Will Gays Stop Paying Their Taxes Because Of Proposition 8?

tmosley said:
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.
Click to expand...

I am a Christian, and I only want to stone those who have the power to invent marriage licenses in order to keep certain people from marrying one another. This does not mean that I would vote to give gays the same restrictions as heterosexuals.

The puppeteers are quite genius in their manipulation, wouldn't you say? We have gays fighting for restrictions, and heteros fighting against freedom, and all because of a "stupid piece of paper".
 
SeanEdwards said:
Should blind people be offered driver's licenses since sighted people are able to get them?
Click to expand...


Terrible examples. Blind people are incapable of driving. Gay couples are capable of physcially having a marriage.

In the case of blind people their disability is stopping them.
In the case of a gay couple it is the government stopping them.
 
jack555 said:
Terrible examples. Blind people are incapable of driving. Gay couples are capable of physcially having a marriage.

In the case of blind people their disability is stopping them.
In the case of a gay couple it is the government stopping them.
Click to expand...

The government = the people that voted for it. Gays just have to accept that most people aren't ok with their lifestyle.
 
BlackTerrel said:
The government = the people that voted for it. Gays just have to accept that most people aren't ok with their lifestyle.
Click to expand...

Hope that was satire. That's no different (IMO) from saying that taxpayers should just get used to their money being taken from them to fund what the majority wants or that potheads should just get used to being persecuted because people aren't "ok" with their lifestyle, or that Jews should be jailed because people aren't "ok" with their religion.


Majority rule NEVER trumps minority rights.
 
Kludge said:
Hope that was satire. That's no different (IMO) from saying that taxpayers should just get used to their money being taken from them to fund what the majority wants or that potheads should just get used to being persecuted because people aren't "ok" with their lifestyle, or that Jews should be jailed because people aren't "ok" with their religion.


Majority rule NEVER trumps minority rights.
Click to expand...


Agreed.
However, you will never see me voting for any sort of "ban" on states' rights. That is the sad state of affairs (as MANUFACTURED BY THE ELITES), whether we like it or not. :(
This is the reason I am against prop 8.
however,
ANY reason to stop paying taxes is good enough for me. :D
 
Last edited:
BlackTerrel said:
The government = the people that voted for it. Gays just have to accept that most people aren't ok with their lifestyle.
Click to expand...
It's no one's business, not even God's. How can you come in here huffing about constitutional slavery and then turn around and tell gays they have to bow down and accept prejudice?

Denying someone the right to self-ownership and free association is a form of slavery, right Bunchies?

:bunchies:!

and a citizen who is not being justly represented by his community and government is not obligated to pay them taxes, right Bunchies?

:bunchies:!
 
Last edited:
revolutionary8 said:
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?).
Click to expand...

What I am saying is that you believe that states rights are more important than individual rights. The reason is because your solution to individuals not agreeing with state law is that they move to some other state (assuming some state exists with which they agree). This is anti-freedom.

If you believed that the individuals' rights were more important than the states', you would recognize that the state had no authority to make laws infringing on the rights of individuals, and that every individual should have the right to exercise all of their freedoms no matter which state they lived in.
 
smileylovesfreedom said:
I say everyone join their tax resistance in solidarity ;)
Click to expand...

That was my initial response to the subject.

"Yay, I don't care what they upset about, but the fact is they are openly talking about tax resistance".

But then reality set in.

And I realized, just like with so many other issues and people, they would turn out to be one trick ponies.

Etheridge may be able to convince herself and others to go along with this, good for them if they do, but I wouldn't look for them to do the same thing in support of property owners or gun owners, just for example.

And until everybody realizes that freedom is not a one trick pony, that a loss of freedom for one will mean the loss of freedom for you, we will continue to be slowly enslaved.
 
NOBODY should be paying taxes.

The problem of "gay marriage" started over married heterosexual couples getting certain benefits from the state that gays, even if living together, could not get because any marriage between them is not recognized.

The purely libertarian solution is: no benefits. If it's your money, nobody can say jack shit to you. This entire issue started over money being taken from one person, and given to another. The persons who were having their money taken were objecting to how that money was being used.


Life is so simple when people stop taking money from one and giving to another.
 
jack555 said:
Terrible examples. Blind people are incapable of driving. Gay couples are capable of physcially having a marriage.
Click to expand...

If marriage is defined as a union of a man and woman, then no, a gay couple is not physically capable of being married.

jack555 said:
In the case of blind people their disability is stopping them.
In the case of a gay couple it is the government stopping them.
Click to expand...

The state is denying both groups the various licenses. You just agree with one denial, and not the other. The point is that the state routinely denies certain classifications to groups or individuals, and that the mere fact of that denial is not always an injustice. Some are claiming that this denial of marriage licenses to gay people is an injustice, and others claim it is not. I don't believe there is a "correct" answer, only a political one.
 
Prop 8 is constitutional and lawful. Didn't Ron always say this should be dealt with at the local level?
 
lodge939 said:
What about polygamy then? Are you in favor of that as well?
Click to expand...

If we allow two consenting adults to enter into a binding legal contract, why not more? What's so great about two?

I think that ultimately, the government should get out of marriage entirely. However, there is a need for some sort of legal contract between any number of consenting individuals that provides for custody of children, mutual property ownership, etc. That way, families of any kind have legal defenses.

For the purposes of a just and lawful society, a polygamous family is no more or less valid than a monogamous family.

So while I myself am not a polygamist, I'd like to see it and other lifestyles equal with the conventional behaviors in a legal sense. There's no good reason why they shouldn't be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top