Will Gays Stop Paying Their Taxes Because Of Proposition 8? [Archive]

nodope0695

11-07-2008, 04:40 PM

Let 'em quit paying their taxes. They just have sour grapes cuz the voters spoke, AGAIN, for the SECOND time: MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN, AND ONE WOMAN.

Of course, I'm sure California's Ninth Circus Court will pull some bullshit like they did last time, and completey reverse the democratic process...I hate when a person, or a group of persons tries to force thier ideas down my throat after I've alread told them NO. Fucking gays. They're acting like they're a minority group....and they're full of shit.

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?

That is why states have civil unions, which are the same damn thing, just with out the name, marriage, which the gays covet.

Hey gays! The voters spoke in THREE states. Now, if you don't like it, introduce a new bill, or measure for the next election. Quit subverting the democratic process by crying to the courts and stampeding through the streets like a bunch of fucking cry babies who couldn't get a cookie out of the jar. Fucking dolts!

tonesforjonesbones

11-07-2008, 04:41 PM

nodope0695

11-07-2008, 04:42 PM

There are over 1,100 benefits and privileges given to married people. Isn't that discrimination?

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....

SeanEdwards

11-07-2008, 04:46 PM

There are over 1,100 benefits and privileges given to married people. Isn't that discrimination?

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.

tonesforjonesbones

11-07-2008, 04:47 PM

Amen! Tones!

nodope0695

11-07-2008, 04:47 PM

I am very glad the PEOPLE hAVE SPOKEN...in California, Florida and Arizona. While I disagree with the state mandating marriage for anyone...the gays made it political. It was put to a vote and they LOST. PERIOD! Tones

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.

tonesforjonesbones

11-07-2008, 04:50 PM

I agree. If it was about benefits..if i were gay this is how i would get around it. If I were in a lesbian relationship...I would find a gay male couple...it would be a marriage of convenience...you don't have to live with the person you are married to i guess...so..if the lesbians married the gay men...they could get the full benefits of marriage (tax breaks or whatever) and just live with their partner. That's how I would handle the financial of it. Tones

danberkeley

11-07-2008, 04:52 PM

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, anymore than VA benefits belong to anyone and everyone who claims to be a veteran.

This is exaclty why descrimination laws are stupid. Every decision is based on descrimination. I am descriminating against blondes, brunettes, etc if I chose a red-head solely or partly because of hair color. Should that be outlawed too?

nodope0695

11-07-2008, 04:52 PM

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, anymore than VA benefits belong to anyone and everyone who claims to be a veteran.

Very well said. I however, had a Michael Savage moment with my prior rebuttal, and perhaps came of a little harsh...nonetheless, I stand by my words.

I like your comparison. If you want VA bennies, join the military. If you want marriage bennies, get married to a person of the opposite sex. Otherwise, get a civil union and shut the fuck up.

tonesforjonesbones

11-07-2008, 04:53 PM

LOLLL...it is RIDICULOUS! well..what else do the gays have to bitch about anyway? now they still have something to protest...lolol...tones

nickcoons

11-07-2008, 04:54 PM

Let 'em quit paying their taxes. They just have sour grapes cuz the voters spoke, AGAIN, for the SECOND time: MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN ONE MAN, AND ONE WOMAN.

The democratic process is tyrannical. By what authority can a large group tell two people how they can live their lives when those two people are harming no one?

I am very glad the PEOPLE hAVE SPOKEN...in California, Florida and Arizona.

Same question for you (see above).

danberkeley

11-07-2008, 04:54 PM

danberkeley

11-07-2008, 04:56 PM

The democratic process is tyrannical. By what authority can a large group tell two people how they can live their lives when those two people are harming no one?

Arnt you running for Congress or something? :D

tonesforjonesbones

11-07-2008, 04:57 PM

nodope0695

11-07-2008, 04:57 PM

This is exaclty why descrimination laws are stupid. Every decision is based on descrimination. I am descriminating against blondes, brunettes, etc if I chose a red-head solely or partly because of hair color. Should that be outlawed too?

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?

nickcoons

11-07-2008, 04:59 PM

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

11-07-2008, 05:00 PM

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

11-07-2008, 05:03 PM

Arnt you running for Congress or something? :D

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

11-07-2008, 05:03 PM

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

11-07-2008, 05:03 PM

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

nickcoons

11-07-2008, 05:05 PM

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

11-07-2008, 05:05 PM

nodope0695

11-07-2008, 05:07 PM

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

11-07-2008, 05:08 PM

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

11-07-2008, 05:10 PM

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

11-07-2008, 05:11 PM

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

11-07-2008, 05:11 PM

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

11-07-2008, 05:13 PM

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

11-07-2008, 05:14 PM

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

11-07-2008, 05:14 PM

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

11-07-2008, 05:15 PM

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: + http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/ejzalas/stuff/female2520bunchie.gif = YES

:bunchies: + http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/ejzalas/stuff/female2520bunchie.gif + http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v495/ejzalas/stuff/female2520bunchie.gif = NO. Sorry guys...

robert4rp08

11-07-2008, 05:15 PM

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

11-07-2008, 05:18 PM

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

11-07-2008, 05:20 PM

nickcoons

11-07-2008, 05:21 PM

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?

nodope0695

11-07-2008, 05:21 PM

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.

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

Point well taken, and most of it agreed to. However, you speak of anarchy. This is a nation of laws. Laws are passed to protect rights, and to preserve the well being of society. In that I must differ with you and state that gay marriage, in a legal sense of the word, does not, and can not serve society, in fact it is and would become a detriment to society because no children are produced. Those children that are adopted, or born of artificial insimination would be raised in a home where there would not be a mother AND father. Sure, they'd be loved, but there is a reason for having a mother and father. Just look what comes of so many kids from broken families, or single parents. Gay marriage only serves the selfcentered interests of the two people involved.

To have freedom, we must have a moral foundation. We're losing our freedoms because we have strayed form our moral foundations, and turned whats right and whats wrong into "Whatever makes me feel good." Sometimes it sucks to do the right thing, and some times its fun to do the wrong thing....people seem to be addicted to the "fun" of doing the wrong thing.

dannno

11-07-2008, 05:23 PM

They lost TWICE in California.

Democracy = Tyranny.

That's why we live in a Constitutional Republic.

They aim to redefine marriage so they might force their personal choices and beliefs on us.

They aren't making you gay. You are so full of yourself.

nickcoons

11-07-2008, 05:23 PM

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

I am asserting that gay couples will not be able to get married. Marriage is a private affair for which government rightfully has no involvement. It made itself involved when it began issuing marriage licenses, and is now more involved by creating more restrictive criteria under which it will issue a license.

Is it not repulsive that one needs government permission to be married? I would think that people at RPF, of all places, would understand this.

nickcoons

11-07-2008, 05:24 PM

The current "democratic process" is tyrannical.

Right, becauseit allows the majority to impose their will on the minority, such as with these three states' propositions.

dannno

11-07-2008, 05:28 PM

Marriage is a private affair for which government rightfully has no involvement.

This is precisely what Ron Paul believes. The government's job is to enforce the contract as long as the terms are reasonable (you can make a marriage contract that states the wife gets to take a pound of the man's flesh if he cheats on her, for example, but the court WILL NOT uphold that portion of the contract)

The government's job is NOT to tell people what they can and cannot put in their contracts, they are only able to discern between what they can and cannot enforce within those contracts.

If marriage went back to being a religious ceremony rather than a government institution, gay people wouldn't even want to get married.

danberkeley

11-07-2008, 05:28 PM

Right, becauseit allows the majority to impose their will on the minority, such as with these three states' propositions.

Yes. And anyone executing/enforcing/supporting/ these propositions, laws, regulations et. is a tyrant.

nodope0695

11-07-2008, 05:29 PM

Right, becauseit allows the majority to impose their will on the minority, such as with these three states' propositions.

Well, then, how would you propose to pass laws in the states? They've got to be decided some how...would you have the courts legislating?

nickcoons

11-07-2008, 05:29 PM

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..

It's wrong because it's the initiation of force.

But as a strict constitutionalist, you have no problems with the Income Tax, right? I mean, the Constitution says the government can steal, so it must be okay.

dannno

11-07-2008, 05:31 PM

Well, then, how would you propose to pass laws in the states? They've got to be decided some how...would you have the courts legislating?

Exactly what happened in California. The courts shut it down because it's unconstitutional. Because it is. The courts aren't always right, this time they were. If they're wrong, eventually it goes to the Supreme Court.

SeanEdwards

11-07-2008, 05:33 PM

Exactly what happened in California. The courts shut it down because it's unconstitutional. Because it is. The courts aren't always right, this time they were. If they're wrong, eventually it goes to the Supreme Court.

It's a constitutional amendment, and it's not discriminatory. So what is the justification for declaring it unconstitutional?

nodope0695

11-07-2008, 05:34 PM

It's wrong because it's the initiation of force.

But as a strict constitutionalist, you have no problems with the Income Tax, right? I mean, the Constitution says the government can steal, so it must be okay.

Personnally, I don't care if anybody is gay. I also agree with the dude above in that the state shouldn't even have a thing to say about it....marriage licenses are nothing more than revenue generators...just like driver's licenses and registration.

BUT, why is it so important for the gays to assume the title of marriage and INSIST that their PERSONAL choices be ACCEPTED by people who don't agree with that CHOICE? Isn't that by it's very nature the very intollerence they seem to detest? They're playing the vicitm. Just go be gay, and shut the hell up, I say.

danberkeley

11-07-2008, 05:35 PM

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.

I never voluntarily entered into a contract to pay taxes to the government.

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.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Also, dont presume to think that I'd be happy and rejoice if it had failed to pass. I've been making the libratarian case the entire time and if you fail to see that, there is something wrong with you.

mediahasyou

11-07-2008, 05:37 PM

No taxes?
Being gay never looked so good.

:bunchies:

nickcoons

11-07-2008, 05:37 PM

Point well taken, and most of it agreed to. However, you speak of anarchy.

I haven't made any anarchy-based arguments in this thread.

This is a nation of laws. Laws are passed to protect rights, and to preserve the well being of society. In that I must differ with you and state that gay marriage, in a legal sense of the word, does not, and can not serve society,

So you are saying that every action has to serve society in order to be allowed? How does this thread serve society? Should it be banned if such service cannot be demonstrated?

I'm going on vacation at the end of the month. I'm doing it because I want to, because I can easily afford it, and because my wife and I are acting in our own self-interest. Should we not be allowed to take our vacation because it doesn't serve society?

in fact it is and would become a detriment to society because no children are produced.

Wait a second. So is your argument that if we don't allow same-sex marriage, that gays will default to heterosexual marriages and produce children? Or is your argument that if same-sex marriage was allowed that everyone would be involved in a same-sex marriage and therefore not produce children? Honestly, I don't see either one of those happening, and I don't know how it can be argued that allowing same-sex marriages will mean that no children would be produced.

Those children that are adopted, or born of artificial insimination would be raised in a home where there would not be a mother AND father. Sure, they'd be loved, but there is a reason for having a mother and father. Just look what comes of so many kids from broken families, or single parents.

A gay married couple is not a broken family.

Gay marriage only serves the selfcentered interests of the two people involved.

So do straight marriages. Should we deny marriage licenses to straight people that want to marry each other and have no intention of having children, since they're only marrying for their own self-interest?

To have freedom, we must have a moral foundation. We're losing our freedoms because we have strayed form our moral foundations, and turned whats right and whats wrong into "Whatever makes me feel good." Sometimes it sucks to do the right thing, and some times its fun to do the wrong thing....people seem to be addicted to the "fun" of doing the wrong thing.

You and I are completely in agreement here. However, I think we disagree about what our "moral foundation" is. My moral foundation is simple. Everyone can do whatever they want so long as they don't initiate force on anyone else. That, by the way, also happens to be the definition of freedom.

dannno

11-07-2008, 05:39 PM

It's a constitutional amendment, and it's not discriminatory. So what is the justification for declaring it unconstitutional?

Free speech, at minimum.

SeanEdwards

11-07-2008, 05:40 PM

I am asserting that gay couples will not be able to get married. Marriage is a private affair for which government rightfully has no involvement. It made itself involved when it began issuing marriage licenses, and is now more involved by creating more restrictive criteria under which it will issue a license.

Is it not repulsive that one needs government permission to be married? I would think that people at RPF, of all places, would understand this.

Government established the civil institution of marriage, granting it certain benefits, and as such government has authority to define the rules regarding that institution. Government creates ALL kinds of civil institutions and imposes restrictions on who is qualified to receive the benefits of those institutions. This is routine and obvious.

Blind people are not issued drivers licenses. Discrimination?

Fat people are denied the opportunity to earn veteran's benefits. Discrimination?

Minors are denied the opportunity to vote or drink alcohol. Discrimination?

If two gay people jump a fucking broom in their local church, and call themselves husband and wife, then they are totally free to do that. However, they are not free to demand the priveleges and benefits that society has extended to the couples entering into a civil marriage. Just like blind people can't demand a right to drive on public roads.

danberkeley

11-07-2008, 05:41 PM

Free speech, at minimum.

Free speech? Since when does gay marriage have anything to do with free speech? It is not like gays being prohibited from saying that they are gay and married.

danberkeley

11-07-2008, 05:42 PM

Government established the civil institution of marriage, granting it certain benefits, and as such government has authority to define the rules regarding that institution. Government creates ALL kinds of civil institutions and imposes restrictions on who is qualified to receive the benefits of those institutions. This is routine and obvious.

Blind people are not issued drivers licenses. Discrimination?

Fat people are denied the opportunity to earn veteran's benefits. Discrimination?

Minors are denied the opportunity to vote or drink alcohol. Discrimination?

If two gay people jump a fucking broom in their local church, and call themselves husband and wife, then they are totally free to do that. However, they are not free to demand the civil priveleges and benefits that society has extended to the couples entering into a civil marriage. Just like blind people can't demand a right to drive on public roads.

I'd take it a step further and get rid of the state.

nickcoons

11-07-2008, 05:44 PM

Well, then, how would you propose to pass laws in the states? They've got to be decided some how...would you have the courts legislating?

The state legislature is charged with passing laws. However, the only valid laws are the ones that are meant to protect individual rights, which means they are to protect against the initiation of force and fraud. Any law that infringes on this principle is an invalid law, should not be passed, and should not be enforced. Additionally, courageous people should peacefully not abide by such laws.

Given that, the state legislature has very little work that needs to be done each year (passing the budget should be their biggest task). It was always intended to be a part-time job (in New Hampshire it pays $100/year).

nickcoons

11-07-2008, 05:50 PM

BUT, why is it so important for the gays to assume the title of marriage and INSIST that their PERSONAL choices be ACCEPTED by people who don't agree with that CHOICE? Isn't that by it's very nature the very intollerence they seem to detest? They're playing the vicitm. Just go be gay, and shut the hell up, I say.

As I mentioned before, there are certainly gays that want special rights for their group, just as there are such people in any group. I don't support "special rights" for anyone. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any special rights that gay people are asking for though.

Allowing same-sex marriage isn't insisting that anyone accept their personal choice, any more than allowing Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc. means we need to accept those personal choices. We are free to ignore them and the choices they've made.

When we create that laws that don't allow them to engage in contractual relationships (which is what marriage is, or should be) with whomever they want, and we say that their relationship shouldn't be allowed because it's dangerous, unnatural, and doesn't serve society, it is then we who are insisting that they accept our personal choices. If no law exists regulating relationships or contracts in this way, then no one is forced to accept anyone's personal choices.

nodope0695

11-07-2008, 05:51 PM

I never voluntarily entered into a contract to pay taxes to the government.

You have no idea what you are talking about. Also, dont presume to think that I'd be happy and rejoice if it had failed to pass. I've been making the libratarian case the entire time and if you fail to see that, there is something wrong with you.

Libertarian yes, anarchy, no. Moral foundation, yes. Always do something because it feels good? No....

nickcoons

11-07-2008, 05:53 PM

Government established the civil institution of marriage, granting it certain benefits, and as such government has authority to define the rules regarding that institution.

That's absurd. Marriage has existed for thousands of years, and government has only been involved for about the last century. Government most certainly did not create the institution of marriage.

nickcoons

11-07-2008, 05:53 PM

I'd take it a step further and get rid of the state.

Works for me!

nodope0695

11-07-2008, 05:54 PM

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any special rights that gay people are asking for though.

Off the top of my head: Hate crime legislation. Special treatment and protection for gay students in school.

nodope0695

11-07-2008, 05:55 PM

That's absurd. Marriage has existed for thousands of years, and government has only been involved for about the last century. Government most certainly did not create the institution of marriage.

Marriage HAS in fact been around for thousands of years - BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. What's next, polygamy? "It's my constitutional right to have four wives." What then, should I be allowed to marry my sister too? "Government can't tell me who I can marry...I love her, yer honor!" There MUST be a moral boundary. How about marrying our pets too. Sheep farmers would love that one.

This gay marriage thing is but one more way that our directionless society has lowered the bar for what is right and wrong. And, its being pushed by a comparitely small group of people how have CHOSEN the lifestyle.

dannno

11-07-2008, 05:56 PM

Off the top of my head: Hate crime legislation. Special treatment and protection for gay students in school.

I fight against those things as well as Prop 8. You can too :)

yongrel

11-07-2008, 05:58 PM

danberkeley

11-07-2008, 05:59 PM

Marriage HAS in fact been around for thousands of years - BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. What's next, polygamy? "It's my constitutional right to have four wives." How about marrying our pets too. Sheep farmers would love that one.

Dont mention that in California. Farm animals already have more rights than gays. And it all happened the same day Obama was elected Saviour in Chief.

dannno

11-07-2008, 06:00 PM

Marriage HAS in fact been around for thousands of years - BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN. What's next, polygamy? "It's my constitutional right to have four wives." How about marrying our pets too. Sheep farmers would love that one.

If I were living with 4 women and not harming any of them, what right does the government have to tell me I can't live that way?

Why can't I make a contract with each of them?

By the way, I can marry two pieces of wood and glue them together. Language has very little meaning over actions.

SeanEdwards

11-07-2008, 06:00 PM

That's absurd. Marriage has existed for thousands of years, and government has only been involved for about the last century. Government most certainly did not create the institution of marriage.

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

If you actually read what I wrote, you would see that I said:

"Government established the civil institution of marriage, granting it certain benefits, and as such government has authority to define the rules regarding that institution."

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.

dannno

11-07-2008, 06:03 PM

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

If you actually read what I wrote, you would see that I said:

"Government established the civil institution of marriage, granting it certain benefits, and as such government has authority to define the rules regarding that institution."

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.

Man.. you're so close if you would only apply the first ammendment to your thinking I think you'd have it.

danberkeley

11-07-2008, 06:03 PM

If I were living with 4 women and not harming any of them, what right does the government have to tell me I can't live that way?

Why can't I make a contract with each of them?

By the way, I can marry two pieces of wood and glue them together. Language has very little meaning over actions.

You cant make a contract between you and wood. (no pun intended)

nodope0695

11-07-2008, 06:06 PM

If I were living with 4 women and not harming any of them, what right does the government have to tell me I can't live that way?

Why can't I make a contract with each of them?

By the way, I can marry two pieces of wood and glue them together. Language has very little meaning over actions.

Move to Saudi Arabia and have at it then. What century are you living in, dude?????

dannno

11-07-2008, 06:06 PM

You cant make a contract between you and wood. (no pun intended)

Didn't say I could. My point is these people are trying to protect a word.

dannno

11-07-2008, 06:07 PM

Move to Saudi Arabia and have at it then. What century are you living in, dude?????

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

SeanEdwards

11-07-2008, 06:07 PM

Man.. you're so close if you would only apply the first ammendment to your thinking I think you'd have it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ok, I'm looking at it, and I don't see how it's relevant at all. You'll have to explain yourself more thoroughly to make your point, because right now I'm not seeing it.

nodope0695

11-07-2008, 06:07 PM

I fight against those things as well as Prop 8. You can too :)

I agree the state, and the gov't should have nothing to say about it....but they do have a say in it, and that s the way it is right now. In this case, the gays brought this on themselves....they have Civil Unions. What's so wrong with that?

nodope0695

11-07-2008, 06:08 PM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Ok, I'm looking at it, and I don't see how it's relevant at all. You'll have to explain yourself more thoroughly to make your point, because right now I'm not seeing it.

+1000:bunchies:

dannno

11-07-2008, 06:08 PM

Move to Saudi Arabia and have at it then. What century are you living in, dude?????

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

By the way, I have lived with four girls before. They were my roommates. We could have been all having big orgies, or we could have been just living together plutonically. It's irrelevant what we are doing, to the government, as long as I'm not hurting them.

danberkeley

11-07-2008, 06:11 PM

I agree the state, and the gov't should have nothing to say about it....but they do have a say in it, and that s the way it is right now. In this case, the gays brought this on themselves....they have Civil Unions. What's so wrong with that?

You speak of "poetic justice". I agree. They gays wanted the state to recognize them and it failed them. They believed in the democratic process and it failed them.

nodope0695

11-07-2008, 06:12 PM

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

11-07-2008, 06:25 PM

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

11-07-2008, 06:30 PM

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

11-07-2008, 06:31 PM

dannno

11-07-2008, 06:33 PM

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

11-07-2008, 06:35 PM

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

11-07-2008, 06:38 PM

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

11-07-2008, 06:38 PM

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

11-07-2008, 06:39 PM

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 ****/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

11-07-2008, 06:47 PM

SeanEdwards

11-07-2008, 06:52 PM

QFT. Why would a ****/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

11-07-2008, 06:55 PM

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

11-07-2008, 06:57 PM

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

11-07-2008, 06:59 PM

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

11-07-2008, 06:59 PM

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

11-07-2008, 07:02 PM

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

11-07-2008, 07:02 PM

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 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:18-24;&version=9;) 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

11-07-2008, 07:05 PM

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

11-07-2008, 07:05 PM

This thread reeks of bigotry.

nodope0695

11-07-2008, 07:06 PM

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!:D

Ciao.

BuddyRey

11-07-2008, 07:07 PM

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

11-07-2008, 07:08 PM

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

11-07-2008, 07:40 PM

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

11-07-2008, 07:44 PM

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? :D

RonPaulR3VOLUTION

11-07-2008, 08:01 PM

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

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

Rush

11-07-2008, 08:16 PM

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 (http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site/c.ltJTJ6MQIuE/b.3348081/k.B080/Facts.htm#versus) 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 (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv29n2/v29n1-6.pdf).

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

11-07-2008, 08:29 PM

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:

http://studentlife.calpoly.edu/prd/images/514t.jpg

'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

11-07-2008, 09:35 PM

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

11-07-2008, 09:37 PM

literatim

11-07-2008, 09:42 PM

...

ShaneC

11-07-2008, 09:48 PM

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

11-07-2008, 10:01 PM

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. :rolleyes: 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. :rolleyes:

BuddyRey

11-07-2008, 10:22 PM

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

11-07-2008, 11:11 PM

KenInMontiMN

11-07-2008, 11:20 PM

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

11-07-2008, 11:28 PM

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

11-07-2008, 11:32 PM

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

11-07-2008, 11:37 PM

+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

11-07-2008, 11:39 PM

“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

11-07-2008, 11:48 PM

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.

yongrel

11-07-2008, 11:51 PM

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, which you are voicifericiously against.

Hate to break it to ya, but the tenth amendment doesn't give the states permission to be unjust.

revolutionary8

11-07-2008, 11:56 PM

Hate to break it to ya, but the tenth amendment doesn't give the states permission to be unjust.

What is "unjust" about states' rights? You don't like it- MOVE.

Kludge

11-08-2008, 12:01 AM

What is "unjust" about states' rights? You don't like it- MOVE.

Injustice shouldn't be tolerated at any level. If we can prevent states from imposing unjust laws on their people, we ought to. I'm a human before a Michigander and/or an American.

yongrel

11-08-2008, 12:03 AM

What is "unjust" about states' rights? You don't like it- MOVE.

Oh FFS... this isn't about states rights. This is about the government applying he law differently to its citizens based on their sexual orientation. The law should apply the same to everyone, regardless.

If the government is going to allow two people to enter into a binding legal contract, they should allow any two people. To permit heterosexual couples to enter into this contract and not allow homosexual couples the same privilege is injustice. Clearly in this situation, all of California's citizens are not equal in the eyes of the law.

States rights have nothing at all to do with this.

revolutionary8

11-08-2008, 12:03 AM

Injustice shouldn't be tolerated at any level. If we can prevent states from imposing unjust laws on their people, we ought to. I'm a human before a Michigander and/or an American.

What is an unjust law? FORCING their citizens to gain a LICENSE before marriage?
I would say so. Why in God's name homosexuals are BEGGING for regulation and taxation is beyond me.
Heterosexuals were duped, why on EARTH ***** would FIGHT for the same is beyond comprehension and complete insanity, IMO.
(unless they were duped themselves of course by TBTB)

revolutionary8

11-08-2008, 12:09 AM

Oh FFS... this isn't about states rights. This is about the government applying he law differently to its citizens based on their sexual orientation. The law should apply the same to everyone, regardless.

If the government is going to allow two people to enter into a binding legal contract, they should allow any two people. To permit heterosexual couples to enter into this contract and not allow homosexual couples the same privilege is injustice. Clearly in this situation, all of California's citizens are not equal in the eyes of the law.

States rights have nothing at all to do with this.

replace taxation and regulation with "Law" in your diatribe. It is the same. You automatically accuse me of being anti- rights by your diatribe. I am quite the opposite...
I am anti- taxation and anti-regulation, and thus pro-freedom.

yongrel

11-08-2008, 12:15 AM

replace taxation and regulation with "Law" in your diatribe. It is the same. You automatically accuse me of being anti- rights by your diatribe. I am quite the opposite...
I am anti- taxation and anti-regulation, and thus pro-freedom.

Way to totally avoid the argument. Well done.
:bunchies:

revolutionary8

11-08-2008, 12:17 AM

Way to totally avoid the argument. Well done.
:bunchies:

I didn't avoid anything. state your question. :bunchies:
Once again,
I am anti regulation, and anti taxation, and ESPECIALLY without representation. I do NOT feel that marraige should be regulated, licensed or taxed- whether it be between a man and a woman or a man and a sheep or a trolluping llama for that matter...
read my sig.

yongrel

11-08-2008, 12:22 AM

I didn't avoid anything. state your question. :bunchies:
Once again,
I am anti regulation, and anti taxation. I do NOT feel that marraige should be regulated, licensed or taxed.

You said that this was an issue of states rights, to which I responded that no government has the right to be unjust. If a law is to exist, it must apply to all people the same as a prerequisite to being just. Proposition 8 is not just, for it applies the same law differently to citizens.

Your only response to this was a nonsequitar about taxation and regulation, which does not respond at all to my point about what makes laws just.

I agree that marriage is a nongovernmental issue, but that is not the matter at hand. If marriage exists as a legal institution, it must exist for all citizens.

revolutionary8

11-08-2008, 12:29 AM

You said that this was an issue of states rights, to which I responded that no government has the right to be unjust. If a law is to exist, it must apply to all people the same as a prerequisite to being just. Proposition 8 is not just, for it applies the same law differently to citizens.

Your only response to this was a nonsequitar about taxation and regulation, which does not respond at all to my point about what makes laws just.

I agree that marriage is a nongovernmental issue, but that is not the matter at hand. If marriage exists as a legal institution, it must exist for all citizens.

if your state votes to abolish Gay Marriage, and you do not like it,
Move.

What will happen when the federal Government, or WORLD Government votes to abolish gay marriage?
where will you go then?
This is why states' rights are so important.
Relax, in another 2 years they will have it on the ballot again, and it just might pass, but until then, FTLOG, stave off the feds... KAY????

yongrel

11-08-2008, 12:37 AM

if your state votes to abolish Gay Marriage, and you do not like it,
Move.

What will happen when the federal Government, or WORLD Government votes to abolish gay marriage?
where will you go then?
This is why states' rights are so important.
Relax, in another 2 years they will have it on the ballot again, and it just might pass, but until then, FTLOG, stave off the feds... KAY????

You seem to be missing my point. The ability for me to leave its jurisdiction is not an excuse for a law being wrong. I can leave the District of Columbia any time I want, but that doesn't mean the insane gun laws here aren't insane and wrong. I can leave America any time I want, but that's no excuse for the Patriot Act.

Government has a responsibility and obligation to be just. My ability to leave its purview does not make any law automatically legitimate.

Proposition 8 is unjust, and I don't understand why it's so hard for some folks here to admit that point.

revolutionary8

11-08-2008, 12:41 AM

You seem to be missing my point. The ability for me to leave its jurisdiction is not an excuse for a law being wrong. I can leave the District of Columbia any time I want, but that doesn't mean the insane gun laws here aren't insane and wrong. I can leave America any time I want, but that's no excuse for the Patriot Act.

Government has a responsibility and obligation to be just. My ability to leave its purview does not make any law automatically legitimate.

Proposition 8 is unjust, and I don't understand why it's so hard for some folks here to admit that point.

No Yongrel,
I stated your point earlier in this thread:

“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

Prop 8 is another Gloria Steinem (feminist style *homosexual*movement) CIA controlled psyop.

And before you bash me:

The New York Times, February 21, 1967
New York freelance writer disclosed yesterday that the Central Intelligence Agency had supported a foundation that sent hundreds of Americans to World Youth Festivals in Vienna in 1959 and Helsinki, Finland, in 1962.

Gloria Steinem, a 30-year-old graduate of Smith College, said the C.I.A. has been a major source of funds for the foundation, the Independence [sic -- Independent] Research Service, since its formation in 1958. Almost all of the young persons who received aid from the foundation did not know about the relationship with the intelligence agency, Miss Steinem said. Ironically, she said, many of the students who attended the festivals have been criticized as leftists. The festivals are supposed to be financed by contributions from national student unions, but are, in fact, largely supported by the Soviet Union.

Miss Steinem said she had become convinced that American students should participate in the World Youth Festivals after she spent two years in India.

"I came home in 1958 full of idealism and activism, to discover that very little was being done," she said. "Students were not taken seriously here before the civil rights movement, and private money receded at the mention of a Communist youth festival."

nickcoons

11-08-2008, 07:16 AM

if your state votes to abolish Gay Marriage, and you do not like it,
Move.

This statement presupposes that the state government has the right to abolish non-violent activities in the first place, which is a very anti-freedom position to take.

libertea

11-08-2008, 05:15 PM

The government has no business in the marriage business. Marriage licenses were originally issued to control inter-racial marriage. The heterosexuals should be the ones rising up to get the government out of their business.

Did George and Martha get a "license" to get married? Hell no. It is nobodies F'n business except the 2 individuals involved.

We have a government that robs us blind and kills thousands in the process and we have to waste time on this. Although I do not agree in principal, I would be willing to give the gays anything they want in order to not have to waste time on this ever again. If the gays would put as much effort into ending the fed, the IRS or the empire, they, and everyone else, would be considerably better of than a few "benefits" that they are whining about.

Why is the "Gay" movement so much more effective than the "Freedom" movement? Doesn't freedom appeal to everybody?

Gays please help us help everybody and everybody wins. You are effective at what you do, why not make it count?

revolutionary8

11-08-2008, 08:31 PM

This statement presupposes that the state government has the right to abolish non-violent activities in the first place, which is a very anti-freedom position to take.
I see your perspective, but I am looking at it from the point of liberty. You have the liberty to move out of a state if the state becomes too heavily burdened by unjust "law" or unjust regulation. This is the beauty of States' rights- one can move to a different state w/in the union that is less inhibitive per say. Federal law is more difficult to escape.
This is my point= I don't mean to be "one of those people" who shout, "You hate the US, move to Canada!"- that is not my intention. I also believe that if certain states seek to abolish abortion, those states should be allowed to do so. By the same token, I believe that if certain states wish to pass laws that would allow terminally ill patients to take their own lives and relieve themselves of suffering, they should be able to do so.
Works both ways.

libertea,
exactly.It is MO, that the Feds and TBTB are behind the rainbow movement, just like they were behind the feminist movement. If "we", as individuals, can learn to respect states' rights, and individualism (state) over collectivism (fed gov), then we might have a chance at overcoming ulterior motives that undoubtedly exist in the shadows of separatism whittling away at higher levels...

lucius

11-08-2008, 08:32 PM

...Why is the "Gay" movement so much more effective than the "Freedom" movement? Doesn't freedom appeal to everybody?...

Read After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990's, by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.

That book turned out to be the blueprint gay activists would use in their campaign to normalize the abnormal through a variety of social engineering techniques once cataloged by Robert Jay Lifton in his seminal work, Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism: A Study of Brainwashing in China.

In their book Kirk and Madsen urged that gay activists adopt the very strategies that helped change the political face of the largest nation on earth. The authors knew the techniques had worked in China. All they needed was enough media-and enough money, which was provided by large foundations, such as the Rockefeller--to put them to work in the United States. And they did. These activists got the media and the money to radicalize America-by processes known as desensitization, jamming and conversion.

The gay activists aims are for a redefinition of marriage. Gay activists now routinely name themselves as often and as publicly as possible as they wish to be defined. They strive to make the language used to describe them indicate that same-sex couples are "families" with the same values and child-rearing potential as heterosexuals. Paula Ettelbrick, legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund proposes: "The norm in this society should be recognizing families in the way that they are self-defined." Just how far can repositioning of this idea go? Elizabeth Birch, executive director of the Human Rights Campaign, tells us: "[Gays] hold sacred seeds. . . . [T]o be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or struggle around gender is literally a gift from God and we [gays] have an enormous amount to teach this nation.", which leads to another book, Dennis Altman's The Homosexualization of America.

In 1982 Altman, himself gay, reported with an air of elation that more and more Americans were thinking like gays and acting like gays. There were engaged, that is, "in numbers of short-lived sexual adventures either in place of or alongside long-term relationships." Altman cited the heterosexual equivalents of gay saunas and the emergence of the swinging singles scene as proofs that "promiscuity and 'impersonal sex' are determined more by social possibilities than by inherent differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, or even between men and women."

The elite push this lifestyle/social-engineering, for it is applied eugenics, generally a reduce lifespan , don't have children and easier to control.

Once again, it is not my business what people do in the privacy of their homes, but I now understand why this degenerative lifestyle is being promoted by the elite, which was initially discovered by the 1954 U.S. Congressional Reece Committee.

revolutionary8

11-08-2008, 08:51 PM

lucius wrote:

The elite push this lifestyle/social-engineering, for it is applied eugenics, generally a reduce lifespan , don't have children and easier to control.
Yes they do. It is undeniably difficult to not only raise a child with 2 moms or 2 dads, (or one for that matter) but it is near impossible for them to adopt.
It's sad.
Thank you for the documentation. I had always suspected the Rocks...

"promiscuity and 'impersonal sex' are determined more by social possibilities than by inherent differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, or even between men and women."

Must agree.
You take what you get.

Conservative Christian

11-09-2008, 02:06 AM

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.

According to your dubious logic, Ron Paul is a bigot! :rolleyes: :p

"If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.

Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force the organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage....In contrast to a constitutional amendment, the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote of both houses of Congress and the president’s signature to become law. The bill already has passed the House of Representatives; at least 51 senators would vote for it; and the president would sign this legislation given his commitment to protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Therefore, those who believe Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage this year should focus on passing the Marriage Protection Act.

Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the states and the people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience support the marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan to continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each state’s right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage."

--Ron Paul

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

Quinn Rogness

11-09-2008, 10:57 AM

JohnMeridith

11-09-2008, 11:03 AM

Government shouldn't be involved in marriage

dannno

11-09-2008, 11:17 AM

Is the boycott "blowback" ?

http://www.votemotion.com/links/5046/

literatim

11-09-2008, 11:20 AM

Same-sex couples deserve every right that heterosexual couples get. Our Constitution aimed to shoot down discrimination and by not allowing gays to get married defies our Constitution that our country should be based off of.

Rights do not exist for 'couples'.

I don't know what Constitution you are reading, but the one I've read gives the States the power to ban gay marriage.

sratiug

11-09-2008, 11:24 AM

Yongrel missed the boat by not calling for an end to state marriage. Only 3 comments on his page and 15 pages of arguing here. What the fuck are y'all all arguiing about? The only solution for this problem is ending all state involvement in marriage.

tonesforjonesbones

11-09-2008, 11:26 AM

Gay, drugs, gambling, porn, prostitution etc are not legal in communist countries...wonder why the communists who are running THIS country..are promoting these? To destroy it of course. Demoralizing a country is the FIRST step to taking it over. I am sorry if I offend any gay folk on the forum, i don't mean to..i have nothing against gay people whatsoever, but i am not for gay marriage or making it seem mainstream or traditional. So forgive me if I offend. i quite like gay people and having been in the theatre for so long, have many gay friends. I am just concerned with holding on to our traditions in the usa. i actually hate government being involved in marriage...but that's how it is for now. Tones

Natalie

11-09-2008, 11:38 AM

I'm not going to pay taxes until they legalize weed.

I don't actually smoke weed.

dannno

11-09-2008, 11:47 AM

Rights do not exist for 'couples'.

I don't know what Constitution you are reading, but the one I've read gives the States the power to ban gay marriage.

Bologna.

Constitutional rights exist for individuals to make contracts with each other, and the government's job is to enforce those contracts. This is a free speech issue, and an equal rights issue.

nobody's_hero

11-09-2008, 12:16 PM

I agree with a few others here that the best course of action is to get government out of marriage altogether—heterosexual, homosexual, all of it.

HOLLYWOOD

11-09-2008, 12:19 PM

I used to love RAINBOWS, RAINBOW the rock band, RAINBOWS for kids to draw with unicorns, leprechans, pot of gold, etc

Now the kids in gradeschool don't draw rainbows, because it's a GAY SYMBOL. The Gay Community STOLE the RAINBOW.

NASCAR's #24 - Jeff Gordon and Dupont Paints, used to have the Rainbow paint scheme on the race cars and a pit crew uniforms. The pit crew personnel were called: The Rainbow Warriors... that was removed because of the RAINBOW GAY reference/symbolism.

Unniversity of Hawaii's logo was the Rainbow... on the shirts, hats, football helmets, etc... that's all gone.
The University of Hawaiʻi Warriors, University of Hawaiʻi Rainbow Warriors, or University of Hawaiʻi Rainbows are the team names of the men's sports programs at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa.

Prior to the year 2000, the University of Hawaiʻi's men's teams were all referred to as the Rainbow Warriors, complemented by an athletics logo featuring a rainbow. Resisting Ambiguation in Hawaii

At the University of Hawaii, the football team has used the name “Rainbow Warriors” for several years, because the school is located in the Manoa Valley and enjoys rainbows on an almost daily basis. The university’s logo incorporated a rainbow to capture this unique feature of the school’s physical environment. But in 2000, the University of Hawaii decided to disassociate itself from the rainbow symbol. The school renamed the team “the Warriors” and removed the rainbow from its logo.
The GAYS stole something I and many really liked/loved.
http://1.media.bustedtees.com/bustedtees/mf/4/8/bustedtees.0ad5a4344b81fb26e1f6daa80bf1d288.jpg

You can't even wear Tie-Dye Rainbow colored shirts becaus epeople think you advertising GAY Liberations and think your gay. Society has already catagorized the rainbow with Gay/lesbians etc.

NEXT:

The discrimination laws against gays... another preference for a particular group. SAY, that is you exercise your free speech and say or do any derogatory against gays/lesbians, can land you with a ARREST & yes, it's a FELONY now.

Finally,

Aren't we all getting tired of almost EVERY damn movie with either GAY or JEWISH references in the script and scenes?

I know so many that voted against the gay marriage thingy, not because of same sex stuff, but, special advantaged treatment(preference) and laws for a certain group and into respect to altering current laws that removed text out of the traditional marriage laws. Sorta like a specific group TAKING, with special government giveaways to any type of group.

Straight people are tired fo all the preferential treatment and miss their RAINBOWS!
http://www.wardi.dk/uploaded_images/rainbow01_test-700745.jpg

literatim

11-09-2008, 12:19 PM

Bologna.

Constitutional rights exist for individuals to make contracts with each other, and the government's job is to enforce those contracts. This is a free speech issue, and an equal rights issue.

Nothing is stopping you from going and signing a specially created contract with whomever you want.

nickcoons

11-09-2008, 05:06 PM

I see your perspective, but I am looking at it from the point of liberty. You have the liberty to move out of a state if the state becomes too heavily burdened by unjust "law" or unjust regulation. This is the beauty of States' rights- one can move to a different state w/in the union that is less inhibitive per say. Federal law is more difficult to escape.

You are making the "states rights trump the federal government" argument, and I agree with that. However, you are also making the (inadvertently, I hope) "states rights trump individual rights" argument at the same time.

Here's what it should look like:

Individual Rights > States' Rights > Federal Rights

But your argument does this:

Individual Rights < States' Rights > Federal Rights

nickcoons

11-09-2008, 05:08 PM

I don't know what Constitution you are reading, but the one I've read gives the States the power to ban gay marriage.

And where does the Constitution derive its authority to allow the states to do this?

nickcoons

11-09-2008, 05:09 PM

The only solution for this problem is ending all state involvement in marriage.

I believe I've called for it multiple times in this thread, as have others.

sratiug

11-09-2008, 06:03 PM

I believe I've called for it multiple times in this thread, as have others.

Good. Why doesn't everybody? Some questions have real answers. We have the answer to the problem of marriage. Abandon state marriage. Now, instead of arguing this dumb shit back and forth we should be debating the solution to the real problem of child custody in divorce cases. Should child custody be decided by courts? No. How could it be decided?

Child custody issues are a big, big problem. I actually believe it might be better if mothers were always given permanent custody after divorce with zero child support. But I am not convinced that is a great solution. Though I am convinced child support payments are horrible. It is a priviledge to be able to raise your children the way you want, no one should have to pay someone else to raise their kids in ways they despise.

Kludge

11-09-2008, 06:12 PM

Good. Why doesn't everybody? Some questions have real answers. We have the answer to the problem of marriage. Abandon state marriage. Now, instead of arguing this dumb shit back and forth we should be debating the solution to the real problem of child custody in divorce cases. Should child custody be decided by courts? No. How could it be decided?

Start a new thread for off-topic discussions in the future, please...

I actually believe it might be better if mothers were always given permanent custody after divorce with zero child support.

Sexist AND arbitrary, I like it!

But I am not convinced that is a great solution.

Then why present it?

Though I am convinced child support payments are horrible.

Children cost money and are a responsibility. Two (or more....?) people commit when they have unprotected sex. Courts do an alright job (though my experiences with "divorce courts" as a child left me seething). Judges are there to settle disputes for parents unable to settle themselves. There is no one-size-fits-all answer and thus is why courts are necessary if parents are inept. Going to court over custody of a child is shameful on various levels, but it is the choice and privilege of the parents.

It is a priviledge to be able to raise your children the way you want, no one should have to pay someone else to raise their kids in ways they despise.

Again, engaging in unprotected sex gives you the responsibility should something pop up (or pop out, in this case). The two people essentially signed an agreement and again there is no clear answer with libertarian principles. The best course of action is to avoid unwanted children (or unloving relationships) altogether.

sratiug

11-09-2008, 06:45 PM

Children cost money and are a responsibility. Two (or more....?) people commit when they have unprotected sex. Courts do an alright job (though my experiences with "divorce courts" as a child left me seething). Judges are there to settle disputes for parents unable to settle themselves. There is no one-size-fits-all answer and thus is why courts are necessary if parents are inept. Going to court over custody of a child is shameful on various levels, but it is the choice and privilege of the parents.

I am unconvinced of the truth of the bolded statement. Clan warfare might be preferable.

Court ordered child support payments are a divorce subsidy.

Kludge

11-09-2008, 07:27 PM

Court ordered child support payments are a divorce subsidy.

Having unprotected sex in an insecure relationship is the fault of the parents and the misfortune of the child. If someone chooses to marry someone who is so selfish (not that there's anything wrong with it -- the selfishness, anyways), that's their fault. With freedom comes responsibility.

I should note my case in "divorce court" as a child (it's somewhat irrelevant, feel free to skip it unless you're bored). I was 8 and told my father that I didn't like living with him and preferred to live with my mom (not as harshly). Before I said that, he told me he'd respect whatever decision I made. Of course, after I disagreed with him, he turned on his previous statement (something I've never forgiven nor been offered an apology for).

My mother had more time at home, was already near my school (my dad had moved a couple counties away to live with the woman he committed adultery with), and had a higher paying job than my father. Even so, the judge ordered me to live with my father for ~75% of the time and my mom ~25% of the time because the judge felt two parents (and two incomes) were far better for me than one. I hated the judge and my dad for a few years...

When I was 14, I asked my mom to take me to court again for Christmas (merged with Birthday gift since they were both so close and the fees so high). I asked the lawyer that I meet with the judge, whether in private or formally in the courtroom. He first had me in his chambers and calmly asked me questions about my life and relationship with my father and mother. I told him of my dislike of my dad as a father and how I didn't feel he had anything to offer me that would help me grow. He usually nodded in sympathy or quickly followed up with another question.

I had been a A student all my life up until a few years before when I became very dissatisfied with my living conditions (at that point, I generally sat in my room all day and only went outside when ordered to or grounded -- yep, didn't mistype that). The past year I started receiving Bs and Cs (and even a D one quarter) in school and my dad's lawyer decided to present my report card during the trial as some type of attack on my credibility (???). Anyways, the judge went batshit crazy and had me brought into the courtroom (something I hadn't prepared for at all) where the judge told me that I was going to end up as a washed up crimelord in a group home (no joke). He then started asking me personal questions (and I admit, I had things to hide at the time). I kept freezing and making myself look like both an idiot and a fraud. By the time it was over, the judge merely gave my mom rights to child support and shifted the "parenting" times around (giving my mom slightly more than half of the time on normal weeks but gave most of the holidays to my dad).

I was very lucky at 16. My dad was moved to working at times that made it impossible for him to have me there. I (and he) had the painful experience of having it drawn out of me (by my stepmother, who later blamed me for making him cry -- the first time I had ever witnissed it) that I neither loved nor respected my dad and that I hated being in his house and custody. Thus, he finally let me go. I lived with my mom henceforth, seeing my dad for a day or two every month out of politeness.

This story was meant to make two points. 1) At least one judge is totally incompetent and people need to more closely select who represents them and 2) that an arbitrary ruling (such as simply having the mother take care of a child every time) is unacceptable and unlibertarian. Had the court ruled in my best interest (or had my father respected my wishes) in either case, I'm fairly certain I would have had a better childhood (not that I'm complaining about what I had -- it was usually very fun, though my idea of fun was hitting two rocks together on a stump and seeing which one would break first).

revolutionary8

11-09-2008, 08:05 PM

You are making the "states rights trump the federal government" argument, and I agree with that. However, you are also making the (inadvertently, I hope) "states rights trump individual rights" argument at the same time.

Here's what it should look like:

Individual Rights > States' Rights > Federal Rights

But your argument does this:

Individual Rights < States' Rights > Federal Rights

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?).
In a perfect world, or a true Republic, there would be no state or federally mandated Marriage Licenses, and as one poster pointed out earlier, the marriage license was installed in order to keep blacks from marrying whites. Just because a marriage license is supposedly "necessary" to define "marriage" to the state does not mean that the individuals must obtain a marriage license in order to be committed to one another.

That brings me to wonder- does common law marriage apply to gay couples?

revolutionary8

11-09-2008, 08:20 PM

I am unconvinced of the truth of the bolded statement. Clan warfare might be preferable.

Court ordered child support payments are a divorce subsidy.

You really should start a new thread on this topic sratiug, it is an interesting topic that should be discussed. I believe that children should be supported, and they are a victim of divorce, not a "subsidy" of divorce. I have NO sympathy for dead beat dads and moms, and unfortunately the courts are needed in certain instances of injustice.
You spray, you pay.
Reading your story Kludge, it gives me even LESS faith in the courts, (as if that is possible lol) but what other option does a woman (or man) have when it comes to making sure that each parent is held accountable for their responsibilities as parents?

tmosley

11-09-2008, 08:21 PM

smileylovesfreedom

11-09-2008, 08:25 PM

I say everyone join their tax resistance in solidarity ;)

revolutionary8

11-09-2008, 08:30 PM

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.

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".

jack555

11-09-2008, 08:58 PM

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

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.

BlackTerrel

11-09-2008, 10:26 PM

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.

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

Kludge

11-09-2008, 10:30 PM

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

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.

revolutionary8

11-09-2008, 10:52 PM

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.

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

Grimnir Wotansvolk

11-09-2008, 11:43 PM

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

nickcoons

11-10-2008, 12:26 AM

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?).

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.

Anti Federalist

11-10-2008, 01:15 AM

I say everyone join their tax resistance in solidarity ;)

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.

Doktor_Jeep

11-10-2008, 01:17 AM

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.

SeanEdwards

11-10-2008, 06:01 AM

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

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

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

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.

lodge939

11-10-2008, 06:19 AM

Prop 8 is constitutional and lawful. Didn't Ron always say this should be dealt with at the local level?

yongrel

11-10-2008, 06:38 AM

Prop 8 is constitutional and lawful. Didn't Ron always say this should be dealt with at the local level?

So were Jim Crow laws. Simply being Constitutional does not make something right or proper.

danberkeley

11-10-2008, 12:13 PM

So were Jim Crow laws. Simply being Constitutional does not make something right or proper.

Unless we vote on it! :D

lodge939

11-10-2008, 12:30 PM

What about polygamy then? Are you in favor of that as well?

libertea

11-10-2008, 12:38 PM

What about polygamy then? Are you in favor of that as well?

Not opposed, but for me personally, one is more than enough

yongrel

11-10-2008, 12:52 PM

What about polygamy then? Are you in favor of that as well?

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.