Will Gays Stop Paying Their Taxes Because Of Proposition 8?

Quinn Rogness said:
Same-sex couples deserve every right that heterosexual couples get. Our Constitution aimed to shoot down discrimination and by not allowing gays to get married defies our Constitution that our country should be based off of.
Click to expand...

Rights do not exist for 'couples'.

I don't know what Constitution you are reading, but the one I've read gives the States the power to ban gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
Yongrel missed the boat by not calling for an end to state marriage. Only 3 comments on his page and 15 pages of arguing here. What the fuck are y'all all arguiing about? The only solution for this problem is ending all state involvement in marriage.
 
Gay, drugs, gambling, porn, prostitution etc are not legal in communist countries...wonder why the communists who are running THIS country..are promoting these? To destroy it of course. Demoralizing a country is the FIRST step to taking it over. I am sorry if I offend any gay folk on the forum, i don't mean to..i have nothing against gay people whatsoever, but i am not for gay marriage or making it seem mainstream or traditional. So forgive me if I offend. i quite like gay people and having been in the theatre for so long, have many gay friends. I am just concerned with holding on to our traditions in the usa. i actually hate government being involved in marriage...but that's how it is for now. Tones
 
literatim said:
Rights do not exist for 'couples'.

I don't know what Constitution you are reading, but the one I've read gives the States the power to ban gay marriage.
Click to expand...

Bologna.

Constitutional rights exist for individuals to make contracts with each other, and the government's job is to enforce those contracts. This is a free speech issue, and an equal rights issue.
 
I agree with a few others here that the best course of action is to get government out of marriage altogether—heterosexual, homosexual, all of it.
 
I used to love RAINBOWS, RAINBOW the rock band, RAINBOWS for kids to draw with unicorns, leprechans, pot of gold, etc

Now the kids in gradeschool don't draw rainbows, because it's a GAY SYMBOL. The Gay Community STOLE the RAINBOW.

NASCAR's #24 - Jeff Gordon and Dupont Paints, used to have the Rainbow paint scheme on the race cars and a pit crew uniforms. The pit crew personnel were called: The Rainbow Warriors... that was removed because of the RAINBOW GAY reference/symbolism.

Unniversity of Hawaii's logo was the Rainbow... on the shirts, hats, football helmets, etc... that's all gone.
The University of Hawaiʻi Warriors, University of Hawaiʻi Rainbow Warriors, or University of Hawaiʻi Rainbows are the team names of the men's sports programs at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa.

Prior to the year 2000, the University of Hawaiʻi's men's teams were all referred to as the Rainbow Warriors, complemented by an athletics logo featuring a rainbow. Resisting Ambiguation in Hawaii

At the University of Hawaii, the football team has used the name “Rainbow Warriors” for several years, because the school is located in the Manoa Valley and enjoys rainbows on an almost daily basis. The university’s logo incorporated a rainbow to capture this unique feature of the school’s physical environment. But in 2000, the University of Hawaii decided to disassociate itself from the rainbow symbol. The school renamed the team “the Warriors” and removed the rainbow from its logo.
The GAYS stole something I and many really liked/loved.
bustedtees.0ad5a4344b81fb26e1f6daa80bf1d288.jpg


You can't even wear Tie-Dye Rainbow colored shirts becaus epeople think you advertising GAY Liberations and think your gay. Society has already catagorized the rainbow with Gay/lesbians etc.

NEXT:

The discrimination laws against gays... another preference for a particular group. SAY, that is you exercise your free speech and say or do any derogatory against gays/lesbians, can land you with a ARREST & yes, it's a FELONY now.

Finally,

Aren't we all getting tired of almost EVERY damn movie with either GAY or JEWISH references in the script and scenes?

I know so many that voted against the gay marriage thingy, not because of same sex stuff, but, special advantaged treatment(preference) and laws for a certain group and into respect to altering current laws that removed text out of the traditional marriage laws. Sorta like a specific group TAKING, with special government giveaways to any type of group.

Straight people are tired fo all the preferential treatment and miss their RAINBOWS!
rainbow01_test-700745.jpg
 
Last edited:
dannno said:
Bologna.

Constitutional rights exist for individuals to make contracts with each other, and the government's job is to enforce those contracts. This is a free speech issue, and an equal rights issue.
Click to expand...

Nothing is stopping you from going and signing a specially created contract with whomever you want.
 
Last edited:
revolutionary8 said:
I see your perspective, but I am looking at it from the point of liberty. You have the liberty to move out of a state if the state becomes too heavily burdened by unjust "law" or unjust regulation. This is the beauty of States' rights- one can move to a different state w/in the union that is less inhibitive per say. Federal law is more difficult to escape.
Click to expand...

You are making the "states rights trump the federal government" argument, and I agree with that. However, you are also making the (inadvertently, I hope) "states rights trump individual rights" argument at the same time.

Here's what it should look like:

Individual Rights > States' Rights > Federal Rights

But your argument does this:

Individual Rights < States' Rights > Federal Rights
 
nickcoons said:
I believe I've called for it multiple times in this thread, as have others.
Click to expand...

Good. Why doesn't everybody? Some questions have real answers. We have the answer to the problem of marriage. Abandon state marriage. Now, instead of arguing this dumb shit back and forth we should be debating the solution to the real problem of child custody in divorce cases. Should child custody be decided by courts? No. How could it be decided?

Child custody issues are a big, big problem. I actually believe it might be better if mothers were always given permanent custody after divorce with zero child support. But I am not convinced that is a great solution. Though I am convinced child support payments are horrible. It is a priviledge to be able to raise your children the way you want, no one should have to pay someone else to raise their kids in ways they despise.
 
sratiug said:
Good. Why doesn't everybody? Some questions have real answers. We have the answer to the problem of marriage. Abandon state marriage. Now, instead of arguing this dumb shit back and forth we should be debating the solution to the real problem of child custody in divorce cases. Should child custody be decided by courts? No. How could it be decided?
Click to expand...

Start a new thread for off-topic discussions in the future, please...

sratiug said:
I actually believe it might be better if mothers were always given permanent custody after divorce with zero child support.
Click to expand...

Sexist AND arbitrary, I like it!

sratiug said:
But I am not convinced that is a great solution.
Click to expand...

Then why present it?

sratiug said:
Though I am convinced child support payments are horrible.
Click to expand...

Children cost money and are a responsibility. Two (or more....?) people commit when they have unprotected sex. Courts do an alright job (though my experiences with "divorce courts" as a child left me seething). Judges are there to settle disputes for parents unable to settle themselves. There is no one-size-fits-all answer and thus is why courts are necessary if parents are inept. Going to court over custody of a child is shameful on various levels, but it is the choice and privilege of the parents.

sratiug said:
It is a priviledge to be able to raise your children the way you want, no one should have to pay someone else to raise their kids in ways they despise.
Click to expand...

Again, engaging in unprotected sex gives you the responsibility should something pop up (or pop out, in this case). The two people essentially signed an agreement and again there is no clear answer with libertarian principles. The best course of action is to avoid unwanted children (or unloving relationships) altogether.
 
Kludge said:
Children cost money and are a responsibility. Two (or more....?) people commit when they have unprotected sex. Courts do an alright job (though my experiences with "divorce courts" as a child left me seething). Judges are there to settle disputes for parents unable to settle themselves. There is no one-size-fits-all answer and thus is why courts are necessary if parents are inept. Going to court over custody of a child is shameful on various levels, but it is the choice and privilege of the parents.
Click to expand...
I am unconvinced of the truth of the bolded statement. Clan warfare might be preferable.

Court ordered child support payments are a divorce subsidy.
 
Last edited:
sratiug said:
Court ordered child support payments are a divorce subsidy.
Click to expand...

Having unprotected sex in an insecure relationship is the fault of the parents and the misfortune of the child. If someone chooses to marry someone who is so selfish (not that there's anything wrong with it -- the selfishness, anyways), that's their fault. With freedom comes responsibility.



I should note my case in "divorce court" as a child (it's somewhat irrelevant, feel free to skip it unless you're bored). I was 8 and told my father that I didn't like living with him and preferred to live with my mom (not as harshly). Before I said that, he told me he'd respect whatever decision I made. Of course, after I disagreed with him, he turned on his previous statement (something I've never forgiven nor been offered an apology for).

My mother had more time at home, was already near my school (my dad had moved a couple counties away to live with the woman he committed adultery with), and had a higher paying job than my father. Even so, the judge ordered me to live with my father for ~75% of the time and my mom ~25% of the time because the judge felt two parents (and two incomes) were far better for me than one. I hated the judge and my dad for a few years...

When I was 14, I asked my mom to take me to court again for Christmas (merged with Birthday gift since they were both so close and the fees so high). I asked the lawyer that I meet with the judge, whether in private or formally in the courtroom. He first had me in his chambers and calmly asked me questions about my life and relationship with my father and mother. I told him of my dislike of my dad as a father and how I didn't feel he had anything to offer me that would help me grow. He usually nodded in sympathy or quickly followed up with another question.

I had been a A student all my life up until a few years before when I became very dissatisfied with my living conditions (at that point, I generally sat in my room all day and only went outside when ordered to or grounded -- yep, didn't mistype that). The past year I started receiving Bs and Cs (and even a D one quarter) in school and my dad's lawyer decided to present my report card during the trial as some type of attack on my credibility (???). Anyways, the judge went batshit crazy and had me brought into the courtroom (something I hadn't prepared for at all) where the judge told me that I was going to end up as a washed up crimelord in a group home (no joke). He then started asking me personal questions (and I admit, I had things to hide at the time). I kept freezing and making myself look like both an idiot and a fraud. By the time it was over, the judge merely gave my mom rights to child support and shifted the "parenting" times around (giving my mom slightly more than half of the time on normal weeks but gave most of the holidays to my dad).

I was very lucky at 16. My dad was moved to working at times that made it impossible for him to have me there. I (and he) had the painful experience of having it drawn out of me (by my stepmother, who later blamed me for making him cry -- the first time I had ever witnissed it) that I neither loved nor respected my dad and that I hated being in his house and custody. Thus, he finally let me go. I lived with my mom henceforth, seeing my dad for a day or two every month out of politeness.

This story was meant to make two points. 1) At least one judge is totally incompetent and people need to more closely select who represents them and 2) that an arbitrary ruling (such as simply having the mother take care of a child every time) is unacceptable and unlibertarian. Had the court ruled in my best interest (or had my father respected my wishes) in either case, I'm fairly certain I would have had a better childhood (not that I'm complaining about what I had -- it was usually very fun, though my idea of fun was hitting two rocks together on a stump and seeing which one would break first).
 
nickcoons said:
You are making the "states rights trump the federal government" argument, and I agree with that. However, you are also making the (inadvertently, I hope) "states rights trump individual rights" argument at the same time.

Here's what it should look like:

Individual Rights > States' Rights > Federal Rights

But your argument does this:

Individual Rights < States' Rights > Federal Rights
Click to expand...

you lost me there. I see what you are trying to say, but I don't agree with it. In a true Republic, the gays would have every right to form a personal contract and a personal union, as even the minority are afforded the same rights as the majority. However, in a democracy, the majority wins. In our current state of affairs, if the state votes down an initiative, then the individual still has the liberty to move to a state that shares his views (ie the Free State Project or in this case Massachusettes?).
In a perfect world, or a true Republic, there would be no state or federally mandated Marriage Licenses, and as one poster pointed out earlier, the marriage license was installed in order to keep blacks from marrying whites. Just because a marriage license is supposedly "necessary" to define "marriage" to the state does not mean that the individuals must obtain a marriage license in order to be committed to one another.

That brings me to wonder- does common law marriage apply to gay couples?
 
Last edited:
sratiug said:
I am unconvinced of the truth of the bolded statement. Clan warfare might be preferable.

Court ordered child support payments are a divorce subsidy.
Click to expand...

You really should start a new thread on this topic sratiug, it is an interesting topic that should be discussed. I believe that children should be supported, and they are a victim of divorce, not a "subsidy" of divorce. I have NO sympathy for dead beat dads and moms, and unfortunately the courts are needed in certain instances of injustice.
You spray, you pay.
Reading your story Kludge, it gives me even LESS faith in the courts, (as if that is possible lol) but what other option does a woman (or man) have when it comes to making sure that each parent is held accountable for their responsibilities as parents?
 
Last edited:
Here the Bible collides with liberty.

I, for one, side with liberty. Give gays their rights. If you Christians want to stone them to death because of the way they were born (it's been proven not to be a choice, those who make a "choice" are generally bisexual), then fine, do so, but you will go to prison for it. The Bible says nothing about not allowing gays to get married.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top