Will Gays Stop Paying Their Taxes Because Of Proposition 8?

[nickcoons]

They lost TWICE in California. They aim to redefine marriage so they might force their personal choices and beliefs on us. They want to LEGISLATE A CHOICE, A FEELING. They are fucking idiots. I don't care if they're gay, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna have a law forcing me to agree with thier personal choice. FTS.

How does allowing a gay couple to marry force you to agree with anything? It doesn't, and the claim that it does is ridiculous. It is not your right nor obligation to decide relationship consenting adults can have. By preventing consenting adults from engaging in mutually-consenting relationships, you are the one forcing them to agree with you.

 

[nodope0695]

I read that laws are on the books in california that grant gays all the benefits...I swear, I don't know what their bitch is...I think they just need someting to protest about so they can get grants for all their non profits. Tones

They seek one thing: Validation for a personal choice they know is dangerous, and unnatural. They believe that by assuming the tag of marriage, and the benifits that go with it, we the str8 folks would have no choice but to accept thier BEHAVIOR as normal, and acceptable.

Its all bullshit, and serves NOBODY but the gay agenda. They seek rights for a choice...plain malarki.

 

[nickcoons]

Arnt you running for Congress or something?

You've taken my comment out of context. When Benjamin Franklin said that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, this is exactly what he was referring to. Democracy allows the majority to impose their will on the minority, and that's what happens when propositions go on the ballot that prevent adults from engaging in mutually consenting relationships.

Using democracy in order to do something like elect officials, something that is not inherently imposing on the freedoms of anyone, is not bad in and of itself. When people believe that the democratic process can be used to force their will on non-violent individuals, that is when it becomes tyrannical, and that was the context in which my comment was made.

 

[danberkeley]

Hey, I like Coke, you like Pepsi....should I have my own table at the resturaunt? What if I feel guilty about my love of Coke? Should I force my Coke on all Pepsi lovers in order to get validation for my love of Coke? If the Pepsi folks tell me that they prefer their drink, and find my beverage of choice too different to consider, then should I dress up in Coke regalia, and march down the street seeking to force others to agree with my love of Coke? Should I endeavor to force others to accept me for my love, while at the same time disregarding thier personal choice?

No. Not by force. Besides, there are restaurants that only serve Coke. Doesnt that descriminate against people who CHOOSE to drink Pepsi? Descrimination laws are stupid. Let the free market decide!


Him for president! ---> :bunchies:

 

[tonesforjonesbones]

Yes I agree...they want to be considered mainstream. tones

 

[nickcoons]

Hey, I like Coke, you like Pepsi....should I have my own table at the resturaunt? What if I feel guilty about my love of Coke? Should I force my Coke on all Pepsi lovers in order to get validation for my love of Coke? If the Pepsi folks tell me that they prefer their drink, and find my beverage of choice too different to consider, then should I dress up in Coke regalia, and march down the street seeking to force others to agree with my love of Coke? Should I endeavor to force others to accept me for my love, while at the same time disregarding thier personal choice?

Your analogy is completely backwards. It is those that support an amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage that are forcing their "love of Coke" on everyone else.

If you love Coke and someone else loves Pepsi, you should be able to get along peacefully in spite of the difference.

If you are heterosexual and someone else is homosexual, you should be able to get along peacefully in spite of the difference.

 

[Antonius Stone]

2000: Proposition 22 (law that makes California not recognize same-sex marriages) passes 62-38
2008: Proposition 8 (amendment to define Marriage as between a man and a woman) passes 52-48

It would appear that popular opinion on Gay marriage has shifted by a fairly large margin in 8 years.

So yes, the "people have spoken" but I wouldn't be surprised if they "speak" again on this issue in a few years or so.

 

[nodope0695]

How does allowing a gay couple to marry force you to agree with anything? It doesn't, and the claim that it does is ridiculous. It is not your right nor obligation to decide relationship consenting adults can have. By preventing consenting adults from engaging in mutually-consenting relationships, you are the one forcing them to agree with you.

Uh, no. Let 'em be gay if they want. But they are seeking special rights and privleges reserved for marriage of man and woman. THEY have made the choice to assume the gay lifestyle. Nobody is saying they can't be gay. What the voters said was that there would be no redefinition of marriage. Period. Two gays getting "married" serves NO SOCIETAL PURPOSE. It doen not perpetuate the species, and is NOT GOOD FOR CHILDREN. All gay marriage serves is the hedonistic, selfserving, selfish, desires of the gays involved.

 

[danberkeley]

You've taken my comment out of context. When Benjamin Franklin said that democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner, this is exactly what he was referring to. Democracy allows the majority to impose their will on the minority, and that's what happens when propositions go on the ballot that prevent adults from engaging in mutually consenting relationships.

Using democracy in order to do something like elect officials, something that is not inherently imposing on the freedoms of anyone, is not bad in and of itself. When people believe that the democratic process can be used to force their will on non-violent individuals, that is when it becomes tyrannical, and that was the context in which my comment was made.

The current "democratic process" is tyrannical.

 

[nodope0695]

2000: Proposition 22 (law that makes California not recognize same-sex marriages) passes 62-38
2008: Proposition 8 (amendment to define Marriage as between a man and a woman) passes 52-48

It would appear that popular opinion on Gay marriage has shifted by a fairly large margin in 8 years.

So yes, the "people have spoken" but I wouldn't be surprised if they "speak" again on this issue in a few years or so.

Like it or not, the democratic process of California was followed, and NOT by a mass of idiots. So if it had failed to pass, would you claim it was because of a mass of geniouses? That is how it is done at the state level, and that is what should be respected by the gays. Running and crying to the 9th Circus Court is just plain proposterous.

 

[SeanEdwards]

and that's what happens when propositions go on the ballot that prevent adults from engaging in mutually consenting relationships.

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

Clearly, that is not the case.

If I put on military fatigues, and goose step around, I'm still not eligible for veteran's benefits. Am I being oppressed? Are my rights being denied? Or is it that the institution of military service has certain requirements that I have not met (possibly through no fault of my own)?

 

[Mesogen]

How the hell do you discriminate against a PERSONAL PREFERENCE????????.

Ok then, marriage between Christians is hereby abolished. It's just a personal preference, a lifestyle choice.

You people are NOT for freedom or liberty. You believe that people's rights can be determined by majority decision and that if the majority decides to take away your rights, then you are all for it.

 

[robert4rp08]

How the hell do you discriminate against a PERSONAL PREFERENCE????????

CIVIL UNIONS ARE THE SAME THING!!!!!!! ITS THE NAME, "MARRIAGE" THAT THE GAYS WANT. THEIR AIM IS TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE AND PUSH THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE ON STRAIGHT PEOPLE. They cry about intollerence, yet don't practice what the fuck they preach....

Yeah, I know. The entire 'debate' is over the use of a word.

1. Do you support a limited government? If yes, then why do you support the government regulating marriage?

2. Do you support contracts between individuals? If yes, then why do you support government regulating this fundamental right?

3. Do you support allowing churches and other private organizations doing as they so choose? If yes, then why do you support the government regulating private organizations?

4. Do you support anti-collectivism? If yes, then why do you treat 'them gays' as such rather than as individuals?

So, if two people of the same sex agree to get married, and a church agrees to marry them the government can void the contracts?

And a frigging constitutional amendment to define a word? Since when did the government become a dictionary? What word are they going to define next? How about going straight for 'love'? Or how about the government just decides exactly whom should get married, then we can get rid of 'interracial marriage' and 'interfaith marriage' too!

 

[nickcoons]

They seek one thing: Validation for a personal choice they know is dangerous, and unnatural.

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.

They believe that by assuming the tag of marriage, and the benifits that go with it, we the str8 folks would have no choice but to accept thier BEHAVIOR as normal, and acceptable.

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

 

[nodope0695]

The current "democratic process" is tyrannical.

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.

 

[Danke]

A marriage license is a "privilege" granted by the state. Not a right.

You can marry anyone or thing you want, but can't get a state license unless it is between one man and one woman.


:bunchies: + :bunchies: = NO.


:bunchies: +

= YES


:bunchies: +

+

= NO. Sorry guys...

 

[robert4rp08]

No.

How can I explain this...

Veterans receive many benefits. Is that discriminatory towards non-veterans? I'd love to be able to get free medical treatment at the VA, but I'm denied. Is that discrimination?

The "benefits" of marriage are for people who are married. Gay people have exactly the same right to marriage as everyone else, thus it's not discriminatory. Marriage is an institution of one man and one woman. Period. The "benefits" of marriage do not belong to anyone and everyone who claims to be married, any more than VA benefits belong to anyone and everyone who claims to be a veteran.

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.

 

[Mesogen]

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.

Ah, so you're not necessarily a libertarian. You're just a fundamentalist, even when it comes to the laws of man.

 

[dannno]

How the hell do you discriminate against a PERSONAL PREFERENCE????????

CIVIL UNIONS ARE THE SAME THING!!!!!!! ITS THE NAME, "MARRIAGE" THAT THE GAYS WANT. THEIR AIM IS TO REDEFINE MARRIAGE AND PUSH THEIR PERSONAL CHOICE ON STRAIGHT PEOPLE. They cry about intollerence, yet don't practice what the fuck they preach....

Oh, I get it. So you're just against freedom of speech.

Just admit you're being fascist. Why the hell do you care what ceremony or legal jargon is used by 'sinners' for 'sinners'? That's their business, you should keep out of it as long as the government isn't telling your preacher that he has to marry gay people.

 

[nickcoons]

Uh, no. Let 'em be gay if they want. But they are seeking special rights and privleges reserved for marriage of man and woman.

Prop 8, as I understand it, was about disallowing rights. No new special privileges would have been conveyed had it failed.

Arizona's similar proposition, Prop 102, was a mere 20 words, and read:

"Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state."

Clearly the intent is to eliminate rights of gays who should otherwise have their freedom of association, and they should have the right to call their relationship whatever they want. Voting for such a proposition legitimizes the state's involvement in marriage.

THEY have made the choice to assume the gay lifestyle. Nobody is saying they can't be gay. What the voters said was that there would be no redefinition of marriage. Period.

Again, I haven't read Prop 8 specifically. But Prop 102 is the voters saying that there will be a constitutional definition of marriage. And again, government should have no involvement in marriage.

Two gays getting "married" serves NO SOCIETAL PURPOSE.

The purpose of marriage is not to serve society. That is a bad arguement.

It doen not perpetuate the species, and is NOT GOOD FOR CHILDREN. All gay marriage serves is the hedonistic, selfserving, selfish, desires of the gays involved.

My wife and I married for our own self-serving, selfish desires as well. We did not get married for the benefit of anyone else, but for ourselves only. Are you saying that this is the criteria for which marriage should be denied?