Will Gays Stop Paying Their Taxes Because Of Proposition 8?

[nodope0695]

Whether their personal choice is dangerous or unnatural is irrelevant.

Certainly there are gay people that want to force their agenda on others, to receive validation, and the like. Or perhaps there are some that want to receive special benefits for their group only. I don't support any of those things, because they all imply the use of force.

What I do suggest is that marriage is a private affair for which that state should have zero involvement. Given that, there are cases when that private agreement will be between two same-sex adults, or perhaps even three adults.

You either support freedom, or you don't. With freedom comes people doing things that you don't approve of, and they are free to do it because they are not initiating force on you or anyone else.

Freedom is not a buffet from which you can pick and choose.



Of course you have a choice; you have the choice to ignore them. With freedom of association comes the freedom to not associate.

Point well taken, and most of it agreed to. However, you speak of anarchy. This is a nation of laws. Laws are passed to protect rights, and to preserve the well being of society. In that I must differ with you and state that gay marriage, in a legal sense of the word, does not, and can not serve society, in fact it is and would become a detriment to society because no children are produced. Those children that are adopted, or born of artificial insimination would be raised in a home where there would not be a mother AND father. Sure, they'd be loved, but there is a reason for having a mother and father. Just look what comes of so many kids from broken families, or single parents. Gay marriage only serves the selfcentered interests of the two people involved.

To have freedom, we must have a moral foundation. We're losing our freedoms because we have strayed form our moral foundations, and turned whats right and whats wrong into "Whatever makes me feel good." Sometimes it sucks to do the right thing, and some times its fun to do the wrong thing....people seem to be addicted to the "fun" of doing the wrong thing.

 

[dannno]

They lost TWICE in California.

Democracy = Tyranny.

That's why we live in a Constitutional Republic.

They aim to redefine marriage so they might force their personal choices and beliefs on us.

They aren't making you gay. You are so full of yourself.

 

[nickcoons]

Total strawman argument. Are you trying to assert that gay people will now be required by law to break their relationships with a partner?

I am asserting that gay couples will not be able to get married. Marriage is a private affair for which government rightfully has no involvement. It made itself involved when it began issuing marriage licenses, and is now more involved by creating more restrictive criteria under which it will issue a license.

Is it not repulsive that one needs government permission to be married? I would think that people at RPF, of all places, would understand this.

 

[nickcoons]

The current "democratic process" is tyrannical.

Right, becauseit allows the majority to impose their will on the minority, such as with these three states' propositions.

 

[dannno]

Marriage is a private affair for which government rightfully has no involvement.

This is precisely what Ron Paul believes. The government's job is to enforce the contract as long as the terms are reasonable (you can make a marriage contract that states the wife gets to take a pound of the man's flesh if he cheats on her, for example, but the court WILL NOT uphold that portion of the contract)


The government's job is NOT to tell people what they can and cannot put in their contracts, they are only able to discern between what they can and cannot enforce within those contracts.


If marriage went back to being a religious ceremony rather than a government institution, gay people wouldn't even want to get married.

 

[danberkeley]

Right, becauseit allows the majority to impose their will on the minority, such as with these three states' propositions.

Yes. And anyone executing/enforcing/supporting/ these propositions, laws, regulations et. is a tyrant.

 

[nodope0695]

Right, becauseit allows the majority to impose their will on the minority, such as with these three states' propositions.

Well, then, how would you propose to pass laws in the states? They've got to be decided some how...would you have the courts legislating?

 

[nickcoons]

That is how its done on a state level. Read you constitution my friend. What is not delegated to the government, is left to the people or to the states to decide. In this case, the process was followed properly. Just because it pass, and you don't like it doesn''t make it wrong..

It's wrong because it's the initiation of force.

But as a strict constitutionalist, you have no problems with the Income Tax, right? I mean, the Constitution says the government can steal, so it must be okay.

 

[dannno]

Well, then, how would you propose to pass laws in the states? They've got to be decided some how...would you have the courts legislating?

Exactly what happened in California. The courts shut it down because it's unconstitutional. Because it is. The courts aren't always right, this time they were. If they're wrong, eventually it goes to the Supreme Court.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Exactly what happened in California. The courts shut it down because it's unconstitutional. Because it is. The courts aren't always right, this time they were. If they're wrong, eventually it goes to the Supreme Court.

It's a constitutional amendment, and it's not discriminatory. So what is the justification for declaring it unconstitutional?

 

[nodope0695]

It's wrong because it's the initiation of force.

But as a strict constitutionalist, you have no problems with the Income Tax, right? I mean, the Constitution says the government can steal, so it must be okay.

Personnally, I don't care if anybody is gay. I also agree with the dude above in that the state shouldn't even have a thing to say about it....marriage licenses are nothing more than revenue generators...just like driver's licenses and registration.

BUT, why is it so important for the gays to assume the title of marriage and INSIST that their PERSONAL choices be ACCEPTED by people who don't agree with that CHOICE? Isn't that by it's very nature the very intollerence they seem to detest? They're playing the vicitm. Just go be gay, and shut the hell up, I say.

 

[danberkeley]

Veterans enter into a contract with the government. They serve in the military in exchange for certain benefits. As long as one enters into the contract, they should have access to those benefits as well.

I never voluntarily entered into a contract to pay taxes to the government.

That is how its done on a state level. Read you constitution my friend. What is not delegated to the government, is left to the people or to the states to decide. In this case, the process was followed properly. Just because it pass, and you don't like it doesn''t make it wrong. If it had failed to pass, you'd be happy and rejoicing how the system worked, but only because it worked in your favor. You sound like a typical liberal to me.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Also, dont presume to think that I'd be happy and rejoice if it had failed to pass. I've been making the libratarian case the entire time and if you fail to see that, there is something wrong with you.

 

[mediahasyou]

No taxes?
Being gay never looked so good.

:bunchies:

 

[nickcoons]

Point well taken, and most of it agreed to. However, you speak of anarchy.

I haven't made any anarchy-based arguments in this thread.

This is a nation of laws. Laws are passed to protect rights, and to preserve the well being of society. In that I must differ with you and state that gay marriage, in a legal sense of the word, does not, and can not serve society,

So you are saying that every action has to serve society in order to be allowed? How does this thread serve society? Should it be banned if such service cannot be demonstrated?

I'm going on vacation at the end of the month. I'm doing it because I want to, because I can easily afford it, and because my wife and I are acting in our own self-interest. Should we not be allowed to take our vacation because it doesn't serve society?

in fact it is and would become a detriment to society because no children are produced.

Wait a second. So is your argument that if we don't allow same-sex marriage, that gays will default to heterosexual marriages and produce children? Or is your argument that if same-sex marriage was allowed that everyone would be involved in a same-sex marriage and therefore not produce children? Honestly, I don't see either one of those happening, and I don't know how it can be argued that allowing same-sex marriages will mean that no children would be produced.

Those children that are adopted, or born of artificial insimination would be raised in a home where there would not be a mother AND father. Sure, they'd be loved, but there is a reason for having a mother and father. Just look what comes of so many kids from broken families, or single parents.

A gay married couple is not a broken family.

Gay marriage only serves the selfcentered interests of the two people involved.

So do straight marriages. Should we deny marriage licenses to straight people that want to marry each other and have no intention of having children, since they're only marrying for their own self-interest?

To have freedom, we must have a moral foundation. We're losing our freedoms because we have strayed form our moral foundations, and turned whats right and whats wrong into "Whatever makes me feel good." Sometimes it sucks to do the right thing, and some times its fun to do the wrong thing....people seem to be addicted to the "fun" of doing the wrong thing.

You and I are completely in agreement here. However, I think we disagree about what our "moral foundation" is. My moral foundation is simple. Everyone can do whatever they want so long as they don't initiate force on anyone else. That, by the way, also happens to be the definition of freedom.

 

[dannno]

It's a constitutional amendment, and it's not discriminatory. So what is the justification for declaring it unconstitutional?

Free speech, at minimum.

 

[SeanEdwards]

I am asserting that gay couples will not be able to get married. Marriage is a private affair for which government rightfully has no involvement. It made itself involved when it began issuing marriage licenses, and is now more involved by creating more restrictive criteria under which it will issue a license.

Is it not repulsive that one needs government permission to be married? I would think that people at RPF, of all places, would understand this.

Government established the civil institution of marriage, granting it certain benefits, and as such government has authority to define the rules regarding that institution. Government creates ALL kinds of civil institutions and imposes restrictions on who is qualified to receive the benefits of those institutions. This is routine and obvious.

Blind people are not issued drivers licenses. Discrimination?

Fat people are denied the opportunity to earn veteran's benefits. Discrimination?

Minors are denied the opportunity to vote or drink alcohol. Discrimination?

If two gay people jump a fucking broom in their local church, and call themselves husband and wife, then they are totally free to do that. However, they are not free to demand the priveleges and benefits that society has extended to the couples entering into a civil marriage. Just like blind people can't demand a right to drive on public roads.

 

[danberkeley]

Free speech, at minimum.

Free speech? Since when does gay marriage have anything to do with free speech? It is not like gays being prohibited from saying that they are gay and married.

 

[danberkeley]

Government established the civil institution of marriage, granting it certain benefits, and as such government has authority to define the rules regarding that institution. Government creates ALL kinds of civil institutions and imposes restrictions on who is qualified to receive the benefits of those institutions. This is routine and obvious.

Blind people are not issued drivers licenses. Discrimination?

Fat people are denied the opportunity to earn veteran's benefits. Discrimination?

Minors are denied the opportunity to vote or drink alcohol. Discrimination?

If two gay people jump a fucking broom in their local church, and call themselves husband and wife, then they are totally free to do that. However, they are not free to demand the civil priveleges and benefits that society has extended to the couples entering into a civil marriage. Just like blind people can't demand a right to drive on public roads.

I'd take it a step further and get rid of the state.

 

[nickcoons]

Well, then, how would you propose to pass laws in the states? They've got to be decided some how...would you have the courts legislating?

The state legislature is charged with passing laws. However, the only valid laws are the ones that are meant to protect individual rights, which means they are to protect against the initiation of force and fraud. Any law that infringes on this principle is an invalid law, should not be passed, and should not be enforced. Additionally, courageous people should peacefully not abide by such laws.

Given that, the state legislature has very little work that needs to be done each year (passing the budget should be their biggest task). It was always intended to be a part-time job (in New Hampshire it pays $100/year).

 

[nickcoons]

BUT, why is it so important for the gays to assume the title of marriage and INSIST that their PERSONAL choices be ACCEPTED by people who don't agree with that CHOICE? Isn't that by it's very nature the very intollerence they seem to detest? They're playing the vicitm. Just go be gay, and shut the hell up, I say.

As I mentioned before, there are certainly gays that want special rights for their group, just as there are such people in any group. I don't support "special rights" for anyone. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any special rights that gay people are asking for though.

Allowing same-sex marriage isn't insisting that anyone accept their personal choice, any more than allowing Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. means we need to accept those personal choices. We are free to ignore them and the choices they've made.

When we create that laws that don't allow them to engage in contractual relationships (which is what marriage is, or should be) with whomever they want, and we say that their relationship shouldn't be allowed because it's dangerous, unnatural, and doesn't serve society, it is then we who are insisting that they accept our personal choices. If no law exists regulating relationships or contracts in this way, then no one is forced to accept anyone's personal choices.