Shrink Government: Allow Gays to Marry

[dannno]

To anybody who says that government would be getting "bigger" if we allowed gays to marry, how do you figure?


Why Same Sex Couples Pay More Taxes

"Same sex families are paying as much as $6,000 more in taxes compared to heterosexual couples..."
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0412/Why-Same-Sex-Couples-Pay-More-Taxes.aspx

Wow, that's a lot of money we could be keeping away from the government!!

I don't see any logical reason why gay people shouldn't be able to get married if straight people are afforded the same privilege. Especially when it would shrink government.

Ron Paul seems to be arguing for the states to decide on marriage for the same reason he argues that states should be allowed to make sodomy laws. Ron Paul may not like sodomy or agree with gay marriage, but in principle he doesn't believe they should be illegal, but in principle believes that states should be in charge of those areas and NOT the federal govt.

So why on earth would any freedom loving individual believe that it is ok for some people to get a tax break, but not others?

Oh ya, thanks to whoever posted that link in one of the Chik-fil-a threads earlier. I couldn't find the post so I don't remember who it was but still had the article up in another tab.

[Kluge]

Because this goes in the wrong direction. We should be pushing to move away from gov't "privileges" not towards making them more established.

That said, I almost don't give a shit about this "issue."

[angelatc]

Social Security benefits come out of my pocket. I don't want any more spouses added.

I'm against extending even more benefits to anybody. I want to take away the privileges that government gives married people, not give more people government privileges.

[dannno]

Because this goes in the wrong direction. We should be pushing to move away from gov't "privileges" not towards making them more established.

That said, I almost don't give a shit about this "issue."

Privileges where people get free stuff = bad

Privileges where people get less of their stuff taken = good

[dannno]

Social Security benefits come out of my pocket. I don't want any more spouses added.

So you want gay people to subsidize your government payments?




I'm against extending even more benefits to anybody. I want to take away the privileges that government gives married people, not give more people government privileges.

Less taxes = good benefit

[CaptUSA]

On a side, but related note, I heard Dire Straits' "Money for Nothing" on satellite radio today and they totally editted the song. Took out the whole verse about "That little ****** with the ear ring and the make-up".

Are we really that screwed up that we can't even hear this stuff? I didn't think it was meant to be disparaging; hell, the song is envious of them! Sorry, it just pissed me off today.

Ok, back to the thread.

ETA: Oh, apparently we are! Even this forum edits that word. Weird.

[Kluge]

Privileges where people get free stuff = bad

Privileges where people get less of their stuff taken = good

I agree, except that we shouldn't be on our knees begging for tax cuts via new laws. We should be peeling it away.

I support getting gov't out of marriage, not bringing new people into the fold to see tax cut benefits. To be completely forthcoming--most homosexuals are statists (don't use that often) and once they get a tax cut for being married, they will never, ever be persuaded to roll back gov't control over marriage.

That's my only goal in this--to get gov't out. And "legalizing" gay marriage is contrary to that goal. No "privileges" for married people over single people--I don't care what their persuasion is--even though it's tempting because it's less revenue for the gov't. They'll make it up somehow, and we'll be even more fucked.

I'm trying to think long-term.

[angelatc]

So you want gay people to subsidize your government payments?




Less taxes = good benefit

Less taxes is misdirection. I support less taxes. But you can't reduce taxes while raising spending without getting the Fed to print an endless stream of money. Less spending and less taxes is my position.

Less taxes and more spending is your position.

And we need all the help we can get if we're going to ever stand a shot at phasing out Social Security. While there aren't really enough gay people to make a big difference by voting, history shows they can make a disproportionate amount of noise about the the things they want government to give them.

Let gays marry, give them tax breaks, give them survivor benefits, then expect them to align with the freedom agenda.

Fucking brilliant plan you've got there.

[angelatc]

ETA: Oh, apparently we are! Even this forum edits that word. Weird.

People keep saying this isn't important, but it's creating a huge rift in the liberty movement.

[dannno]

Let gays marry, give them tax breaks, give them survivor benefits, then expect them to align with the freedom agenda.

Fucking brilliant plan you've got there.

Well as others are saying, the issue isn't really that important.. except that if you are gay with a partner you are losing an extra $6,000 a year to the tax man. They see it as a civil rights issue and it is important to them and they have a more correct position than the person who says government SHOULD be involved in marriage but only straights can marry.

Really I'd like to see the religious statists lose the argument and then maybe gay people can focus on something more important related to politics like the wars overseas or something.

[alucard13mmfmj]

i just dont see how gay getting married can affect non-gays getting married.

seems like a lot of people get married IN A CHURCH and they arent even christians. I had a lot of atheist and buddhist friends that married in a church, just because it seems like an american tradition or what marriage is supposed to take place.

what they should do is ban marriage all together and use the term "union" which applies to both gay and non-gays.

[angelatc]

i just dont see how gay getting married can affect non-gays getting married.

seems like a lot of people get married IN A CHURCH and they arent even christians.

what they should do is ban marriage all together and use the term "union" which applies to both gay and non-gays.

Absolutely. But I find it especially frustrating to see how so many usually clear-headed libertarians are falling for the liberal notion that it's a function of government to make life fair.

We have 3 choices: Expand government power, leave it the same, or shrink it. Getting the government out of marriage isn't on anybody's agenda, but that doesn't make expansion the best choice.

[angelatc]

Well as others are saying, the issue isn't really that important.. except that if you are gay with a partner you are losing an extra $6,000 a year to the tax man.

ANd by the way, that's not really correct either. You added words that aren't there when you added "a year."

I'm not going to over analyze it, but in short, that article selected a rather random sample to make its point, and intentionally left out the other side of the equation - the government spending.

But if it makes you happy to think it's not biased, or that it's ok to send the country deeper in some desperate attempt to make liberals happy, then nothing is going to change that.

[jkr]

no ones buisness
no taxes-for anyone
no "conflicts" of interest
busy bodies and thugs of ALL stripes GO HOME

LEAVE THE PEACEFULL in PEACE

[jmdrake]

To anybody who says that government would be getting "bigger" if we allowed gays to marry, how do you figure?


Why Same Sex Couples Pay More Taxes


And here's WHY SAME SEX COUPLE MAY PAY EVEN HIGHER TAXES IF GAY MARRIAGE IS RECOGNIZED.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?378963-Is-gay-marriage-a-scam-to-increase-taxes-on-gays

If you want to push for gay marriage because you just "like the idea", fine. But people shouldn't parrot the gay lobby's talking points without even giving them critical thought.

[jkr]

no one should need approval from the state to associate with anybody. uncomfortable or many butits the truth

no taxes-for anyone, if you want a kid, screw a chik/dude and MAKE ONE like the rest of us

busy bodies and thugs of ALL stripes GO HOME
productive and creative people fully express themselves FOR A LIVING

oh, and we ended the fed, so the economy is REAL...no "conflicts" of interest, no need to control everyone around you.

LEAVE THE PEACEFUL in PEACE

[Victor Grey]

Really I'd like to see the religious statists lose the argument and then maybe gay people can focus on something more important related to politics like the wars overseas or something.

That isn't how special interest groups work. There is no "off" switch and then they leave. There's little "they" either.
Most especially toward demographic special interest groups.

You get your gay marriage, those same interest groups will want gay welfare. Then they'll want gay healthcare clinics, gay tax subsidies, gay immigrant rights and gay mortgage rates and gay business loans; and they'll lobby for it because Xgroup had it hard once and the public needs to make up for it out of pocket.

Any special interest group wrapped around what color you are, or what gender you have, where grandma came from or whatever, do not stop. There is no point of equality, there is no time of equal opportunity, there is always some crisis to engineer. That is the entire point, they're built to sustain themselves and that comes from never ceasing to fight for special benefits handed out by the government.

The actual people who are whatever group in question the special interest targets to pander toward are the last people who are going to oppose whatever it is being brought back to the doorstep. Politicians are going to stoke the fires as much as possible, because they're paid to, and it will simple fuel itself. At best you get minor diminishing returns.

How many black citizens are outraged by maryland treating them like they're lesser citizens and need to be treated differently with this education system scheme? Less than anyone else. I'd be pissed that disgusts me.

Are women more likely to care that court systems favor them over their husbands? No, they are going to be less likely. That is the notion feminist groups deem fairness.

Gay people won't be any different. Special interest groups aren't any different, it's the same method whatever group they claim to serve in question.
Federally instituted gay marriage won't stop them from lobbying for something else. It doesn't even have anydamnthing to do with what's just equal or morally fair.


The only way rough social equality among people ever really happens is that people actually stop giving a shit. Then after a few generations pass no one cares if your Irish or Italian or German or Asian or half native american or gay or Spanish or what the hell ever.

Special interest groups are dependent upon people caring about those things.

[AuH20]

That isn't how special interest groups work. There is no "off" switch and then they leave. There's little "they" either.
Most especially toward demographic special interest groups.

You get your gay marriage, those same interest groups will want gay welfare. Then they'll want gay healthcare clinics, gay tax subsidies, gay immigrant rights and gay mortgage rates and gay business loans; and they'll lobby for it because Xgroup had it hard once and the public needs to make up for it out of pocket.

Any special interest group wrapped around what color you are, or what gender you have, where grandma came from or whatever, do not stop. There is no point of equality, there is no time of equal opportunity, there is always some crisis to engineer. That is the entire point, they're built to sustain themselves and that comes from never ceasing to fight for special benefits handed out by the government.

The actual people who are whatever group in question the special interest targets to pander toward are the last people who are going to oppose whatever it is being brought back to the doorstep. Politicians are going to stoke the fires as much as possible, because they're paid to, and it will simple fuel itself. At best you get minor diminishing returns.

How many black citizens are outraged by maryland treating them like they're lesser citizens and need to be treated differently with this education system scheme? Less than anyone else. I'd be pissed that disgusts me.

Are women more likely to care that court systems favor them over their husbands? No, they are going to be less likely. That is the notion feminist groups deem fairness.

Gay people won't be any different. Special interest groups aren't any different, it's the same method whatever group they claim to serve in question.
Federally instituted gay marriage won't stop them from lobbying for something else. It doesn't even have anydamnthing to do with what's just equal or morally fair.


The only way rough social equality among people ever really happens is that people actually stop giving a shit. Then after a few generations pass no one cares if your Irish or Italian or German or Asian or half native american or gay or Spanish or what the hell ever.

Special interest groups are dependent upon people caring about those things.

Correct. This is just the beginning. In the long run, nearly all special interests are gluttonous pigs that will use government force to live at the expense of others. There are some unsavory Christian groups that want to combat the gay menace with those very same methods. I don't think they understand the fire they are playing with.

[heavenlyboy34]

Absolutely. But I find it especially frustrating to see how so many usually clear-headed libertarians are falling for the liberal notion that it's a function of government to make life fair.

We have 3 choices: Expand government power, leave it the same, or shrink it. Getting the government out of marriage isn't on anybody's agenda, but that doesn't make expansion the best choice.

Getting gov't out of marriage is on my agenda (though one of the more minor issues). I don't agree with the government "allowing" churches to exercises their rights. I don't see why some conservatives want government involved in marriage. It makes me sad. :(

[cajuncocoa]

Remember, in the 60s and 70s, when many people (especially on the Left) were saying marriage was an outdated institution, and a piece of paper doesn't really mean anything??

Just sayin'.

[pochy1776]

Dear Dannno, I know for a fact that you are awesome and not a fake libertarian like CATO, Reason, or (gay mustache) Stossel. Still, Gay "marriage" is another
red herring. If banning gay marriage means 6000 dollars less for the government. AWESOME! I would take it a step further. BAN ALL MARRIAGE. Then, people can get married without a license. That would then lead to the destruction of the unfunded liabilities we know as entitlements. Also, Ron Paul is bringing back Something that needs to be in American philosophy again. It is called Federalism. Federal deals with stuff that ACTUALLY matters (economy, defense,Natural Rights) and let the states decide on stupid,
dumb issues ("civil" rights, Polygamy, Gay Bar Bans)
Yes. I am a social conservative, but I don't want to impose my views on the state level. That would be in my personal life where i am trying to diss on Glee and
Greys Anatomy.

[pochy1776]

And here's WHY SAME SEX COUPLE MAY PAY EVEN HIGHER TAXES IF GAY MARRIAGE IS RECOGNIZED.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?378963-Is-gay-marriage-a-scam-to-increase-taxes-on-gays

If you want to push for gay marriage because you just "like the idea", fine. But people shouldn't parrot the gay lobby's talking points without even giving them critical thought.
Amen Brother, even if you do like CATO.