Will Gays Stop Paying Their Taxes Because Of Proposition 8?

[BuddyRey]

This thread reeks of bigotry.

You said it. It disgusts me that there are so-called libertarians who actually trust in and believe that government has such a defining and intrusive role to play in any individual's private life.

 

[SeanEdwards]

If straight married people want special privileges for being married, then they should be given to everyone.

Should blind people be offered driver's licenses since sighted people are able to get them?

 

[nickcoons]

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.

Your near hidden injection of the word "civil" was in no way clear. Had I even noticed its presence, it's still ambiguous.

How do you propose to engage in "civil" conversation when your intent is to be insulting?

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.

Thank you for clarifying. The tax benefits and stimulus package benefits aren't really benefits; they're just the sum of the benefits received by the individuals. For instance, the last stimulus package called for $600 per person (depending on income) or $1,200 per married couple. That's still $600 per person, so there was really no benefit there.

You and are in complete agreement when suggesting that the state should deal with individuals and there should be no group benefits. Where we differ is in your suggestion that you should voice your opinion on how those groups are defined. By doing so, you're legitimizing the very existence of the thing you oppose; government involvement in group benefits.

 

[nickcoons]

Should blind people be offered driver's licenses since sighted people are able to get them?

This goes back to my comment about legitimizing government roles. The state shouldn't be in the business of issuing any licenses, to drive or otherwise. People should not need government permission to engage in peaceful activities.

So are you going to ask me now whether I support the idea of blind people driving since no licenses should be needed to drive?

 

[RonPaulR3VOLUTION]

The Federal Marriage Amendment Is a Very Bad Idea
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html

 

[Rush]

Marriage is an institution the government should have no control over, and that includes regulating its definition and arbitrarily deciding what benefits to give marriage and which ones to give domestic partnerships. Most of the arguments in favor of Prop. 8 fail to recognize that a marriage is NOT equal in terms of benefits to a domestic partnership. Some of the more prominent differences include a lack of tax benefits and no protection for the transfer of benefits if the partner dies. Also, there fewer court protections meaning someone who is married does not have to testify against his/her spouse, but someone who has a domestic partnership will have to testify against his/her partner if told to do so.

For a comprehensive list of the differences between marriage and domestic partnership click HERE to read them for yourself.

Since the two institutions are not equal, there is no legal argument anyone can provide to justify prohibiting homosexuals from marrying especially in light of the Constitution's clear message of equality under the law. Some may argue that a homosexual is being treated equal under the law since they can still marry the opposite sex, but that simply deflects the true point that letting the government decide which consenting adults can marry and which one cannot is simply not justified in any case.

Now even if a domestic partnership and a marriage were the same and different in name only, that would still violate the Constitution as the courts long ago struck down the notion of "separate but equal institutions" as "inherently unequal". If there exists an institution for a man and woman to enter into a certain binding legal contract, than a man and a man or a woman and a woman should have the right to enter into that same exact binding legal contract.

To arbitrarily draw lines in the sand due to morality smacks of soft paternalism in which the government subtly decreases a certain behavior through psychological warfare. An example of this is the surgeon general's warning on cigarettes, and another is the distinction between a marriage for a man and woman and a domestic partnership for two people of the same sex. Soft paternalism opens the door to hard paternalism as the behavior being stigmatized is further seen as unwanted and options to stop it are seen as more attractive. You can read the full article on soft paternalism and hard paternalism HERE.

The best solution would be to take the word marriage out of the government's hands and let the states retain "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" which would be equal for both homosexual and heterosexual couples. That way those who wish to deny the word marriage to homosexual couples will feel validated that the word has returned into the hands of the people, and those understanding the importance of defending the minority's rights from the tyranny of democracy will also feel validated. If a religion doesn't want to marry a homosexual couple, it won't be forced to, but under the law a homosexual couple would finally have the same exact equal right to a union/partnership as a heterosexual couple which is the only acceptable solution in a truly free society.

 

[lucius]

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....

This is correct and here is the gay activist's playbook:

'After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990's', by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen: the blueprint activists used to implement this campaign using media and vast money to radicalize America-by processes known as desensitization, jamming and conversion.

To understand the techniques gay activist use (same as the Chinese), see this book:

Robert Jay Lifton's 'Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism': the Chinese are the original masters of desensitization, jamming and conversion, Kirk/Madsen mirror it almost word-for-word.

For more understanding on this push of an eugenic lifestyle (die earlier/don't have children) among the straight, read this book:

Dennis Altman's 'The Homosexualization of America': How the cultural elite "reinvent human nature, reinvent themselves."..."promiscuity and 'impersonal sex' are determined more by social possibilities than by inherent differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, or even between men and women."

Know that this whole movement hinges upon junk science, done by this freak pedophile named Kinsey, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, small wonder. This was discovered during the 1954 U.S. Congressional Reece Committee:

Watch Kinsey's Pedophiles: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2061305218446628970&hl=en

 

[Golding]

Homosexuality is NOT an ethnic group, not a nationality, and not a race. It is a personal preference. What's next, are we gonna have laws that protect people who prefer Pepsi over Coke?

By using the State Constitution to maintain benefits only for those who have heterosexual relationships, that's essentially what has already happened.

 

[literatim]

Gays are not being denied anything that straights have the ability to do.

Two gay men cannot marry each other. Two straight men cannot marry each other.

A gay man and a woman can marry each other. A straight man and a woman can marry each other.

 

[literatim]

...

 

[ShaneC]

being too lazy to read the whole thread:

Marriage should not be an issue of the state. period. By definition - it is (err rather, was) a a religious ceremony joining a couple together.

 

[Mini-Me]

I never knew that the government had the authority to enter the business of defining words in the English language based on a majority vote. Are they the dictionary watchdogs now? I was always under the impression that language gets its meaning from people who use it on the social and cultural level. If enough people think marriage means a union between a man and a woman, that's what it means to them. If enough people think marriage means a union between any two consenting adults, that's what it means to them. If enough people think marriage means a union between like thirty different people (Mormons... ), that's what it means to them. "Marriage" is not the first word that people disagree on the meaning of. Other examples include "liberal," "conservative," and "libertarian." If civil unions already have the same subsidized privileges that marriage does (none of which I agree with), and proposition 8 was all about word definitions, then the whole premise behind it was completely ridiculous. "ZOMG I GOTTA PROTECT THE SANCTITY OF MY FAVORITE WORD!!11!" I think I'm going to start a proposition to make sure the state of Ohio defines the word "democracy" to mean "mob rule," because then people will have to agree.

 

[BuddyRey]

Gays are not being denied anything that straights have the ability to do.

Two gay men cannot marry each other. Two straight men cannot marry each other.

A gay man and a woman can marry each other. A straight man and a woman can marry each other.

With all due respect, that perspective makes no sense to me. The point of marriage is two people who love eachother making a commitment. Thus, it follows that, of course, none or very few straight males would marry eachother, or any of the other scenarios you posited. The point is not that some mythical "orthodoxy" is preserved by this legislation, but that people who love eachother are disallowed from having a recognized and legitimized relationship that is co-equal to what any two other consenting adults can have. It is absolutely a denial of rights, and a violation of churches' authority to decide the matter for themselves.

If we were to respect freedom in the U.S. today, many churches would choose to marry homosexual couples, while some would grant unions and others would want to have nothing at all to do with this segment of the population to begin with. But by leaving it up to voluntary organizations and individuals, we take away the power of government to do great harm by forcing the matter in either direction; to subsidize what many people find morally wrong, or to outright criminalize a non-violent action through force, just to make another segment of the population happy that marriage, an institution straight people have already been desecrating and disrespecting for years, will be "protected" from people who don't deserve the same right to a sham marriage as they do!

 

[Brassmouth]

The number of obvious social conservatives (AKA bigots) on this site is disgusting. Usually it's the very same people who backed a theocrat for president and are obsessed with "reviving" their precious GOP.

 

[KenInMontiMN]

The number of obvious social conservatives (AKA Ron Paul) on this site is disgusting. Usually it's the very same people [Ron Paul] who backed a theocrat for president and are obsessed with "reviving" their precious GOP.

Fixt, and that's why they call it RonPaulForums.com, I think? Ron, I guess you shouldn't be so obsessed with reviving your precious GOP.

 

[danberkeley]

You said it. It disgusts me that there are so-called libertarians who actually trust in and believe that government has such a defining and intrusive role to play in any individual's private life.

nodope0695 never claimed to be a libertarian. However, I did but I doubt you were refering to me.

 

[Kludge]

being too lazy to read the whole thread:

Marriage should not be an issue of the state. period. By definition - it is (err rather, was) a a religious ceremony joining a couple together.

+1

State-subsidized marriage is a disgusting and embarrassing blemish on what should be a beautiful contract of unconditional trust.

 

[yongrel]

+1

State-subsidized marriage is a disgusting and embarrassing blemish on what should be a beautiful contract of unconditional trust.

Agreed. However, if marriage is to be institutionalized, it's legality should not be conditional on sexual orientation.

I'm all in favor of getting the government entirely out of marriage, but I also see it as insanity to have laws apply differently to different sexual orientations.

 

[revolutionary8]

“The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to take power from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic principle of conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would weaken gun rights or mandate income redistribution."

-Ron Paul (was right)- October 1, 2004

Homey don't play your game Yongrel.

 

[revolutionary8]

Agreed. However, if marriage is to be institutionalized, it's legality should not be conditional on sexual orientation.

I'm all in favor of getting the government entirely out of marriage, but I also see it as insanity to have laws apply differently to different sexual orientations.

Total bullshit. The LAW should establish equal rights to every citizen of every STATE. Thus, marriage should not be FEDERALLY MANDATED and should be left up to the STATES' citizenship and states' rights, to decide--- which you are voicifericiously against.