Gay Rights

[electronicmaji]

Ok assume for a second, we live in some nation called Ansilvania or something.

Assume the constitution says its perfectly fine for the goverment to collect some taxes.

Assume it also says those who are married and have a family deserve a tax cut.


Do you, in this nation, think that gay families and married couples have a right to the same tax cut as straight families?

[asgardshill]

Yes.

[MRoCkEd]

well the government should not recognize marriage
only civil unions
so, yes

[LibertiORDeth]

well the government should not recognize marriage
only civil unions
so, yes

The government shouldn't recognize either, so its N/A.

[electronicmaji]

The constitution in this nation specifically says it has a right to recognize marriages for tax cut purposes.

[newyearsrevolution08]

they shouldn't classify people like that at all as far as the fed's go.

[DFF]

No. Gay sex doesn't produce anything beneficial for the country (unlike heterosexuality which leads to procreation). It only gratifies the gay couple. Ergo, the state shouldn't "reward" gays for giving and receiving pleasure.

[electronicmaji]

Its not about gay sex, reread the opening post. Gays can adopt, or have each others children as well, its not uncommon. I know at least 2 gay couples of the top of my head that have done that, the guys donated sperm and the girls had it applied and carried to term and each couple got one of the children and raised it.

[yongrel]

Is it so hard for the government not to give a damn?

[brandon]

There is no such thing as "gay rights."

However, there are individual rights which cover everyone. Is the eyes of the state marriage should be nothing more then a private contract between two entities, and all individuals have the same right to enter into such a contract if they wish.

[torchbearer]

We don't get our rights because we belong to a group.
There is no such thing as gay rights. You don't get rights because your gay, you get them because you are human.
They are human rights.
Gay Rights, Christian Rights, etc are the tools of marxist-leninist to keep division amongst the people.

[brandon]

No. Gay sex doesn't produce anything beneficial for the country (unlike heterosexuality which leads to procreation). It only gratifies the gay couple. Ergo, the state shouldn't "reward" gays for giving and receiving pleasure.
A tax cut hardly qualifies as a reward. Imagine if some guy kept punching you in the face as hard as he could. Then he said if you do something, he will "reward" you by softening a couple blows to only 75% of his strength. Would you call that a reward?

[torchbearer]

electronicmaji, you speak as though you have been indoctrinated to the core with collectivism.
Its ok, a lot of people here once thought the same way... but there is hope if you listen with an open mind.
Same for DFF.

[DirtMcGirt]

I'm not married so can someone explain to all the breaks a married couple gets besides insurance coverage? Thanks.

IMO gay couples need to compromise and accept civil unions, if not it opens up a can of worms for others to fight for polygamy and other alternative marriages...

[torchbearer]

polygamy and other alternative marriages...

Explain to me how this effects your life and property if others did choose this lifestyle. I am anxious to see the violation of your rights and thus the crime of the above "outlawed - crimes against nature"

[Danke]

Could I receive a tax cut if I married my sister, or only my brother in "Ansilvania"? :confused:

[AutoDas]

Neither. Why are you discriminating against single people?

[electronicmaji]

electronicmaji, you speak as though you have been indoctrinated to the core with collectivism.
Its ok, a lot of people here once thought the same way... but there is hope if you listen with an open mind.
Same for DFF.

Gay individuals have the same right as every other run of the mill individuals. Living in a state where gay people are not only allowed to do things normal people do, but are treated as inferior creatures and less human because of their homosexuality, I feel that the idea of Rights for gay people is a important thing.

[Maverick]

There is no such thing as "gay rights."

However, there are individual rights which cover everyone. Is the eyes of the state marriage should be nothing more then a private contract between two entities, and all individuals have the same right to enter into such a contract if they wish.

+1

[torchbearer]

Gay individuals have the same right as every other run of the mill individuals. Living in a state where gay people are not only allowed to do things normal people do, but are treated as inferior creatures and less human because of their homosexuality, I feel that the idea of Rights for gay people is a important thing.

Rights for all people are an important thing.
The fact that you see people as seperate and apart because of their sexual preferenced doesn't look very enlightened... looks like the mind of a bigot if your really analyse it.

[AmericaFyeah92]

Rights for all people are an important thing.
The fact that you see people as seperate and apart because of their sexual preferenced doesn't look very enlightened... looks like the mind of a bigot if your really analyse it.

They are separate and apart sexually. That has nothing to do with bigotry.

[torchbearer]

They are separate and apart sexually. That has nothing to do with bigotry.

Those are labels by which you have divided yourself.
You can do that with anything. But to categorize people by societal made labels for the determination of what rights they get is pure bigotry.

[AmericaFyeah92]

Those are labels by which you have divided yourself.
You can do that with anything. But to categorize people by societal made labels for the determination of what rights they get is pure bigotry.

Yes, when u bring their rights into the picture it is.

But people do fall into certain groupings. We are Americans, no? Not Colombians or Japanese. Judging by your avatar, we are both white, not black or hispanic.

Would u prefer "a man with an attraction to other men" rather than "gay"?

[torchbearer]

Yes, when u bring their rights into the picture it is.

But people do fall into certain groupings. We are Americans, no? Not Colombians or Japanese. Judging by your avatar, we are both white, not black or hispanic.

Would u prefer "a man with an attraction to other men" rather than "gay"?

You can make the labels whatever makes you sleep better at night.
When you say american, do you mean a citizen of the U.S? or the citizen of north and south america?
To label someone by citizenship is a legal distinction. That has an implication of rights.
To say, Go give this apple to the gay guy over there has no legal implications and only reflects on how you view yourself and other people. nothing more.

Shall we continue? This is my area of expertise.

[torchbearer]

Yes, when u bring their rights into the picture it is.

But people do fall into certain groupings. We are Americans, no? Not Colombians or Japanese. Judging by your avatar, we are both white, not black or hispanic.

Would u prefer "a man with an attraction to other men" rather than "gay"?

Here is a good place to start as a beginner: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labeling_theory

then afterwards, look up some of the text in the references section.
You will start to get the picture... you can view the world as filled with individuals with rights, or as collective groups that derive privileges from those groups.
That is the struggle we are in today, the individualist versus the collectivist.
The individualist washed their hands of government and the collectivist took over.
Welcome to 21st century Amerika.

[electronicmaji]

Yes, when u bring their rights into the picture it is.

But people do fall into certain groupings. We are Americans, no? Not Colombians or Japanese. Judging by your avatar, we are both white, not black or hispanic.

Would u prefer "a man with an attraction to other men" rather than "gay"?

Speak for yourself buddy. I'm colombian.

[UnReconstructed]

People are confused when they say gays should have the right to marry or whatever.

In the secular world, you enter into a 3-way partnership when you get the coveted marriage certificate... you, your spouse and the Guv'rment. How do you like the sound of that?

In the Bible, not religion, Adam and Eve were married when "Adam knew his wife" not when the Guv'rment said.

If you're gay and you want to be married then do it... tell Uncle Sam to kiss your ass. They're in our lives to much now anyway. We're free when we believe we are free. If you think that you need the Guv'rment's permission to be married then you are enslaved.

If you are free and they say that you have to do this or that to get this or that then you can see exactly what they are doing and know that it is WRONG.

[torchbearer]

Speak for yourself buddy. I'm colombian.

makes sense how your world view is more collectivist centered.
that philosophy embodies a lot of the government and cultures of that area.
All the more impressive that you found your way to this forum.
That was indeed an individual choice and symbolic of taking the first step, or red pill towards the truth we now face.

[electronicmaji]

makes sense how your world view is more collectivist centered.
that philosophy embodies a lot of the government and cultures of that area.
All the more impressive that you found your way to this forum.
That was indeed an individual choice and symbolic of taking the first step, or red pill towards the truth we now face.

I'm not collectivist. I want everyone to have rights.

But you must admit that if you look at people whose rights are abused you will systematically find comminalities between them and one of those comminalities is that a lot of them are gay.

[Danke]

makes sense how your world view is more collectivist centered.
that philosophy embodies a lot of the government and cultures of that area.
All the more impressive that you found your way to this forum.
That was indeed an individual choice and symbolic of taking the first step, or red pill towards the truth we now face.

He claims to live in AR. I'd imagine he is a US Citizen with foreign roots.

[torchbearer]

I'm not collectivist. I want everyone to have rights.

But you must admit that if you look at people whose rights are abused you will systematically find comminalities between them and one of those comminalities is that a lot of them are gay.

Just saying the term Gay Rights is an offense. but no, your not a collectivist, you just speak in their language still...
Its the same thing as constitutional rights. there are no constitutional rights, the consitution didn't grant rights. you got them at birth, your birthright as a human.
the same goes for all humans, and any human that submits force upon other humans via their government is not better than a thug or pirate.
This country is ran by the pirates. It benefits them if we stay divided by labels. Distinction that really don't matter when it comes to our rights and how our government should treat us....

What I hope to see from you one day is all these lines erased.... these orbitrary distinctions that keep us seperate will melt away, and we will see how powerful we really are and the elites hiding behind the smoke and mirror will be shitting on themselves.

This is the goal of Ron Paul's campaign for liberty educational phase is created for... liberation of the mind

[Danke]

I'm not collectivist. I want everyone to have rights.


Natural rights or State granted rights?

[torchbearer]

He claims to live in AR. I'd imagine he is a US Citizen with foreign roots.

The cultural effects from the parents and grandparents are the same... that is how a society passes its culture down throughout the years.

[electronicmaji]

Natural rights or State granted rights?

Natural rights, but different ones then you envision.

[torchbearer]

Natural rights, but different ones then you envision.

right - you envision people having rights by their group characteristics. Your question implied that much.

[priest_of_syrinx]

The government shouldn't recognize either, so its N/A.

Yeah, it should be a church thing. The government shouldn't even have taxes that could be affected by marriage. It'll take a while before we get back to that, though...

[torchbearer]

Yeah, it should be a church thing. The government shouldn't even have taxes that could be affected by marriage. It'll take a while before we get back to that, though...

I always ask people, should government regulate communion or baptisms?
then why should they regulate marriage?
if its a contract, does the government require you to file with the state to hire someone to mow your yard.

[mediahasyou]

All individuals are to be equal under law. Whether married, straight, gay, or a single mother with 5 kids.

Marriage should not be recognized by the state. Each individual shall pay the same tax.

[torchbearer]

the first marriage liscences were for freed slaves who wanted to marry.. in particular, black men and white women.
the government decided this was not a right the slave had under the 14th amendment citizenship and thus delegated the privilege to their sub-class citizenship.
Later, as our empire expanded, the law was the to be applied equally to all people for it to be equal justice, and thus, we are all second-class citizens now, just like former slaves.

[Brian4Liberty]

Government should not give special tax breaks to anyone. It's social engineering, and it always backfires. The tax code in general needs to be flat, with no breaks for anyone.

It's too bad there aren't more "gay" marriages. Too many married people are unhappy and get diverced. ;)

Hey, and what's wrong with polygamy? I heard that due to many violent revolutions in Ansilvania against the unfair tax code, the ratio of women to men is 10 to 1. Polygamy is necessary.

[tonesforjonesbones]

I am against the government imposing a tax on marriage and entering into a contract to steal my and my spouses money and gaining control of my DNA. OUT with marriage licenses period! TONES

[James Madison]

The government shouldn't recognize either, so its N/A.

+1

[revolutionary8]

Originally Posted by lukeownzu

The government shouldn't recognize either, so its N/A.

+1
read the OP it is a lop sided pole.
I believe that gays have the same rights as all human beings, I also believe that there should be no marriage license as 'afforded' by the fed, I also think that the mariage license was in fact a 'product' sold to keep people from being married, mainly those who could not afford the $ and/either/or 'exposure' (blacks marrying whites), but that is not what the pole asks, so of course, I believe that gays should be tax free, just like us. There is nothing wrong with that.
:D
confusing isn't it?

[SovereignMN]

Ok assume for a second, we live in some nation called Ansilvania or something.

Assume the constitution says its perfectly fine for the goverment to collect some taxes.

Assume it also says those who are married and have a family deserve a tax cut.


Do you, in this nation, think that gay families and married couples have a right to the same tax cut as straight families?

No and here's my reason why. "Gay Marriage" is a new term. It makes as much sense as the term "Kosher Pig" and "Capitalistic Socialist". Just because you call it something doesn't make it true. Marriage is between a man/woman. If gays wants to have relationships then the government should stay out. If the tax system rewards married couples over gays then it's a problem with the tax code...not the institution of marriage!

People who say that "gay marriage is only fair" have it all backwards. The problem is with the tax system...not the institution of marriage. Don't ruin the definition of marriage for the sake of the political lobby of a sexual preference.

[torchbearer]

Don't ruin your definition of marriage for the sake of the political lobby of a sexual preference.

Egocentric much?

[revolutionary8]

If the tax system rewards married couples over gays then it's a problem with the tax code...not the institution of marriage!


Ban Taxes, ie "special priveleges" Not Marriage!

[SovereignMN]

Egocentric much?

Not at all. My definition of "egocentric" means "to sit outside all day waiting for pigs to fly". I don't do that.

See how fun it is to change the definition of a word?

[torchbearer]

Not at all. My definition of "egocentric" means "to sit outside all day waiting for pigs to fly". I don't do that.

See how fun it is to change the definition of a word?

You want the government to force your idea of marriage on other people.
No different than a thug who uses force to get his way.
You definition of marriage is not my definition and is in no way a universal truth.
You just got busted out for egocentric, and if you must, ethnocentric... and if you won't to focus on words and not content, brutish selfish thug behavior.

[revolutionary8]

Not at all. My definition of "egocentric" means "to sit outside all day waiting for pigs to fly". I don't do that.

See how fun it is to change the definition of a word?
You lost me. How is waiting for pigs to fly "egocentric" = as opposed to misguided, stupid, misinformed, helplessly hopeless, Beauty and the Beastified, Idle/Idolfied, Disneymaid, etc etc etc...

[revolutionary8]

You want the government to force your idea of marriage on other people.
No different than a thug who uses force to get his way.
You definition of marriage is not my definition and is in no way a universal truth.
You just got busted out for egocentric, and if you must, ethnocentric... and if you won't to focus on words and not content, brutish selfish thug behavior.
Ethnocentric"? You just got busted out too. Humility anyone? ;)
What "ethnicity" is "Gay"? For that matter, what "ego" is "Gay"?

[Theocrat]

No and here's my reason why. "Gay Marriage" is a new term. It makes as much sense as the term "Kosher Pig" and "Capitalistic Socialist". Just because you call it something doesn't make it true. Marriage is between a man/woman. If gays wants to have relationships then the government should stay out. If the tax system rewards married couples over gays then it's a problem with the tax code...not the institution of marriage!

People who say that "gay marriage is only fair" have it all backwards. The problem is with the tax system...not the institution of marriage. Don't ruin the definition of marriage for the sake of the political lobby of a sexual preference.

+1

I couldn't have said it better myself. :)

[Pauls' Revere]

Govt shouldnt collect a tax on this kind of thing. mute point. Hell no taxes at all. Watch the marriage tax be repealled now that gay people have the right to marry.

[electronicmaji]

No and here's my reason why. "Gay Marriage" is a new term. It makes as much sense as the term "Kosher Pig" and "Capitalistic Socialist". Just because you call it something doesn't make it true. Marriage is between a man/woman. If gays wants to have relationships then the government should stay out. If the tax system rewards married couples over gays then it's a problem with the tax code...not the institution of marriage!

People who say that "gay marriage is only fair" have it all backwards. The problem is with the tax system...not the institution of marriage. Don't ruin the definition of marriage for the sake of the political lobby of a sexual preference.

Hey thats your opinion. But considering how man and woman treat marriage they don't deserve the name exclusively anymore. Fuck they never did.

There is nothing wrong with Homosexuality. Being gay is not a choice. Its perfectly normal to be gay. Gay sex is not icky. Homosexuals are beautiful people just like everyone else and if they want to raise a family together and get "married" they deserve to and have the right to be happy.

[Elegy]

No and here's my reason why. "Gay Marriage" is a new term. It makes as much sense as the term "Kosher Pig" and "Capitalistic Socialist". Just because you call it something doesn't make it true. Marriage is between a man/woman. If gays wants to have relationships then the government should stay out. If the tax system rewards married couples over gays then it's a problem with the tax code...not the institution of marriage!

People who say that "gay marriage is only fair" have it all backwards. The problem is with the tax system...not the institution of marriage. Don't ruin the definition of marriage for the sake of the political lobby of a sexual preference.

Well said

[sophocles07]

To Original Question:

Yes.

[Anti Federalist]

Government should not be in the business of promoting, rewarding, penalizing or discouraging any social behavior through the tax code, period.

[SovereignMN]

You want the government to force your idea of marriage on other people.
No different than a thug who uses force to get his way.
You definition of marriage is not my definition and is in no way a universal truth.
You just got busted out for egocentric, and if you must, ethnocentric... and if you won't to focus on words and not content, brutish selfish thug behavior.

Please point out exactly where I said I want the government to force my idea of marriage on other people. I said no such thing. I was merely responding to this OP's original scenario. The fact that you so quickly resorted to name calling shows how shallow your argument is.

[weslinder]

Ok assume for a second, we live in some nation called Ansilvania or something.

Assume the constitution says its perfectly fine for the goverment to collect some taxes.

Assume it also says those who are married and have a family deserve a tax cut.


Do you, in this nation, think that gay families and married couples have a right to the same tax cut as straight families?

I would say that in Ansilvania, the politicians in power are bringing a non-issue to the attention of the people to avoid discussing what miserable failures that they have been.

[AmericaFyeah92]

Speak for yourself buddy. I'm colombian.

do u live there now? It doesen't matter anyway, i was adressing Torchbearer

[brandon]

Being gay is not a choice.

So I guess you are a creationist?

Anyone who believes in evolution would realize that homosexuality is is a maladaptive behavior from an evolutionary view. If being gay is genetic, as you are implying, gays would have went extinct (arguably, they never would have existed) a long time ago.

[Rangeley]

Government should not be in the business of promoting, rewarding, penalizing or discouraging any social behavior through the tax code, period.
Exactly.

[TurtleBurger]

If the constitution says it's ok to collect taxes, they need to get a new constitution.

[James Madison]

So I guess you are a creationist?

Anyone who believes in evolution would realize that homosexuality is is a maladaptive behavior from an evolutionary view. If being gay is genetic, as you are implying, gays would have went extinct (arguably, they never would have existed) a long time ago.

Exactly. According to evolution, the entire point of life is to pass ones genes on to the next generation, to see that the species surivives. So, it is intinct that tells us to be attracted to the opposite sex. Therefore, the presence of homosexuality in the population isn't natural by the basic laws of evolution.

[asgardshill]

If the constitution says it's ok to collect taxes, they need to get a new constitution.

I quite like the old one actually.

[leipo]

There is nothing wrong with Homosexuality. Being gay is not a choice. Its perfectly normal to be gay. Gay sex is not icky. Homosexuals are beautiful people just like everyone else and if they want to raise a family together and get "married" they deserve to and have the right to be happy.

Don't you care about children's rights? They have the right to have a father and a mother. I don't care about marriage but i don't think a gay couple should be allowed to raise children.

[Rangeley]

Don't you care about children's rights? They have the right to have a father and a mother. I don't care about marriage but i don't think a gay couple should be allowed to raise children.
How is that a right?

[leipo]

How is that a right?

It's a moral right not a legal one. How is it not a right?

[Rangeley]

It's a moral right not a legal one. How is it not a right?
I don't know what you mean by "moral right," but how would this be any different then having a "right" to a brother or sister, or a mansion, or a big yard? These things are not rights.

[leipo]

I don't know what you mean by "moral right," but how would this be any different then having a "right" to a brother or sister, or a mansion, or a big yard? These things are not rights.

If you don't know what a moral right is, i suggest you look up the word "moral" and "right" in the dictionary. And your examples make no sense, there are no moral rights to have a brother/sister or a mansion.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Ok assume for a second, we live in some nation called Ansilvania or something.

Assume the constitution says its perfectly fine for the goverment to collect some taxes.

Assume it also says those who are married and have a family deserve a tax cut.


Do you, in this nation, think that gay families and married couples have a right to the same tax cut as straight families?

they deserve atax cut. but I would argue that gov shouldn't even be regulating marriage.

fuck off, government. god damn you. :p

[Rangeley]

If you don't know what a moral right is, i suggest you look up the word "moral" and "right" in the dictionary. And your examples make no sense, there are no moral rights to have a brother/sister or a mansion.
There is no need to be so evasive, so far you have answered no questions and merely told me to go look elsewhere for answers. I fail to see how it could be a right for someone to have a heterosexual couple raise them - do you jail the single mother whose abusive husband walked out on her if she keeps her kid? Do you arrest the two males who adopt a child that would have otherwise grown up in an orphanage? It makes no sense.

[leipo]

Evasive? You didn't know what a moral right is. And now, you come up with questions that make no sense at all. I suggest you look up the word "right" in the dictionary. Because the questions you are asking in your last post have to do with legal rights not moral or ethical rights, which is what i was talking about.

[leipo]

I don't see where you are coming from but i'll answer em anyway.

Single mom example: the child still has a father & mother, so it doesn't relate to what i was talking about.
Homosexual couple example: If they were allowed to adopt a child why should they be arrested for that if it was allowed in the first place? I think they shouldnt be allowed to adopt children.

[Rangeley]

I never stated I did not know what a moral right was. I asked what you meant by it - something you blew off twice and refused to answer.

A child with a single mother no more has a father then someone who lives with two female parents - they obviously have a father out there somewhere but he is not a part of the childs life. If you don't think it should be a crime for the mother to keep their kid, should it be a crime if the mother moves in with her single sister? Or what if she decides to marry another woman? Would you take away the kid from this situation?

And if not, why should adoption be illegal?

[JS4Pat]

Not Applicable.

Government should not be in the marriage business (gay or straight).

[H Roark]

I'm not falling for this trap of a poll... N/A

+1 to SovereignMN

[leipo]

I never stated I did not know what a moral right was. I asked what you meant by it - something you blew off twice and refused to answer.

My meaning is in no way different than what's in the dictionary. That's why i directed you to it:

Moral: "concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong"

Right: "a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral" (in this case moral claim)


A child with a single mother no more has a father then someone who lives with two female parents - they obviously have a father out there somewhere but he is not a part of the childs life.

If the father or mother chooses not to see his child then he/she is the one disrespecting this moral right of a child. This is wrong but in some cases, where the father or mother is abusive, it's most likely for the better.
Also "a child with a single mother" and/or a abusive parent isn't at all exclusive to Heterosexual couples.


If you don't think it should be a crime for the mother to keep their kid, should it be a crime if the mother moves in with her single sister?

Nope.


Or what if she decides to marry another woman? Would you take away the kid from this situation?

No, i would not. I just don't approve of it.


And if not, why should adoption be illegal?

Because i believe that a child has the moral right to have a father and a mother. Males and females have different characteristics and i think a child needs both rollmodels to develop normally. So i think this moral right should become a legal one concerning Gay couple adoption because they take away this right premeditated.

[TastyWheat]

The constitution in this nation specifically says it has a right to recognize marriages for tax cut purposes.
I hope that's sarcasm.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

^^^^^

well, my brain specifically says that marriage isn't a gov issue.

[Rangeley]

My meaning is in no way different than what's in the dictionary. That's why i directed you to it:

Moral: "concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong"

Right: "a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral" (in this case moral claim)



If the father or mother chooses not to see his child then he/she is the one disrespecting this moral right of a child. This is wrong but in some cases, where the father or mother is abusive, it's most likely for the better.
Also "a child with a single mother" and/or a abusive parent isn't at all exclusive to Heterosexual couples.



Nope.



No, i would not. I just don't approve of it.



Because i believe that a child has the moral right to have a father and a mother. Males and females have different characteristics and i think a child needs both rollmodels to develop normally. So i think this moral right should become a legal one concerning Gay couple adoption because they take away this right premeditated.
But as you admit, its better to be in a loving family then an abusive one, or none at all. You are right that abuse is not limited to families with heterosexual parents, but love is not limited to them either. If you view it as something that should stay legal (despite feeling it is not optimal) when it happens in actuality, I see no reason that it should not be allowed to happen intentionally, under the law.

[Nirvikalpa]

No and here's my reason why. "Gay Marriage" is a new term. It makes as much sense as the term "Kosher Pig" and "Capitalistic Socialist". Just because you call it something doesn't make it true. Marriage is between a man/woman. If gays wants to have relationships then the government should stay out. If the tax system rewards married couples over gays then it's a problem with the tax code...not the institution of marriage!

People who say that "gay marriage is only fair" have it all backwards. The problem is with the tax system...not the institution of marriage. Don't ruin the definition of marriage for the sake of the political lobby of a sexual preference.

+1

Wow, very well said.

[werdd]

There is no such thing as "gay rights."

However, there are individual rights which cover everyone. Is the eyes of the state marriage should be nothing more then a private contract between two entities, and all individuals have the same right to enter into such a contract if they wish.

i voted no for the reason above.

[Alex Libman]

All people should ideally be treated as individuals.

All taxes should ideally be zero.

Have a nice day. ;)

[SeanEdwards]

Why do families deserve a tax cut? Why are single people expected to pay more in taxes? Taxes should not be used as a weapon of social engineering.

[1776Patriot]

People are confused when they say gays should have the right to marry or whatever.

In the secular world, you enter into a 3-way partnership when you get the coveted marriage certificate... you, your spouse and the Guv'rment. How do you like the sound of that?

In the Bible, not religion, Adam and Eve were married when "Adam knew his wife" not when the Guv'rment said.

If you're gay and you want to be married then do it... tell Uncle Sam to kiss your ass. They're in our lives to much now anyway. We're free when we believe we are free. If you think that you need the Guv'rment's permission to be married then you are enslaved.

If you are free and they say that you have to do this or that to get this or that then you can see exactly what they are doing and know that it is WRONG.


Aren't there certain tax benefits and the likes that go with the having a Mason in a black robe proclaiming you are married? I want my gal to marry me, but she doesn't see the point and especially my being such an anti stateist and one world system she can't figure out why I want them to have anything to do with our status as a couple. I don't, but in order to get any tax benefits such as write offs for my 5 month old son with her, don't we have to be "legally" married?

[forsmant]

Aren't there certain tax benefits and the likes that go with the having a Mason in a black robe proclaiming you are married? I want my gal to marry me, but she doesn't see the point and especially my being such an anti stateist and one world system she can't figure out why I want them to have anything to do with our status as a couple. I don't, but in order to get any tax benefits such as write offs for my 5 month old son with her, don't we have to be "legally" married?

No you do not. You can claim your child as a dependent if he lived with you for six months. Only one of you can claim him. I suggest the one with more income unless that income is over $45,000 or something.

[Danke]

From: MNLG.ORD


Tuesday, June 17, 2008
How to make the GOP a winner

The GOP in Ramsey County has a lot of challenges. Often they are of their own making and therefore capable of a rapid reversal and a better statement of Liberty under a Constitutional Government. This it is to be hoped will make us more acceptable here in Ramsey County. What follows is an example of what I mean.

What follows is a position paper that I wrote for Sue Jeffers, Republican candidate for governor in Minnesota last year 2006.

this is a freedom position on gay marriage and marriage licenses

first some history. The first marriage license law in the United States was passed in 1867 in Massachusetts. This law came about because a black man wanted to marry a white woman. Before 1867 no one in America had needed or even thought to need them marriage license. They would consider the idea that they would have to get the government's permission to get married and and to pay a fee for the right of getting married would be completely alien to their thinking. George and Martha Washington, Abraham and Mary Lincoln and every other couple in America who wanted to get married before 1867 only needed the permission of their families and their churches. As far as I am concerned marriage licenses violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

So marriage licenses started as a Jim Crow law.

Now to get a marriage license, you have to pay a fee. This FEE can be considered a tax. It is interesting to note that when you buy a marriage license, they are only good for six months. If your plans change and your marriage is postponed past the date of the license, you have to buy a second license.

So this Jim Crow law was soon found to be an excellent tax revenue source.

With the rise of the Welfare State many benefits and subsidies were distributed in ways that made your marriage status important in deciding if you would be receiving these benefits. I have heard that there are 1100 specific government benefits and subsidies dependent upon your marriage status. This is particularly true in the assignment of health benefits, especially employee provided health benefits.

So this racist law, and tax cash cow, became an important prop for the welfare state.

Some more history. I was in college in the late 1970's, this with a time of great intellectual and social change. Gay rights became an important issue in America. The gay activists that I knew wanted nothing to do with marriage or any of the other traditional social arrangements. They wanted their right to be free to enjoy a promiscuous homosexual sex without social stigma. I for one am willing to give them this. However something happened during the party. They started getting sick. They're getting herpes simplex, hepatitis A B and C, and the big one; AIDS.

Sick people will do what they can to get well. It is their right under the pursuit of happiness clause in the Constitution. Many decided to take advantage of the health insurance benefit provided by the employers of their friends to pay for the costs of their health care. Employer provided health insurance is the unintended consequence of the wage freeze of 1945 during the Truman administration. Price freezes never work and health insurance benefits were invented as a non-cash payment for services rendered by employees. To access these benefits the idea of gay marriage was promoted

I am not saying that the partners don't love each other. I am saying that we have backed ourselves into a corner by continually looking to the government to solve problems they aren't competent to solve.

So here are the Conservatives, the traditionalists fighting to “save marriage ". They aren't saving marriage. They're fighting to preserve: a racist law, the tax on a religious sacrament, and the welfare state.

The true liberty and freedom answer to this dilemma is less government.

Repeal all marriage licensing laws. This will be a tax cut. Let's put the employer employee relationship back on a cash basis. A fair day's wage for a fair day's work in the worker can spend his money however he likes. Those who call for the separation of church and state cannot even look at this issue, I detect political bias. The Sacrament of marriage belongs to the Church not the State. Churches should decide who they marry not the government. An honest government should treat you as an individual and should not consider your marital status or anything else but your individuality in dealing with you. If gay people want to get married and can't find a church that will marry them, they are free to start their own churches.

This is an example of using Historical Analysis to identify past Constitutional abuses and by working to rectify them, forward the cause of Liberty.

If the GOP adopts this position it leaves the opposition forced to defend a TAX and a HUGE violation of the "Separation of Church and State".

Meanwhile we can ask the Social Conservatives: Do you really want to give the government the right and power to license that which "that which the LORD has joined?". What happens if the government decides to license and tax other sacraments like Baptism. Do the born again have to pay twice?

Liberty!

Colin Wilkinson

[newbitech]

all things being equal, yes. If the law recognizes civil unions and there is a benefit when two people get together, it doesn't matter if its 2 girls, 2 guys, or a guy and a girl.

[RideTheDirt]

Great reply Danke.

[Kludge]

False dichotomy.

No one deserves the tax cut. You fail, EMI.

[Danke]

Great reply Danke.

Just to be clear, that was a copy & paste from MNLG.org

Colin Wilkinson is a wealth of knowledge in the Freedom movement.

[Danke]

False dichotomy.

No one deserves the tax cut. You fail, EMI.

Kludge? Kludge? Is that you? :p

[Kludge]

Kludge? Kludge? Is that you? :p

??? Is that the guy who sold me his account? He said that I could talk to Sean Connery if I bought it.