Comments on: Corvino: The moral implications of luxury

By: Gary

Gary — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:15:13 +0000

As mentioned in the article, “luxury” and “necessity” are relative terms, unless speaking of air, water, food, health… I think the point is to recognize that we ALL CAN and SHOULD make donations of TIME, MONEY, SERVICES and MERCHANDISE to the charities of our choice AND support those cultural, social and “hedonistic” pleasures….Just be mindful of the real NEED that exists and what you can do to help….The beauty of “capitalism” is that we get to spend our earnings the way we choose…maybe we just need to choose to help a bit more often than we have in the recent past, because more are hurting.
I also believe that if “charities” want more donations, they need to be more responsible and held accountable as stewards of our donations. Running and managing a charity should not require all of the donations to keep it running…something…like MOST of the donations, should be getting to those that need it, not going for salaries, benefits, office expenses and property maintenance, etc.

By: Caleb

Caleb — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:09:17 +0000

We’ve learned from early on in life to work hard to obtain luxuries, I belive that we should work hard and what we gain or acheive is our right also what we choose to give to charities is because we belive in them not because we’re obligated by what we are.

By: Robin

Robin — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:31:21 +0000

i’ll be honest, i don’t make a whole lot of money, but i have enough to have a good tv, a not too old computer so i can be online, and to make trips to football games. i will never apologize for going to a game four hours away, instead of staying home and watching it on television and giving the money i would have spent to charity. i work hard for my money, i don’t gamble or drink it away, i use it to enjoy life a little, we all have that right.

By: Debora

Debora — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:07:37 +0000

Oh, and I am tired of everyone playing the kid card. Parents CHOSE to have them. Children are a luxery item not a necessity of life. Just because people pop out babies, gives them a free pass to be giving, charitable? Co-workers play the kid card every chance they get, while the old lesbian picks up the slack. Every time the collection plate (when did I start working for a church?) rolls around the old lesbian is expected to heave ho, because she does not have kids and has money to give.

By: Debora

Debora — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:02:13 +0000

Corvino,

Get bent. I work like a dog (an I am presently on my lunch break not using company time) for each and every paycheck. I put up with ungrateful, snotty co-workers and bosses each and every day. My boss wears a new pair of $500 shoes every week to the office and sends her kids to a private school at a tune of 100 grand a year. But that is ok because she is straight with kids. But the old lesbian is supposed to forgo an ice cream cone, live in shack, ride the bus and eat ramon noodles every day so I can give every cent I make to the poor and needy? Again, go get bent.

By: John

John — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:13:38 +0000

So, what you’re saying is that greed and selfishness is okay…is there no happy medium? Can one not install a new kitchen AND give charitably? Of course they can. IF they are willing to cut UNNECESSARY extravagance in half, shop well, design well, be creative and NOT succumb to the pervasive peer pressure that undoubtedly exists in the gay community to HAVE,LOOK,BE ‘hip’,'cool’ or in other words ‘conformist to ‘gay’ chic!

By: Rob

Rob — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 21:31:56 +0000

Just where are all of these affluent gay people who have all of this disposable income? I’m 63 and have known very few throughout my life. I’ve only recently had a little–very little– disposable income, and that’s only because my house is mortgage is finally paid off and my Ford Mustang is 16 years old. As far as the seat warmers go–work out a little so you acquire a hot ass. That should take care of the problem.

If you are a LGBT single, own your own home, and drive a new (er) Ford or Chevy, you probably struggle to stay afloat from month to month. I think it is a myth that LGBT individuals are financially well off. How about a gay, single first or second year teacher in the public school system? Ask him/her how much disposable income they have.

By: Eric

Eric — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:32:59 +0000

Long, long way to the well and the bucket’s still empty. I can’t stand the people who write for 365..

By: Scott

Scott — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:54:50 +0000

I’m sorry but I really don’t understand the point of this article. I’m a little lost. Am I supposed to feel bad for being gay and without children so I have more money or bad because I don’t give all the “extra” money away to make up for being gay.
I think I’ve paid enough for being gay and continue to pay (thank you religious right). I enjoy my little “luxuries”. I enjoy going to eat with friends and bringing them all back to my place to watch a movie on my big ole TV. I give where and when I see fit and the rest I have worked VERY VERY hard for and will do with what I please.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 19:01:43 +0000

John, your comments are telling. The people who make planes are “hard working folk”, the arts are a “charity”, not any kind of industry. Like most gay men with a little bit of money, you pretend to be cultured, but know nothing of the hard, WORKING day-to day lives of professional artists, whether they be in the fine or commercial industries. Or the actual realities of said professions. Why is it that artists always are required to listen to ignorant statements from people like you, but you never have to listen to an artists’ opinion about your life and work? Just sayin…..