The coming pandemic of “gay marriage”

[Burrows14]

So is theft, kidnapping, and murder moral when done by a government?

I do believe in capital punishment, prison and I'm not an anarchist so as much as I hate taxation, I do see it as necessary.

I do, however, think the income tax is immoral and should be abolished.

 

[Vessol]

I do believe in capital punishment, prison and I'm not an anarchist so as much as I hate taxation, I do see it as necessary.

So when is theft immoral?

When is kidnapping immoral?

When is murder immoral?

 

[Burrows14]

So when is theft immoral?

When is kidnapping immoral?

When is murder immoral?

Murder is always immoral. I don't see capital punishment or things such as killing in self defense as murder, so they are not immoral.

I don't consider prison to be kidnapping, especially when it is necessary to keep a community safe.

I consider income and property taxes theft and immoral, but I don't necessarily have a problem with excise and sales taxes to fund government services (roads that aren't private, courts, military, customs, etc)

 

[Vessol]

Murder is always immoral. I don't see capital punishment or things such as killing in self defense as murder, so they are not immoral.

I don't consider prison to be kidnapping, especially when it is necessary to keep a community safe.

I consider income and property taxes theft and immoral, but I don't necessarily have a problem with excise and sales taxes to fund government services (roads that aren't private, courts, military, customs, etc)

I'm glad that you see income taxes and property taxes as immoral, because they are, however excise and sales taxes are too. If I, as a business owner or perhaps someone who owns a private dock, do not wish to enforce a tax on my customers, I will be threatened and possibly arrested or murdered if I resist arrest.

I am not against self-defense either. What I'm referring to when I talk about kidnapping and murder is when someone disagrees with being taxed(having someone steal from you), you will be arrested(kidnapped) and if you resist being kidnapped, you will potentially be murdered.

Why I argue this is that the whole basis of government throughout history has depended on this system of theft backed up with the threat of murder. It cannot exist without theft and murder. Thus, one could argue, that the government depending on such immoral actions, is an immoral institute in itself.

 

[Burrows14]

I'm glad that you see income taxes and property taxes as immoral, because they are, however excise and sales taxes are too. If I, as a business owner or perhaps someone who owns a private dock, do not wish to enforce a tax on my customers, I will be threatened and possibly arrested or murdered if I resist arrest.

I am not against self-defense either. What I'm referring to when I talk about kidnapping and murder is when someone disagrees with being taxed(having someone steal from you), you will be arrested(kidnapped) and if you resist being kidnapped, you will potentially be murdered.

Why I argue this is that the whole basis of government throughout history has depended on this system of theft backed up with the threat of murder. It cannot exist without theft and murder. Thus, one could argue, that the government depending on such immoral actions, is an immoral institute in itself.

One way to look at things is if you're going to enter into a sales contract with someone, you should pay for the government to guarantee that contract. If you don't want to pay, you get no government guarantee and you can sue in court if there is a breach. You should be able to opt out of certain taxes, but then you will not be entitled to use those government functions such as the court system, public roads, etc. One thing that you really can't opt out of, however, is national defense.

As much as I don't like taxation, it is necessary. Anarchism doesn't and won't work. I do, however, believe that taxes should only cover the bare minimum government functions and should be locally collected and spent.

 

[Vessol]

One way to look at things is if you're going to enter into a sales contract with someone, you should pay for the government to guarantee that contract. If you don't want to pay, you get no government guarantee and you can sue in court if there is a breach. You should be able to opt out of certain taxes, but then you will not be entitled to use those government functions such as the court system, public roads, etc. One thing that you really can't opt out of, however, is national defense.

As much as I don't like taxation, it is necessary. Anarchism doesn't and won't work. I do, however, believe that taxes should only cover the bare minimum government functions and should be locally collected and spent.

What if I was to pay another agency to guarantee my contracts with others?

 

[Burrows14]

What if I was to pay another agency to guarantee my contracts with others?

And how exactly would that work? Insurance? Or would you like to set up a private court system?

 

[Vessol]

And how exactly would that work? Insurance? Or would you like to set up a private court system?

Either are two examples of such. Basically a private agency that is set up to guarantee contracts between individuals.

 

[idiom]

So when is theft immoral?

When is kidnapping immoral?

When is murder immoral?

These are all always immoral by definition.

However killing is not always murder.

Removing someones money from their person is not always theft.

Controlling a persons physical location is not always kidnapping.

 

[ProIndividual]

Yes, because God insituted human government.

LOL!!!!! Now we're back to Divine Right of Kings! Oh Joy!

Dude, not only am I going to support gay marriage from now on because of you...I'm supporting gay adoption! Keep spreading tyranny and I'll support "worse" too! Keep it up 'tyrant of da Lord'.

The 1796 Treaty of Tripoli reads:


As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.[3]

This is still law, BTW.

Now for the cinflicts of religion and liberty (as if they needed spelled out):

"For rebellion as is the sin of witchcraft." 1 Samuel, 15:23

1 Peter 2:13: "For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right."

Paul wrote in Romans 13:1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resist authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

Holy tyrant love fest!

The Declaration of Independence: "...when a long train of abuses and usurpations... evinces a design to reduce (the people) under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security..."

I think the conflict here is "self-evident".

Do you want me start quoting the important Founders about the subject? I don't think you do...

Stop being a religious bigot, a homophobe, and a tyrant statist who wants to enforce morality at the point of a government gun. You're wrong and immoral for doing so, despite what that myth book says. God wil love you for using reason he gave you, not for being a sheep to tyranny because some dude wrote you should 2,000 years ago.

Good luck you guys trying to reason with him. I hope it goes well.

 

[alucard13mmfmj]

distraction from real issues... this is a way for them to avoid talking about NDAA or being butt buddies with banksters or CISPA.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

For ages many marriages have simply been business or political arrangements with nothing religious about it. Just so happens that what I said completely aligns with what Dr. Paul said. We are all fully capable of defining marriage for ourselves we just don't have the right to force our definition upon others.


Got absolutely no disagreement with that.

Nobody's forcing their definition on others. Like I said, you can call something something it's not, but when you try to act like that reflects reality, you just lose credibility. I don't care what other people's definitions are because they are just wrong. It's not an issue of respect or being open-minded. They're just wrong.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

the same way people on this forum collectively say being gay is a choice, i guess you missed the sarcasm meter.

I guess god was on crack when transgendered folks are born! I guess god damned them for life.

you can believe being gay is wrong but bottom line it is none of yours or mines business unless they are forcing you to marry against your will! It is a non-issue!

You're right on your last point. A non-issue that seems to bring a lot of flac on the Christian community for no reason. As to your second point... what?

As to your first point, there may be certain factors, be it environment or the existence of some genetic tendency, that give someone a tendency toward that lifestyle, but it's not collectivist to say it's not a downright, absolutely pre-determined fact that, if you are gay, you were born that way. You always have choices. Saying being gay can be changed is not collectivist because it's a point about the nature of all human beings, not on a group of human beings' collective behavior.

Also, you must be aware that sarcasm doesn't really show on the internet. You said it in a way that suggested to me like you were serious, so I assumed you were serious. Many people are completely serious when they say that.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I especially like the part where it says to stone disobedient children. Nothing more authentic than that.

First of all, that has nothing to do with authenticity. Do you even know what that word means? Also, that was the Old Testament death penalty. These weren't petty crimes they were talking about. I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Is it wrong to be 5'9"? Is it wrong to be black? Is it wrong to near-sighted?

This ugly mentality that it is up to you to judge people who are born a certain way and look down on them as if you were superior is disgusting. Who in the hell are you to say what is "wrong" and what gives you the right to determine what is moral?

It doesn't matter. The point is that I'm not forcing anyone to bend to my will, so your rampage against me as some sort of "superior being" is erroneous. I never claimed to be better or more moral than a gay person. I sin, too. Everyone does. I don't judge people, but I can respectfully point out what I believe based on my moral code. If I didn't have a moral code, then I wouldn't be able to criticize rape or murder either, because it's all relative.

Also, being gay is NOTHING like being 5'9" or black. That is just silly to even suggest. You have a choice what lifestyle you want to live, no matter how hard it may be to resist those urges, but you don't have a choice what color your skin is. You can always change even the most ingrained tendencies, like alcoholism, or the incontrollable desire to masturbate constantly. Being gay-curious isn't wrong unless you start to act out those tendencies. Being gay isn't something you just have to live with. Many have overcome that. Of course people will say they are faking it and "being something they're not", but that's just because it supports their agenda to do so.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I wish people could just stop giving a damn which sex the other person wants to fuck.

What makes you think people care? That is not what this legislation is all about. It is about forcing the states and the churches to abide by the federal government's dictate to marry gays.

I find it so strange that supposed liberty people would go along with this. I guess some aren't that different than the social cons that they hate so much. All it takes is something they REALLY want and then they are fine with using big government force to cram it down everyone's throats.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Personally this is one of the issues I break away libertarianism from. I'm not a liberterian, never will be, but I agree with libertarianism on most economic positions.

I believe that gay marriage, and even homosexuality, should be illegal. I'm not a theocrat, but I do believe that government cannot go against God's law and Biblical morality. Therefore things such as homosexuality and abortion must be illegal.

Although I agree with your view on Biblical morality, I don't see why it's necessary to have the state enforce that morality, as if the state were authorized to carry out God's good will. Why would you ever think they should have the power to play God?

 

[PaulConventionWV]

That's up to them. There is no law in the world that will make someone give their life to Jesus Christ. That comes from the heart. If someone wants to be an atheist but live an honest, moral life I have no right to interfere with that, nor can I really.

That doesn't change the fact that I don't believe the government has the right to legalize, condone or endorse unnatural, immoral and unethical behavior.

The question isn't what the government should be allowed to legalize. The question is what they should have the power to outlaw. You have it backwards.

 

[Jingles]

I agree with everything Vessol said. It's like I have a second me posting while I'm asleep.

 

[gb13]

This guy just read your article: