Evil? Now, perhaps. Later? Not so much.

[ladajo]

I have to agree with Scott on this one. I currenlty rent where I am, and am renting out the home that I own. I may change my situation, and buy here where I am, and sell what I own. I may also let someone(s) pay off the one I own, and just buy another here.
I think there is a good rental market for temp residents, who do not intend to stay in an area. Nothing wrong with it. I have done it myself several times, while owning a home.
And, I see no issue with using a home somewhere as rental property for folks who will not be there long enough to justify buying. If you buy it, in general plan on owning it at least 5 years.

The house I am renting out right now, may well turn itself into my kids' college fund down the road. I have enough value in it now that it could be already. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, the folks I have in it are career professionals that are re-building their credit after burning themselves in the housing bubble. They are decent folks with good long term jobs, a career teacher, and a career engineer. They bought more than they could afford with an ARM, and got burned. Now I get them as really good tenants that take care of the place and pay the $2K rent on time every time and have done so for a year and a half. Good for them, good for me.

[Diogenes]

I don't think the majority owns much property. Rent? Sure, owns, not so much. In the end you don't really own land in the U.S. but that's another issue entirely.

It's fine Diogenes, we disagree, it's ok.

One of my long standing issues has been the annoying tendency of people to rent rather than buy. When I got out of High school, I told myself I would live in a cardboard box if necessary, to save up enough money to buy a piece of land. Then I would buy a Travel Trailer or a Mobile home and live in it until I could afford to build a house. And that is what I did. I have since owned and own several properties.

I don't believe in credit, and I don't believe in rent. Rent is paying for someone else's house. The country is much more stable when people are paying for their own. I try and spread this message as often as I can. "Rent" is a fool's game.

I think a majority of the people that live in the conservative part of the nation, own their own properties. (At least among those people who are employed.)

That may be your outlook, but for instance in my case, owning is not an option. I have no plans to stay in my current location past my better half completing her doctoral program and so renting is an ideal situation. What makes it further ideal is that the cost of payments here are ridiculous vs rent so more fuel to my rent argument within my individual situation.

You fall into what I would consider the exemption category. There are occasions when renting is the correct thing to do, but not usually for the long term. Most people eventually settle somewhere, and at that point it would behoove them to pay for their own property rather than someone else's, but the rent mentality has seemingly become so ingrained in many people that they simply can't visualize investing in their own home rather than paying for someone else's.

I have convinced a lot of people to buy a house. (and no, i'm not in real estate. There is nothing in it for me other than spreading a meme) This one woman I know paid $26,000.00 in rent over a 6 year period. I found her a rent to own, and she paid the whole thing off in seven years. Now the money goes into *her* pocket, and not the landlord.

As far as i'm concerned, home ownership is part of freedom. Everybody should try for it when they can.

If you are transitory, and not expected to stay for more than a few years, renting is perfectly reasonable.

[Diogenes]

I have to agree with Scott on this one. I currenlty rent where I am, and am renting out the home that I own. I may change my situation, and buy here where I am, and sell what I own. I may also let someone(s) pay off the one I own, and just buy another here.
I think there is a good rental market for temp residents, who do not intend to stay in an area. Nothing wrong with it. I have done it myself several times, while owning a home.
And, I see no issue with using a home somewhere as rental property for folks who will not be there long enough to justify buying. If you buy it, in general plan on owning it at least 5 years.

The house I am renting out right now, may well turn itself into my kids' college fund down the road. I have enough value in it now that it could be already. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, the folks I have in it are career professionals that are re-building their credit after burning themselves in the housing bubble. They are decent folks with good long term jobs, a career teacher, and a career engineer. They bought more than they could afford with an ARM, and got burned. Now I get them as really good tenants that take care of the place and pay the $2K rent on time every time and have done so for a year and a half. Good for them, good for me.

You are on the other side of the rent equation for the property you own, and that is offset by the place you are renting now. Nothing wrong with that. Renting when you are transitory is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

My point is, when people settle down, they need to break the "rent" mentality. Renting is a better deal for the Landlords than it is for the tenants. Many tenants walk away from years of rent with nothing to show for their expenditure. I believe home ownership, especially for the poor, is a good thing, and it instills civilizing instincts into people who might not otherwise have them.

Government housing projects converted to condominiums have been great successes. That's because people take care of them when it's THEIRS.

[pbelter]

Interesting related comment from the radio this morning. If the <successful> argument for gay rights is "consenting adults", then how low will it be before it becomes the successful argument for biligamy/polygamy?

That was warned about decades ago. Interestingly enough, I found this article which indicates this very thing has happened in Holland.

http://conservativeoutpost.com/slippery_slope

The Dutch journey towards the destruction of marriage began when they legalized homosexual civil unions in 1998. This was then followed in a mere three years time by the legalization of homosexual marriage and adoption of children. Now, just four years later, they passed another threshold when they certified the civil union of one man and two women. Currently, their marriage laws, (such as they are), don't allow polygamy, but the civil union laws do and now they have their first gay polygamous union to show for it.

Heh, this is quite interesting. When one makes assumptions such as "marriage is the right of consenting adults" the conclusion that polygamy should be legal is implied. The next logical step is to allow any union of any number of people of any sex to be equivalent to marriage with all its legal rights and privileges. Same about all forms of incest.

Historically marriage has a number of privileges that were driven by the economic burden of raising kids (read: new generation of taxpayers), with the joint income tax fillings being the most important one.

Now, since we have income tax, we have the "problem" of gay marriage. If there was no income tax I don't see why any of the proponents of it would care, since all other matters can be regulated by civil contracts.
"Socialism is a system that heroically battles issues that simply do not exist in a normal one" as one philosopher put it. Whenever government wants to regulate people's private lives, i.e. by granting some groups tax or other privileges, there all kinds of issues arising from it that should not be there in the first place.

Now how do we get the gay lobby to understand that it is the income tax that is the root of the evil and after it is done away with, nobody really gives a **** what they do at home in private.
Do you think there is more to it? There are no proponents of oral sex (which is prohibited in many states) organizing "love parades" or lobbying their ideas in the media.

If you don't know what it is all about, it is about the money.

BTW, the direction in which the discussion on this topic went is rather interesting. Someone said "consenting adults" and the discussion turned to be about whether children can be consenting. This is a very old trick that turns the discussion on a secondary topic implying the underlying assumption of consenting individuals is sufficient to form a legal union is true, the question is only whether they can be consenting. How about incest where a 60 year old father marries his 19 year old daughter? How about the grandpa joining in? They are all consenting adults after all.

To put this into perspective, there was a public debate in the early Soviet Union on whether an owner of a private truck, a luxury item at that time, is an "evil bloodsucking capitalist". Some argued that since the truck represents a capital this makes him an evil capitalist while others suggested that he merely rents his service as a hauler and does not exploit labor of other which would make him one.
The debate was structured in a way that no matter which way one argued it was assumed that being a capitalist is evil.

[ScottL]

Same about all forms of incest

I don't know how you jumped to that conclusion. Biological mechanisms are a reasonable and logical argument against incest just as they are for homosexuality and just as they are against pedophilia. Do they not teach biology any more?! These are basic behaviors seen in all animals whether they have higher reasoning or not.

[seedload]

There are no proponents of oral sex (which is prohibited in many states) organizing "love parades" or lobbying their ideas in the media.

FYI, Lawrence v Texas invalidated all state's sodomy laws in 2003. Oral sex is a go in all states of the Union... woop!

[Diogenes]

There are no proponents of oral sex (which is prohibited in many states) organizing "love parades" or lobbying their ideas in the media.

FYI, Lawrence v Texas invalidated all state's sodomy laws in 2003. Oral sex is a go in all states of the Union... woop!

The Disembodied hand of Belshazzar's feast will not be denied.



Increase in oral cancers linked to HPV

Researchers tested cancer tissue samples from almost 6,000 patients in Hawaii, Iowa and Los Angeles between 1984 and 2004. They found the HPV-positive cancers increased 225% while HPV-negative oropharynx cancers dropped 50%–most likely because of a reduction in smoking and tobacco use.

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/0 ... ed-to-hpv/

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news ... 17122.html

[Diogenes]

Senate Repeals Military prohibition on Sodomy and Beastiality

On Nov. 15, the Senate Armed Services Committee had unanimously approved S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/senate- ... s-military

The wheel turns some more.

[MSimon]

Senate Repeals Military prohibition on Sodomy and Beastiality

On Nov. 15, the Senate Armed Services Committee had unanimously approved S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/senate- ... s-military

The wheel turns some more.

Well anal sex with females is rather more popular than it was in prior decades. You don't want to be losing service members over that. Gender "equality" does the rest.

But eliminating bestiality is rather weird. Didn't the SPCA complain?

BTW back when I was in the Navy - the 60s - gay were not unknown. The trouble for the military is that when they got tired of the Navy they used it as a "get out of your enlistment" card.

Now just being gay is not enough. You have to have non-consensual sex with someone. I'm fine with that.

[MSimon]

Back in the day when I used to get around a LOT oral sex was quite popular in my set. I enjoyed giving and receiving. But then HPV was not quite as common then as it is now.

I always tell my kids "be careful, have fun". I hope they take both suggestions to heart.

BTW maybe this HPV "epidemic" is a good reason to get people vaccinated - assuming the vaccination works. There is an age (15 to 25) when kids ignore their parents. It might be good to have them protected from the inevitable experimentation.

And from what I read it seems that the kids from the most "moral" sections of the country experiment the most. "You can't do that" seems to be the most effective method of promoting rebellion. I never told my kids that and of course they never rebelled. It was a conscious decision on my part.

[Betruger]

And from what I read it seems that the kids from the most "moral" sections of the country experiment the most. "You can't do that" seems to be the most effective method of promoting rebellion. I never told my kids that and of course they never rebelled. It was a conscious decision on my part.

Saw it as a kid and see it now. The "can't do this / don't do that" epidemic is especially virulent in North America.

[Diogenes]

Senate Repeals Military prohibition on Sodomy and Beastiality

On Nov. 15, the Senate Armed Services Committee had unanimously approved S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act, which includes a provision to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

Article 125 of the UCMJ makes it illegal to engage in both sodomy with humans and sex with animals.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/senate- ... s-military

The wheel turns some more.

Well anal sex with females is rather more popular than it was in prior decades. You don't want to be losing service members over that. Gender "equality" does the rest.

But eliminating bestiality is rather weird. Didn't the SPCA complain?

BTW back when I was in the Navy - the 60s - gay were not unknown. The trouble for the military is that when they got tired of the Navy they used it as a "get out of your enlistment" card.

Now just being gay is not enough. You have to have non-consensual sex with someone. I'm fine with that.

The Salient point of this thread is that the standards of what is tolerable are evolving in the same direction. Towards what used to be considered "evil." I assert that natural laws will enact a vengeance on any society which does not adhere to them. (yes, I am Anthropomorphizing a characteristic of nature. )

[Diogenes]

Back in the day when I used to get around a LOT oral sex was quite popular in my set. I enjoyed giving and receiving. But then HPV was not quite as common then as it is now.

I always tell my kids "be careful, have fun". I hope they take both suggestions to heart.

BTW maybe this HPV "epidemic" is a good reason to get people vaccinated - assuming the vaccination works. There is an age (15 to 25) when kids ignore their parents. It might be good to have them protected from the inevitable experimentation.

And from what I read it seems that the kids from the most "moral" sections of the country experiment the most. "You can't do that" seems to be the most effective method of promoting rebellion. I never told my kids that and of course they never rebelled. It was a conscious decision on my part.

I have long thought that were it not for the fact that Science has progressed so much over the last 50 years, most homosexuals would have died of a horrible unknown disease, and the surviving heterosexual population would have a social reinforcement of why such behavior is bad. (it kills people who engage in it.)

Thanks to Modern Medicine and Modern communications, the pathogen was identified, and the word was spread world wide. In the absence of either of these two circumstances, I dare say AIDS would have got virtually all of them.

Yes, science is now making possible such debauchery as has never been tolerated by nature before.

[Diogenes]

And from what I read it seems that the kids from the most "moral" sections of the country experiment the most. "You can't do that" seems to be the most effective method of promoting rebellion. I never told my kids that and of course they never rebelled. It was a conscious decision on my part.

Saw it as a kid and see it now. The "can't do this / don't do that" epidemic is especially virulent in North America.

In accordance with this theory, I would suspect we have the most murders in those parts of the country that punish it the most?

[MSimon]

And from what I read it seems that the kids from the most "moral" sections of the country experiment the most. "You can't do that" seems to be the most effective method of promoting rebellion. I never told my kids that and of course they never rebelled. It was a conscious decision on my part.

Saw it as a kid and see it now. The "can't do this / don't do that" epidemic is especially virulent in North America.

In accordance with this theory, I would suspect we have the most murders in those parts of the country that punish it the most?

Perhaps you can explain this:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32884806/ns ... us-states/