The New Argument For Homosexual Marriage (Barf Alert)

Me ^ | 11-4-09 | Me

[RolandTignor]

I haven't heard this argument before by homosexuals but here it is: "Taxes have everything to do with "no taxation without representation." Why should homosexuals have to pay taxes if they are going to be treated as second class citizens? Why should their tax dollars go to the govt? But if you and I can have our benefits left to our spouses and get tax breaks for filing, then everyone in a domestic partnership should have that right. The govt should support all marriage or no marriage. It should represent all it's constituents. We can't just apply the ideals of our constitution when it is popular, it must be applied evenly."

[OrangeHoof]

Do gays pay school taxes? Then they’re already second-class citizens, just like home-schoolers.

[ansel12]

All Americans have equal rights in regard to marriage.

[seton89]

those whose profess to be homos already have the right to marriage.

[Morgana]

Okay...they don’t pay taxes, then they don’t get their free AIDS medication!!!!

[a fool in paradise]

Ted Kennedy was a big advocate of the estate tax and fought efforts to scale it back. Want to bet he didn’t surrender his wealth to the State when he died?

[Secret Agent Man]

Same argument for heterosexual white guys. We’re the only 100% non-protected class in this stupid PC country.

[Piers-the-Ploughman]

what about for menages a trois and polygamy? what about if 2 brothers and another guy live together without committing sodomy? can they get benefits too. why can’t we all be married to all we want to be married to? when does it end?
why not just print money and hand it out to everybody who is needy?

sacrificial love is what makes a great society. here’s a clue: these homos do not have it. I’ll take 3500 years of Jewish-Christian morality and pass on this Jim Jones kool-aid. It won’t work.

This country has embraced so many lies and they drag us down.

[a fool in paradise]

Can’t marry a cousin. Or someone who’s already married.

That narrows down the pool somewhat. OTHER people can marry them, just not YOU.

[El Cid]

Pretty lame argument...
Rapists get treated as 2nd class citizens. They get thrown in jail when they are caught... They shouldn't pay taxes either.
Drunkards get frowned upon - they shouldn't pay taxes either... Adulterers are treated as 2nd class citizens ... they shouldn't pay taxes...

[a fool in paradise]

Non-violent felons are really second class citizens. Even after they have served their time, they are denied their constitutional right to own a gun.

[ansel12]

I don’t get it.

[word_warrior_bob]

What I’m waiting for is the new argument AGAINST homosexual marriage, the simple fact that we’re talking about a mental disorder, an environmental and developmental issue, not an equal and normal state of affairs in human sexuality to be respected.

I’m afraid we’ll never have an honest conversation about race, or homosexuality, at least not in any medium watched by more than a few folks.

[muir_redwoods]

Let them marry.

In 4-5 years they'll stop having sex just like heterosexual couples.

Problem solved ;-)

[chris_bdba]

Yep we all have the same rights. It is just that gays want extra rights.

[Chode]

delenda est...

[Round 9]

They are still protected by the U.S. military. They still have access to government largesse. They still vote, etc.

they still should pay taxes. What a stupid argument.

[chris_bdba]

You know if Islam ever really achieves it’s goal of worldwide domination then the gays really will have something to whine about. Until then they should really just STFU and be glad that waht happens in Iran doesn’t happen to them here.

[1776 Reborn]

Don’t want to pay taxes? See how far that gets you!

[Waryone]

I didn’t realize unmarried people were considered second class citizens.

[El Cid]

Non-violent felons are really second class citizens. Even after they have served their time, they are denied their constitutional right to own a gun.

Yeah, Ok, those guys have a legitimate beef. They are just caught up in the net where the Political rulers want to deny the 2nd Amendment rights to ALL citizens. They'll deny this right to whomever they can...

I was just trying to point out the absurdity of the argument. Someone is doing something dreadfully wrong (sodomy), and because it is treated as 'not acceptable' behavior - said individuals are saying they don't need to pay taxes... Balderdash.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Why should homosexuals have to pay taxes...?

Hemorrhoid research?

[GeronL]

for many people there is a tax penalty for marriage isn’t there?

Sure write up a contract that leaves your stuff to whomever you want. You can do a lot with contracts.

Thats just a smokescreen.

The point is they want the government to recognize their perversion as normal.

Kevin Jennings?

[DJ MacWoW]

Marriage isn’t about taxes. It’s about creating children and a family. Homosexuals create nothing from a union. Their physical relationships will always be nonproductive.

[Round 9]

As well they should be. Simple solution, don’t commit a felony.

[Nosterrex]

The state determines who or what is taxed based upon legislation passed by congress. Being treated “as a second-class” citizen is not the same thing as being a citizen. The latter is determined by the state. How someone feels is irrelevant. For instance, you have to be 21 years of age to drink legally in my state, but you can vote at 18 and serve in the military. Someone 18 could say that they are being treated as second class citizens” because they are not permitted to drink. Being a citizen does not mean that I must have every right that another citizen has. The state can choose to encourage one set of behavior through the tax code and deter another. It does this all the time. The second matter is that the state determines what rights are permitted. There is no right to same-sex marriage. It is not in the interest of the state to allow such marriages. Just as it is not in the interest of the state to allow pedophilia or beastiality. There are so many laws, rules, and regulations concerning marriage, sexual activity, and taxation that anyone could claim to be treated as a second-class citizen if that wanted.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

What I’m waiting for is the new argument AGAINST homosexual marriage, the simple fact that we’re talking about a mental disorder, an environmental and developmental issue, not an equal and normal state of affairs in human sexuality to be respected.

A "new argument" would be the votes cast in the states must be enforced...

[Rockingham]

If gay marriage was really about taxes, then gays would be in the forefront of anti-tax efforts, or at least efforts to change federal tax benefits as to marriage. Of course, that is not the case, and gays instead tend to be on the liberal side as to taxes, spending, and everything else.

This point might be approached indirectly by asking what general principle is involved in the marriage tax argument. That one cannot justly be taxed unless one gets a corresponding benefit? Or that tax exemptions should be more widely distributed?

No argument is possible in terms of such a general principle unless the entire edifice of the modern welfare state is overthrown. And that is not what gays are about.

Nor do they even propose to be satisfied by changes in federal tax law to accommodate gay partners. They instead want marriage to be redefined to accommodate them and to destroy its meaning as exclusively between a man and a woman.

[a fool in paradise]

Should those who engage in perjury, libel, slander, sedition, treason, fraud, or inciting a riot have their first ammendment rights revoked for the rest of their life after serving their sentence?

[a fool in paradise]

Why push for indoctrination in schools if it is strictly about taxes?

[a fool in paradise]

Citizens today are treated as second class citizens whenever illegal aliens are permitted to vote, drive, engage in identity theft, and tax fraud without prosecution whereas the citizenry would be subject to the laws of the land.

[a fool in paradise]

Let them marry. In 4-5 years they'll stop having sex

With each other.

"Monogamy is so overrated..."

[a fool in paradise]

Someone who is not related to your cousin can marry your cousin. YOU may not.

Someone who is already married to someone you are interested in was permitted to marry that person. YOU may not (until such time that spouse exires or divorces).

People who like gay sex are permitted to marry any member of the opposite sex they choose (who is not already married and who is not their relative, just like everyone else).

There is no discrimination beyond the rules that EVERYONE has to obey.

[Rockingham]

Yup.

[McBuff]

The fallacy is the notion that any individual can determine what shall be the basis of their rights. Those who engage in homosexual behavior have tricked us into accepting this premise for them. They are saying that their inalienable rights are predicated on their contrived "homosexual" or "gay" identity. They are free to assert this identity if they so choose, however, they cannot assert that this is the basis of human rights for all. The America creed establishes rights upon a UNIVERSAL standard for all. . .not upon an exclusive behavior such as homosexuality or even, for that matter, heterosexuality. The standard of our rights are rooted in "the laws of nature and of nature's God." They are extended to all owing to their HUMAN identity. .an identity that we all share. . .not the contrived identity asserted by those who engage in a particular behavior. . .a behavior exclusive to them.

The question is. . .is it unconstitutional for society to protect marriage between a man and a woman? It is clear, from the standpoint of the laws of nature and of nature's God that the heterosexual unit is the norm. It is a self-evident truth that society has a vested interest to protect and support heterosexual marriage. Heterosexuality in marriage produces results that are impossible to any homosexual unit. Even those who profess to be homosexual and are attempting to construct "homosexual" communities are dependent on heterosexuality and are in need of its continued existence. In contrast, those who profess heterosexuality are in no way dependent upon homosexuality in any way. Thus. . it is in the interest of society to protect and grant special privileges to the male-female unit. It is a privilege open to all. . .including those who have engaged in homosexual behavior. Any person who has engaged in homosexuality is not prevented from participation in heterosexual marriage.

[ansel12]

Gotcha, thanks

[FrankR]

"Why should homosexuals have to pay taxes if they are going to be treated as second class citizens? "

They have the same marriage rights as the rest of the country...therefore, the conclusion that they are "second class citizens" is a moot point, and gays are just jumping on the same "2nd class citizens" argument during civil rights. The difference is, color and/or race, is a reality, being gay is a choice.

EVERYBODY can't be a "minority"...for then all "2nd class citizens" would become the "Majority"...therefore 2nd class citizenry would be unattainable by their own vote.

As Rush has said for over 20 years..."Follow the money"...it's all about the benefits and perks of marriage...they will co-habitate/common law anyway...so the money is the only thing that they are interested in with these ludicrous and childish demands.

[ansel12]

If gay marriage was really about taxes, then gays would be in the forefront of anti-tax efforts, or at least efforts to change federal tax benefits as to marriage. Of course, that is not the case, and gays instead tend to be on the liberal side as to taxes, spending, and everything else.

To me that is a very solid observation that should be pursued by Republican politicians and conservatives, not just to point out the falsity of their claim but also as a legitimate appeal for them to look at conservative tax policies. To remind them that not everything is about their sexual compulsions.

[Twotone]

The best argument for homosexual marriage is that it protects children. The assumption that they don’t have kids is incorrect. I personally know a lesbian couple, together 19 years, that raised a son from a previous relationship. He’s a fine, strapping young man, married now & with a baby of his own. Having an emotionally & financially stable environment is the most important thing for any child. And while heteros may see the gay relationship as an oddity, it exists. We should allow those individuals to pursue their happiness, just as we do.

[timm22]

How about letting everyone choose one "tax benefits partner" regardless of whether a sexual relationship is involved? Traditional married couples could choose their spouse as their TBP, or perhaps someone else if that would be to their economic advantage. Gay couples could do the same. Single people living together (such as college age siblings) could choose each other until they got married and went their separate ways. Everyone wins except for the tax collectors...but who cares about them?

Better yet, why not just radically simplify the tax code, drastically lower taxes for everyone, and stop trying to engineer society through tax laws?

[Publius6961]

Why should homosexuals have to pay taxes if they are going to be treated as second class citizens?

If you found that a cogent argument, I gotta ask...
When do you get out of Jr High?

Not being allowed to hijack the word marriage, which is the nirvana of the perverts, cannot possibly be construed as "second-class" citizenship. At least not by any adult with an IQ over 75.

Just saying.

[Little Ray]

They’re not treated a second class citizens. They have all the rights that straights do. Some (Most?) of us just not inclined to give them extra rights or otherwise subsidize their perversity.

[Round 9]

Yes. Again, don’t commit a felony. As far as treason, they should be executed. That takes care of their 1st and 2nd amendment rights right there.

[Rockingham]

Politically conservative gays tend to be discreet and to dislike the out there types. There is a fair amount of evidence that most rabid gay activists were childhood victims of sexual predation by a family member, teacher, clergy, or other adult in authority.

[massmike]

bookmark

[octex]

A glaring error in the argument is the idea that marriage is a “right”. A license to marry is no different than a license to drive; both are “privileges” governed by each State (not the Federal gov’t.). ...In both cases, the applicants must meet the conditions specified by the State before receiving a license. If the State does not permit same sex marriage, polygamy, etc., it does not brand people that would prefer those types of marriages as “2nd class citizens”; it just does not confer on them a license to marry.

[Nosterrex]

I agree. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, in which our rights come from the Creator, the Constitution makes no such claim. The government decides what rights we have, or do not have. If the government, those elected representatives serving in Congress and the appointed Supreme Court, decide that we are second-class citizens, then that is what we are. We are basing our rights on an illusion. They can be taken away just as easily as they were given.

[Mike Darancette]

Why should their tax dollars go to the govt? But if you and I can have our benefits left to our spouses and get tax breaks for filing, then everyone in a domestic partnership should have that right.

A domestic partnership is not a marriage. The tax benefits of a domestic partnership is something for the tax code to resolve and I personally don't care what rights domestic partners get (but not more than a married person).

A marriage is between a man and a woman. Every man and every woman has the same right to marry someone of the opposite gender.

[POWERSBOOTHEFAN]

You mean I can’t marry Powers Boothe? *sob*

[a fool in paradise]

Can’t marry DEAD people either.

Otherwise Linda Carter could marry Howard Hughes and then Hennry Kissenger. Just think, she’d be Wonder Hughes Kissenger now.