Sarah Palin Gives Thumbs Up To Chick-fil-A

[NIU Students for Liberty]

We can all agree on the fact that the government (whether it be federal or state) should not have a role in marriage, period. But given the reality that the government is not going to forfeit its control over marriage licensing, won't gay couples still be at a disadvantage regarding tax benefits and insurance premiums as opposed to heterosexual married (legally) couples?

According to the logic of gay marriage opponents, shouldn't segregation still exist in public schools? After all, the government should have no role in education and so why should blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc be subjected to state indoctrination? Don't forget about the tax burden that was created when segregation in the public school system was lifted.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

And once again, why the hell are people here falling head over heals over what Palin does or says?

 

[KingNothing]

We can all agree on the fact that the government (whether it be federal or state) should not have a role in marriage, period. But given the reality that the government is not going to forfeit its control over marriage licensing, won't gay couples still be at a disadvantage regarding tax benefits and insurance premiums as opposed to heterosexual married (legally) couples?

According to the logic of gay marriage opponents, shouldn't segregation still exist in public schools? After all, the government should have no role in education and so why should blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc be subjected to state indoctrination? Don't forget about the tax burden that was created when segregation in the public school system was lifted.

This is a wonderful post!

 

[jmdrake]

We can all agree on the fact that the government (whether it be federal or state) should not have a role in marriage, period. But given the reality that the government is not going to forfeit its control over marriage licensing, won't gay couples still be at a disadvantage regarding tax benefits and insurance premiums as opposed to heterosexual married (legally) couples?

If gay marriage is legalized many gay couples will be at a greater disadvantage tax wise unless the current marriage tax penalty for couples with similar incomes is changed. Marriage is only a tax benefit if you and your spouse have disparate incomes.

According to the logic of gay marriage opponents, shouldn't segregation still exist in public schools? After all, the government should have no role in education and so why should blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc be subjected to state indoctrination? Don't forget about the tax burden that was created when segregation in the public school system was lifted.

Interesting point. The counter argument is to notice the difference between desegregation and forced integration. Forced integration (school busing) arguably caused damage to inner city education. There's a difference between saying "You can't go to school here because you're black" and "You must go to school here because we need to integrate". Many blacks now regret forced busing. Many gays may regret federalized gay marriage once they get their new tax bill. Gay marriage was decriminalized with the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. We can either take steps now which will lower the federal marriage footprint for everybody, or we can go the equivalent of the "forced busing" route and have the federal government more involved. That's really what the argument in this thread is about.

 

[erowe1]

We can all agree on the fact that the government (whether it be federal or state) should not have a role in marriage, period. But given the reality that the government is not going to forfeit its control over marriage licensing, won't gay couples still be at a disadvantage regarding tax benefits and insurance premiums as opposed to heterosexual married (legally) couples?

There shouldn't be any tax benefits. Insurance premiums should be up to insurance companies, not the government.

What about Social Security? We have this huge future liability from it. Shouldn't we be trying to reduce it, rather than expand it?

 

[KingNothing]

If gay marriage is legalized many gay couples will be at a greater disadvantage tax wise unless the current marriage tax penalty for couples with similar incomes is changed. Marriage is only a tax benefit if you and your spouse have disparate incomes.



Interesting point. The counter argument is to notice the difference between desegregation and forced integration. Forced integration (school busing) arguably caused damage to inner city education. There's a difference between saying "You can't go to school here because you're black" and "You must go to school here because we need to integrate". Many blacks now regret forced busing. Many gays may regret federalized gay marriage once they get their new tax bill. Gay marriage was decriminalized with the Lawrence v. Texas ruling. We can either take steps now which will lower the federal marriage footprint for everybody, or we can go the equivalent of the "forced busing" route and have the federal government more involved. That's really what the argument in this thread is about.

The only problem with your logic is that the government won't be saying "hey, you're gay, and you, over there, you're gay too! Now, get married! I don't care if you hate each other, you're spending your lives together!" Nothing about this will be "forced integration."

 

[KingNothing]

There shouldn't be any tax benefits. Insurance premiums should be up to insurance companies, not the government.

What about Social Security? We have this huge future liability from it. Shouldn't we be trying to reduce it, rather than expand it?

Yes, we should be reducing it. Is your argument that since marriage could allow gay people to benefit from social security more than they currently do, we need to shut them out of it?

 

[erowe1]

Yes, we should be reducing it. Is your argument that since marriage could allow gay people to benefit from social security more than they currently do, we need to shut them out of it?

Gay people aren't shut out of it. But I don't see any good reason to give same sex couples the spousal benefits that married people get now from it.

 

[KingNothing]

Gay people aren't shut out of it. But I don't see any good reason to give same sex couples the spousal benefits that married people get now from it.

Yes, that's shutting them out of the additional benefits. Just because they're gay.

You're fine with that? Really? Basically what that means is that gay people are financing straight people. It seems really clear to me -- either you completely blow up the system, or you actually make it fair. Government will not quietly and easily give up the power it currently has so our long term plan should be drastic change, the short term plan should be equality.

It doesn't seem like too much to ask to actually allow gay people the same equality under the law that straight people have.

 

[jmdrake]

The only problem with your logic is that the government won't be saying "hey, you're gay, and you, over there, you're gay too! Now, get married! I don't care if you hate each other, you're spending your lives together!" Nothing about this will be "forced integration."

Well the problem with your logic is the false assumption that a lifestyle is the same thing as a race or a gender. But my general point is that sometimes the "cure" is worse than the disease. I think this is one of those time. You can feel free to disagree. But some on your side of the argument take the illogical step of saying that because others don't believe in their societal cure others must be "bigots" or must have "bad beliefs" or whatever.

 

[erowe1]

Yes, that's shutting them out of the additional benefits. Just because they're gay.

You're fine with that? Really? Basically what that means is that gay people are financing straight people. It seems really clear to me -- either you completely blow up the system, or you actually make it fair. The long term plan should be drastic change, the short term plan should be equality.

I'm fine with not expanding Social Security beyond what it already is? Yes, of course.

The reason those spousal benefits ever came about was because of a model of marriage with the man being the bread winner and the woman being a house wife who depends on him for income. Whether or not that still applies to heterosexual couples is questionable. But it clearly does not apply to same sex couples. There is no possible justification for saying that the taxpayers should have to pay more money to someone who survives their gay lover just because of some notion of equality or something. It would obviously be the wrong thing to do.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

There shouldn't be any tax benefits. Insurance premiums should be up to insurance companies, not the government.

What about Social Security? We have this huge future liability from it. Shouldn't we be trying to reduce it, rather than expand it?

But none of that is going away! Why should only straight people receive these advantages if the state is choosing who will receive them?

 

[erowe1]

But none of that is going away! Why should only straight people receive these advantages if the state is choosing who will receive them?

They shouldn't. That's not a reason to make the government bigger.

 

[jmdrake]

But none of that is going away! Why should only straight people receive these advantages if the state is choosing who will receive them?

Well it certainly won't go away if we take our eyes of the liberty ball and divert it to the gay rights ball. That said, Social Security may go away regardless of what anyone does because it's insolvent.

 

[KingNothing]

Well the problem with your logic is the false assumption that a lifestyle is the same thing as a race or a gender. But my general point is that sometimes the "cure" is worse than the disease. I think this is one of those time. You can feel free to disagree. But some on your side of the argument take the illogical step of saying that because others don't believe in their societal cure others must be "bigots" or must have "bad beliefs" or whatever.

No no, I merely believe that many of the people here are bigots because they have a prejudicial and collectivist disliking of gay people, and use libertarian principles as a facade to cover those irrational thoughts.

 

[jmdrake]

No no, I merely believe that many of the people here are bigots because they have a prejudicial and collectivist disliking of gay people, and use libertarian principles as a facade to cover those irrational thoughts.

So now you're a self appointed member of the "thought police"? You can believe whatever it is you want to believe as irrational as your own thoughts are. The smartest way forward is to focus on the goal we all agree on (reducing the size and scope of government) and take solace in the fact that reaching that goal also makes marriage the most equitable no matter how someone wants to define it personally (straight, gay, incest, polygamy, bestiality, extraterrestrials, whatever). That way forward doesn't require anyone to call anyone else names because of their "thoughts" or to try to get anyone else to "think differently".

Edit: And I wish everytime someone said something like "But we'll never change social security or the tax system. Can't we just make things fair for the gays?" that they would donate $50 to a liberty candidate or make some phone calls. Seriously, if we don't believe that we can actually change things like the tax system and social security than what the hell are we doing here? (Not aimed at you KingNothing, but aimed at other comments I've seen in this thread and other threads like it.)

 

[erowe1]

No no, I merely believe that many of the people here are bigots because they have a prejudicial and collectivist disliking of gay people, and use libertarian principles as a facade to cover those irrational thoughts.

I often observe the exact opposite. There are a lot of people who I see advocate pro-gay policies and pretend that there's some libertarian basis for them, but when you get down to what it's really all about, you find that nobody is made the slightest bit more free by them. Even if I disagree with the policies, I can sometimes see perfectly understandable reasons for why people support them. I just wish they'd stop pretending it somehow comports with their supposedly being libertarians.

 

[Sola_Fide]

You think you can group all Atheists together (how Statist of you)? What an idiot. No, not all Atheists are Statists.

You can read, correct? This is my exact quote:

MOST secular people in America and around the world are big-government statists. Let's not get confused about this very evident fact.

Not only did I not say what you thought I said, but I am correct in my estimation.

I would rather indoctrinate children with facts, reason, and logic rather than fairytales, magic, and faith.

You see? There it is again. You set up the false dilemma of

indoctrination with "facts" (that is laughable anyway)
vs.
indoctrination with fairy tales

What you are creating is again a false dilemma that presupposes state education. You SHOULD be proposing freedom and ending state education, but this is yet another issue in which atheists who call themselves "libertarian" are almost never consistent in. I see it all the time and it is a huge problem.

Get consistent first before you start calling people idiots.

 

[Sola_Fide]

In the last couple of pages, all I see are the atheists arguing for:

1. State education

and

2. expanded government in marriage

What board have I stumbled on to? Isn't this the forum where people should be arguing against licensing and against state education?

But this is the bizarro world of secularism. I've seen it a million times. Secularists can almost never be consistent libertarians.

 

[KingNothing]

I often observe the exact opposite. There are a lot of people who I see advocate pro-gay policies and pretend that there's some libertarian basis for them, but when you get down to what it's really all about, you find that nobody is made the slightest bit more free by them. Even if I disagree with the policies, I can sometimes see perfectly understandable reasons for why people support them. I just wish they'd stop pretending it somehow comports with their supposedly being libertarians.

I advocate for anarchism. I recognize that to get to that point we need humanity to continue to move forward, beyond petty prejudices and judgmental hand-wringing over how others choose to lead their lives.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who makes it through a day without asking for a handout or demanding government suppress the non-violent acts of others is A-OK in my book. When we get to the point where everyone feels that way, and understands the obligation they have as a human being to help other humans in need, we can do away with government altogether. That should be our goal.

In the mean time, sure, we chip away at government everywhere that we can. What that requires, though, is more responsibility for each of us. We've got to do a much better job at being our brother's keeper, sticking up for the rights of our neighbors, and respecting whatever non-violent lifestyle another chooses to pursue.