Will Gays Stop Paying Their Taxes Because Of Proposition 8?

[nodope0695]

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

A free society based on a MORAL FOUNDATION. What part of that are you not understanding???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

There can be no freedom with our a higher moral standard. Have you not read the founding fathers?

Oh, wait, you're the dude arguing this as a first ammendment issue....come on man, admit it...You're a liberal shill, aren't you? C'mon, its okay....liberals are people too, but alas, in the words of Mike Savage, "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

 

[nickcoons]

Marriage HAS in fact been around for thousands of years - BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

But it's never been legally required to be that way; it was simply the choice of the adults involved.

What's next, polygamy?

Sure, why not? How would that infringe on your rights?

What then, should I be allowed to marry my sister too?

Yes.

There MUST be a moral boundary.

Agreed.. the moral boundary is "You can do as you like so long as you do not initiate force or fraud against anyone."

This gay marriage thing is but one more way that our directionless society has lowered the bar for what is right and wrong.

What is right and wrong is defined by the moral boundary I specified above.

And, its being pushed by a comparitely small group of people how have CHOSEN the lifestyle.

All lifestyles, including a heterosexual one, are chosen.

 

[nickcoons]

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

Question your clarity before questioning my integrity. It's often a safer bet and less insulting.

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.

What benefits does government give to people that are legally married? Government can only give "benefits" at the expense of others. The only benefit that married couples receive are things that the state took from them illegitimately, and then claims to bestow upon them via a marriage license.

 

[zach]

I'd find it difficult to say about my boyfriend, "Oh, this is my committed partner.." if we were in a civil union.

This isn't about uprooting any traditional values. It's about being able to say, "This is my husband" just like any of my other friends who are proud to say such a thing. To believe that I can't say or enjoy the same thing like another person is discrimination. If marriage is a religious term, then why does the government have trouble keeping away from it?

 

[dannno]

A free society based on a MORAL FOUNDATION. What part of that are you not understanding???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

There can be no freedom with our a higher moral standard. Have you not read the founding fathers?

Oh, wait, you're the dude arguing this as a first ammendment issue....come on man, admit it...You're a liberal shill, aren't you? C'mon, its okay....liberals are people too, but alas, in the words of Mike Savage, "Liberalism is a mental disorder."

A moral standard that PROTECTS people and their property from the harm of others. Gay people aren't harming you by entering into a contract with each other. They are already sinning. They are already living together. All they want is a god damn contract, and you want the government to force them to make it a certain way because of some sacred belief you have about a word.


Since when does defending the first amendment make somebody a liberal shill?

 

[nickcoons]

A free society based on a MORAL FOUNDATION. What part of that are you not understanding???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

A free society is, by definition, based on freedom. If it is based on anything else, then it's not a free society.

In a free society, I can do anything I want, as long as I'm not harming anyone else or infringing on their right to do anything they want. Why is that so hard to understand?

Where do your morals come from, if not from the philosophy of freedom?

 

[danberkeley]

I'd find it difficult to say about my boyfriend, "Oh, this is my committed partner.." if we were in a civil union.

This isn't about uprooting any traditional values. It's about being able to say, "This is my husband" just like any of my other friends who are proud to say such a thing. To believe that I can't say or enjoy the same thing like another person is discrimination. If marriage is a religious term, then why does the government have trouble keeping away from it?

Again, if you simply want to say that you are married with someone else of the same sex, why do you need recognition from the state? There are already religious institutions that marry gay couples. A non-gay Catholic can get married through the Catholic church and say that he is married without having to get a marriage license from the state.

 

[nodope0695]

But it's never been legally required to be that way; it was simply the choice of the adults involved.



Sure, why not? How would that infringe on your rights?



Yes.



Agreed.. the moral boundary is "You can do as you like so long as you do not initiate force or fraud against anyone."



What is right and wrong is defined by the moral boundary I specified above.



All lifestyles, including a heterosexual one, are chosen.

Heterosexuality is not "chosen". It is NATURAL. Heterosexuals make kids, perpetuating the species. They raise kis in balanced homes. The idea that homosexuality is "natural" is preposterous. It serves no purpose for procreation, and is harmful to the people who engage in it. It is done for one reason only: Because it feels good. Thats it. Give me another reason why its done. Show me one benifit to homosexuality other than the hedonistic, self centered benifits to those who engage in it, and perhaps a nicely decorated apartment.

You argument has no merit. Moral standards aren't made by men! There is a higher standard, that transends us.... You claimed earlier that freedom isn't something we can pick and choose. Nay, I say sir. Freedom in based on morals. You can not pick and choose right and wrong. They are the absolutes. Freedom is limited by standards. I'm free to shoot heroin (regardless of its illegality)...but soon, my freedom will cause me to violate the rights of others, and eventually kill me. My point is shooting heroin was wrong to start with. Just becasue I'm free to do something doesn't make it right.

 

[zach]

A free society is, by definition, based on freedom. If it is based on anything else, then it's not a free society.

In a free society, I can do anything I want, as long as I'm not harming anyone else or infringing on their right to do anything they want. Why is that so hard to understand?

Where do your morals come from, if not from the philosophy of freedom?

QFT. Why would a homo/bi sexual's living be a threat to someone else's personal life if all they are doing is living with someone who they love?

 

[Theocrat]

Proposition 8 is a Flop Anyway

I think this whole Proposition 8 referendum misses the entire point to begin with. First of all, the definition nor legality of a marriage should never be decided by what the "51%" believes is right. It would be equally wrong for that same majority to vote that heterosexual marriages are illegal.

The issue here is whether or not the civil government has the legitimacy to be involved in what marriage is in the first place, and, of course, they do not. God has already defined marriage as between one man and one woman for life, and God doesn't stutter in His decrees. It's His institution, not the State's. So Proposition 8 failed in principle ere its first jot upon the legislative agenda of the state of California.

 

[SeanEdwards]

QFT. Why would a homo/bi sexual's living be a threat to someone else's personal life if all they are doing is living with someone who they love?

That is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Nobody cares who gay people live with, or what they do in the privacy of their home.

The issue is that gay people are trying to use the power of the state to force other people to extend them social benefits that they have no right to claim.

So many people want to turn this argument into some weird referendum on whether gayness is a valid lifestyle, or not, and that is totally besides the point! This prop 8 thing was not a vote on whether gay people are good or bad. It was a vote on whether the civil institution of marriage should be redefined, and the voters said no, it should not be redefined.

 

[nickcoons]

Heterosexuality is not "chosen".

I didn't say that. I said the heterosexual lifestyle is chosen.

Heterosexuals make kids, perpetuating the species.

And in the presence of same-sex marriages, heterosexuals will continue to make kids and perpetuate the species.

They raise kis in balanced homes.

Well, sometimes .

The idea that homosexuality is "natural" is preposterous. It serves no purpose for procreation, and is harmful to the people who engage in it. It is done for one reason only: Because it feels good. Thats it. Give me another reason why its done. Show me one benifit to homosexuality other than the hedonistic, self centered benifits to those who engage in it, and perhaps a nicely decorated apartment.

I didn't say homosexuality was natural; I didn't say it served the purpose of procreation; I didn't say that it wasn't harmful to those who engage in it. In fact, I'll concede for the sake of argument that your statement "It is done for one reason only: Because it feels good" is correct. My question would then be, so what?

My wife and I didn't marry to have children; and we didn't marry to benefit society. We married for our own selfish benefit, simply because we want to be married. By your criteria, we should have been denied that right.

You argument has no merit.

I believe the same about your argument.

Moral standards aren't made by men! There is a higher standard, that transends us....

Huh?

You claimed earlier that freedom isn't something we can pick and choose. Nay, I say sir. Freedom in based on morals. You can not pick and choose right and wrong. They are the absolutes.

That's right. The only thing that's "wrong" is that which initiates force or fraud on others. Everything else should be allowed. Whether it's "right" is up to any given individual, not for some to impose on others.

Freedom is limited by standards.

Freedom is limited only in that force or fraud is not initiated against others. Those are the standards.

I'm free to shoot heroin (regardless of its illegality)...but soon, my freedom will cause me to violate the rights of others, and eventually kill me. My point is shooting heroin was wrong to start with. Just becasue I'm free to do something doesn't make it right.

But how do you jump from "it's not right" to "it should be illegal"?

 

[BuddyRey]

Heterosexuality is not "chosen". It is NATURAL. Heterosexuals make kids, perpetuating the species. They raise kis in balanced homes. The idea that homosexuality is "natural" is preposterous. It serves no purpose for procreation, and is harmful to the people who engage in it. It is done for one reason only: Because it feels good. Thats it. Give me another reason why its done. Show me one benifit to homosexuality other than the hedonistic, self centered benifits to those who engage in it, and perhaps a nicely decorated apartment.

This whole argument seems spurious and based on faulty logic to me. Firstly, the argument that homosexuality is not natural is way off. The animal kingdom is full of species that engage in homosexual behavior, from lower primates to housepets. I'm not attempting to say that homosexuality is either right or wrong, but an argument based on the "naturalness" of homosexuality is already decided by the reams of zoological data that flies in the face of such claims.

Secondly, even if homosexuality isn't "natural", does that inherently make it something that is either harmful enough or immoral enough to a society that government would have any right to abolish it? If a material or act being unnatural is enough to make it verboten in society, why haven't Christian Conservatives called for the rolling back of synthetic fabrics, heavy machinery, computer technology, and every other development that the wonders of human ingenuity have brought us since the days in which Adam and Eve first cavorted around in fig leaves in the Garden of Eden?

I'm a Christian myself, though not a Conservative Christian by any stretch of the imagination, and I don't mind committed gay couples calling their relationships whatever they want to, especially when I know that, through monogamy, they're staying safe and avoiding the *real* spiritual, emotional, and physical dangers of promiscuity, unfulfilled lives, and STD's.

 

[dannno]

The issue is that gay people are trying to use the power of the state to force other people to extend them social benefits that they have no right to claim.

The non-gay married couples don't deserve the benefits, either, then. You admit they are being treated differently by the state, yet you are ok with this.

 

[nickcoons]

The issue is that gay people are trying to use the power of the state to force other people to extend them social benefits that they have no right to claim.

And what gives heterosexually-married couples the right to claim benefits?

A "benefit" in this context is either something that is provided by taking it from others; or it is something the state denies and then reissues as a privilege, something that it had no right to deny in the first place.

 

[SeanEdwards]

Question your clarity before questioning my integrity. It's often a safer bet and less insulting.

Oh my post was clear, and I meant to be insulting. I'm happy to see that your reading comprehension skills did permit you to pick that up.

What benefits does government give to people that are legally married?

There's a whole raft of perks and benefits, from taxes, to social security benefits, to medical coverage, and on and on. Those stupid stimulus packages that our government keeps passing explicitly give more money to married couples.

Personally I think it's all bullshit, and that the government has no business doing any of that shit. The state should only deal with citizens as individuals, and all individuals should be treated equally.

However, since the state IS in the "hand out cheese to certain groups" business, then I have every right to express my opinion as a voter on how those groups should be defined.

 

[dannno]

I think this whole Proposition 8 referendum misses the entire point to begin with. First of all, the definition nor legality of a marriage should never be decided by what the "51%" believes is right. It would be equally wrong for that same majority to vote that heterosexual marriages are illegal.

The issue here is whether or not the civil government has the legitimacy to be involved in what marriage is in the first place, and, of course, they do not. God has already defined marriage as between one man and one woman for life, and God doesn't stutter in His decrees. It's His institution, not the State's. So Proposition 8 failed in principle ere its first jot upon the legislative agenda of the state of California.

Exactly. When gay people get married by their church, God fearing Christians can rest-assured that it is not sanctioned by God. The gays are just using their freedom of speech and religion and not hurting anybody (by getting married..they may be hurting themselves with the butt sex, who knows, that isn't the issue and nodope has admitted that much). If straight married people want special privileges for being married, then they should be given to everyone.

 

[SeanEdwards]

And what gives heterosexually-married couples the right to claim benefits?

A "benefit" in this context is either something that is provided by taking it from others; or it is something the state denies and then reissues as a privilege, something that it had no right to deny in the first place.

This is a seperate issue, and one I expect we're in agreement on. I don't think the state should be offering anyone benefits for being married. The state should have nothing to do with marriage at all. But that's not the world we live in.

 

[hypnagogue]

This thread reeks of bigotry.

 

[nodope0695]

Nickcoons, I've got to get some sleep, so I'll just say that we'll have to agree to disagree on this topic...I did find it quite stimulating, and I actually learned something.

Please note, I don't hate gays, nor do I assume to prevent them from practicing their lifestyle, regardless of my opinion that its harmful, and self-centered. My main objection is the attempt by the gay movement to redefine marriage.

I respect your opinion, and apologize for my, should we say, passion on the subject...I meant no offense to you. We are on the same team at the end of the day. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if we all agreed on everything, this would be one helluva boring forum!

Ciao.