Will Gays Stop Paying Their Taxes Because Of Proposition 8?

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



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.
Click to expand...


Libertarian yes, anarchy, no. Moral foundation, yes. Always do something because it feels good? No....
 
SeanEdwards said:
Government established the civil institution of marriage, granting it certain benefits, and as such government has authority to define the rules regarding that institution.
Click to expand...

That's absurd. Marriage has existed for thousands of years, and government has only been involved for about the last century. Government most certainly did not create the institution of marriage.
 
nickcoons said:
That's absurd. Marriage has existed for thousands of years, and government has only been involved for about the last century. Government most certainly did not create the institution of marriage.
Click to expand...

Marriage HAS in fact been around for thousands of years - BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. What's next, polygamy? "It's my constitutional right to have four wives." What then, should I be allowed to marry my sister too? "Government can't tell me who I can marry...I love her, yer honor!" There MUST be a moral boundary. How about marrying our pets too. Sheep farmers would love that one.

This gay marriage thing is but one more way that our directionless society has lowered the bar for what is right and wrong. And, its being pushed by a comparitely small group of people how have CHOSEN the lifestyle.
 
Last edited:
nodope0695 said:
Marriage HAS in fact been around for thousands of years - BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. What's next, polygamy? "It's my constitutional right to have four wives." How about marrying our pets too. Sheep farmers would love that one.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with polygamy? Your ancestors were polygamists, and you turned out alright.
 
nodope0695 said:
Marriage HAS in fact been around for thousands of years - BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. What's next, polygamy? "It's my constitutional right to have four wives." How about marrying our pets too. Sheep farmers would love that one.
Click to expand...

Dont mention that in California. Farm animals already have more rights than gays. And it all happened the same day Obama was elected Saviour in Chief.
 
nodope0695 said:
Marriage HAS in fact been around for thousands of years - BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. What's next, polygamy? "It's my constitutional right to have four wives." How about marrying our pets too. Sheep farmers would love that one.
Click to expand...

If I were living with 4 women and not harming any of them, what right does the government have to tell me I can't live that way?

Why can't I make a contract with each of them?

By the way, I can marry two pieces of wood and glue them together. Language has very little meaning over actions.
 
nickcoons said:
That's absurd. Marriage has existed for thousands of years, and government has only been involved for about the last century. Government most certainly did not create the institution of marriage.
Click to expand...

It seems almost all of your posts are strawman arguments. What's up with that?

If you actually read what I wrote, you would see that I said:

"Government established the civil institution of marriage, granting it certain benefits, and as such government has authority to define the rules regarding that institution."

The word "civil" was included in the above sentence because it actually has an important meaning, in that it distinguishes between the legal defintion of marriage as recognized by the state, and the religious definition of marriage that has existed since who knows when.
 
SeanEdwards said:
It seems almost all of your posts are strawman arguments. What's up with that?

If you actually read what I wrote, you would see that I said:

"Government established the civil institution of marriage, granting it certain benefits, and as such government has authority to define the rules regarding that institution."

The word "civil" was included in the above sentence because it actually has an important meaning, in that it distinguishes between the legal defintion of marriage as recognized by the state, and the religious definition of marriage that has existed since who knows when.
Click to expand...

Man.. you're so close if you would only apply the first ammendment to your thinking I think you'd have it.
 
dannno said:
If I were living with 4 women and not harming any of them, what right does the government have to tell me I can't live that way?

Why can't I make a contract with each of them?

By the way, I can marry two pieces of wood and glue them together. Language has very little meaning over actions.
Click to expand...

You cant make a contract between you and wood. (no pun intended)
 
dannno said:
If I were living with 4 women and not harming any of them, what right does the government have to tell me I can't live that way?

Why can't I make a contract with each of them?

By the way, I can marry two pieces of wood and glue them together. Language has very little meaning over actions.
Click to expand...

Move to Saudi Arabia and have at it then. What century are you living in, dude?????
 
dannno said:
Man.. you're so close if you would only apply the first ammendment to your thinking I think you'd have it.
Click to expand...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ok, I'm looking at it, and I don't see how it's relevant at all. You'll have to explain yourself more thoroughly to make your point, because right now I'm not seeing it.
 
dannno said:
I fight against those things as well as Prop 8. You can too :)
Click to expand...

I agree the state, and the gov't should have nothing to say about it....but they do have a say in it, and that s the way it is right now. In this case, the gays brought this on themselves....they have Civil Unions. What's so wrong with that?
 
SeanEdwards said:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ok, I'm looking at it, and I don't see how it's relevant at all. You'll have to explain yourself more thoroughly to make your point, because right now I'm not seeing it.
Click to expand...

+1000:bunchies:
 
nodope0695 said:
Move to Saudi Arabia and have at it then. What century are you living in, dude?????
Click to expand...

So you're admitting you don't want a free society??

By the way, I have lived with four girls before. They were my roommates. We could have been all having big orgies, or we could have been just living together plutonically. It's irrelevant what we are doing, to the government, as long as I'm not hurting them.
 
nodope0695 said:
I agree the state, and the gov't should have nothing to say about it....but they do have a say in it, and that s the way it is right now. In this case, the gays brought this on themselves....they have Civil Unions. What's so wrong with that?
Click to expand...

You speak of "poetic justice". I agree. They gays wanted the state to recognize them and it failed them. They believed in the democratic process and it failed them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top