign in here
Join FanIQ - It's Free
FanIQ is the ultimate free community for sports fans.
Talk sports with fans from all over - 1,649,417+ Comments
Track your game picks - 38,670,182,382+ Sports Predictions
Prove you know sports - 116,275+ Trivia Questions
Find fans of your teams - 11,453,110+ New Friends
30 DAY DRAWING CHALLENGE DAY 25
Asked by ms_hippie_queen | Locker Room, Miscellaneous | 1 questions asked 08/19/13
6 opinions | 3 comments | Last by woody050681
Go ahead make my day
Asked by 18packabs | Locker Room, Miscellaneous | 1 questions asked 05/08/12
29 opinions | 46 comments | Last by KSbengals99
When Crap Goes Wrong!!
Asked by BamaMan | Locker Room, Miscellaneous | 1 questions asked 07/25/12
20 opinions | 19 comments | Last by KSbengals99
Neighbors,Neighbors,Neighbors
Asked by CAPTAINSEAFOOD | Locker Room, Miscellaneous | 1 questions asked 05/14/12
24 opinions | 28 comments | Last by KSbengals99
Joke of the day 12/15
Asked by huskerdoug2009 | Locker Room, Miscellaneous | 1 questions asked 12/15/12
12 opinions | 5 comments | Last by KSbengals99