Urethra Franklin

Those on these boards who feel gay people don't deserve the same rights as heterosexuals (marriage, adoption etc.) must surely agree that as responsibilties come with rights, surely no rights means no responsibilties.

So, do you agree that gay people should be exempt from paying tax?
Why on earth should they contribute to a society which denies them the rights of their heterosexual counterparts?

__________________
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=-pW87BM_3fw

HeteroDefenseLeague

[quote=Urethra Franklin]Those on these boards who feel gay people don't deserve the same rights as heterosexuals (marriage, adoption etc.) must surely agree that as responsibilties come with rights, surely no rights means no responsibilties.[quote]

It is interesting to notice how homosexuals extremists, who claim they are so proud of their abnormal behavior, can't seem to try to describe their sexual behaviors in a correct term, i.e., "homosexual". Instead they take a term that is defined as meaning: "happy", and attempt to co-opt then redefine it, and even get stupid, mindless heterosexual lemmings to go along with their little political propaganda terms. This is done in an attempt to "sanitize" then repackage their behaviors for marketing purposes. So much for "gay pride".

Interesting how a homosexual extremist feels that if they are denied just a couple of rights, just like society denies the right to people to engage in drunk driving, zoophilia and heroin use, they think that all the other responsibilities to all the other rights they all have all of a sudden should be suspended....

Using their false logic, since homosexual extremists actively work to deny heterosexual people their rights to freedom of association and to be left alone, all heterosexuals should have no responsibilities.

Homosexual extremists, as long as they don't break laws, have all the rights associated with being a citizen, they just don't get any of the rights to marry like heterosexuals get, so they have all the responsibilities associated with citizenship with the exception of any of the responsibilities that allegedly come from being married.

Zoophiles still have to pay taxes....

Urethra Franklin

[quote=HeteroDefenseLeague][quote=Urethra Franklin]Those on these boards who feel gay people don't deserve the same rights as heterosexuals (marriage, adoption etc.) must surely agree that as responsibilties come with rights, surely no rights means no responsibilties.
I'm not homosexual, just fair minded.
And it's obvious you're the banned Libertarian in disguise, so why don't you anwser the intelligent questions posed to you elsewhere? You're not capable? Why are we not surprised.

GarzaUK

You ask an interesting question uretha.

If homosexuals pays the same taxes as anyone else, why shouldn't they have the same rights and "priviledges" as heterosexual people?
I mean conservatives say marriage is priviledge, then how do heterosexual people gain the priviledge of marriage - for being in the majority (is that the reason).

All the religious rules or laws about homosexuality all null and void when it comes to govern a secular government like the US.
Religious parties have NO right to pose their beliefs on every single person in the country.

__________________
They tried like hell. They called him an élitist, a radical, a socialist, a Marxist, a Muslim, an Arab, an appeaser, a danger to the republic, a threat to small children, a friend of terrorists, an enemy of Israel, a vote thief, a non-citizen, an anti-American, and a celebrity. ~ George Packer

Jaxian

I must admit that the idea that gay people should pay no taxes is an invalid one, for surely gay people do see some legal benefits, even though they don't see all benefits. What might be up for debate, however, is whether gay people should get a tax break equal to the amount of money they had previously been taxed to pay for opposite-sex marriage.
The real question is then: if we deny benefits to some group of people but give it to another, should the people denied those benefits be taxed for them?

I would say that in some cases, the people denied those benefits should be taxed. If the people recieving benefits are at a sort of inherent disadvantage, for example if they are mentally retarded or handicapped, then as a morally good and caring society, it is our responsibility to help those people recieve an equal opportunity at happiness by using a little of everyone's money to help them out.

However, in the case of marriage, heterosexuals are at no inherent disadvantage. It cannot be stated that children is a disadvantage because not all married couples have children, there is already a seperate set of benefits for children, and same-sex couples can as easily have children as opposite-sex couples. It should stand to reason then, that if either is disadvantaged, it is homosexuals, not heterosexuals, simply because homosexuals must face the disapproval of society, which is a difficult thing to face.

So we don't grant marriage benefits only to opposite-sex couples because they have an increased need. But it could also be that opposite-sex couples aren't disadvantaged, but marriage is simply a benefit that only they would use. If this is the case, it would make sense treat it similar to a government investment program. Those who use it pay into it, those who don't do not.

Yet again, it should be clear that marriage is actually not a benefit that only opposite-sex couples would use.

So why do we disallow same-sex couples from marrying? Well, according to me, the real reason is because the majority wants to discourage same-sex relationships, they want to promote their own religious beliefs, and they want to elevate themselves over other people. We can see this in people who claim that homosexuality is immoral. Those people are not basing that immorality on homosexuality's harm to anyone else, they're basing it on their own religious beliefs; they are writing their religion into the law, saying effectively that same-sex marriage is wrong because their own religion or belief is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong.

Yet I will argue that the real immorality, the real evil, is the promotion of one's own religion or belief above others and the elevation of one's own lifestyle above those who live differently. Those are actions bred in selfishness and stripped of compassion for those different than oneself.

If I am correct my belief about why people deny same-sex marriage (though I'm sure anyone who opposes same-sex marriage will disagree with me), then we do not actually have any good reason to give marriage only to opposite-sex couples. If this is true, gay people should not be paying less taxes. Gay people should be given access to the same rights and benefits as everyone else.

JustineCredible

Exactly who are these "Homosexual extremists?"

I keep hearing this term, but never a definition of what exactly makes a homosexual an extremist. Is it homosexuals who actually utilize their FREEDOM OF SPEECH? Or is it homosexuals who simply disagree with you?

Ok, here we go again. What is SO wrong with a behavior that is "adnormal?" Does it harm you or anyone else? Does it infringe on your rights or make a victim or you or others? No.
Liking licorice could be concidered an "abnormal behavior." Being left-handed an easily fall into the same catagory of "abnormal."


Ah, so when heterosexuals call themselves "straight" even though it really means errect, is that simply an Oxymoron? Concidering most of them behave more like Cromagna man!

"lemmings" you mean those of the ultra-right-wing who, even when faced with facts, can't seem to let go their religious beliefs and impose them upon EVERY citizen?
Those are the REAL lemmings.

As far as the word; "Gay" being used to mean a homosexual, if you read the paragraph bellow, it will become quite ovbious that it was "reclaimed" by homosexuals after having been pinned with that term by HETEROSEXUALS!

http://www.wordorigins.org/wordorg.htm

So, don't go blaming GAYs for the word...



Word "repackaging" is a phenominon that has existed throughout time.
BTW: the Nazi's claimed they were "sanatizing" their country when they EXTERMINATED as many as 5,000 to 15,000 homosexual (or PERCEIVED homosexual) men.
http://www.triangles-roses.org/persecution_gays.htm




A COUPLE? You call being denied nearly 1,100 rights and protections...A COUPLE?
Here's the list...you tell me if you would now like to continue this lie?

(the list starts on page 2 of this PDF file)

List of rights and protections attached to marriage.

You truly have a twisted way of looking at things. How many times do you need to be told; drunk driving, zoophilia and heroin use...ALL CREATE VICTIMS! Being homosexual DOES NOT.
No matter how much spin you put on it, the fact remains, someone BEING homosexual causes no harm to anyone, creates no victims (unless you count the persecution, extermination, murder and other crimes of HATE perpetrated against homosexuals themselves!)

Responcibility of marriage is to "Love, honor and cherrish; in sickness and in health; for richer and for poorer; until death do us part." Where in that does it say anything different than what we homosexuals WANT to take part in?
What laws decree responcibilities of which homosexuals are saying they don't want to take part in?


How's that?
Exactly how are homosexuals denying you any rights whatsoever?
How is "freedom of association" linked to "freedom to enact laws which discriminate based on religious beliefs?"

Talk about your "false logic." Again, as has been said before:

All Eagles are birds, all penguins are bird. But all eagles are NOT penguins.
Your line of logic skips quite a few steps here.


Wait for it....here it comes...the big "BUT"

Therein lies the problem!
Are you simply not seeing it?
You said it yourself. Homosexuals are NOT afforded the right to marry! Therefor curbing a right to "freedom of association" which you whine about, but actually have and take completely for granted.

Who exactly died and made you all Gawd? Since when do we, as citizens of this country, have the right to make the choice for anyone else?
If it does not cause harm, creates no victims, why do so much to make sure homosexuals can't gain access to it?
All I see is your failed logic trying to justify your religious hate as a means in which to base laws.
Sorry, but our government is SECULAR, not "Christian" as so many of your kind try to pawn off.

Zoophiles aren't trying to gain access to marriage laws. Zoophilia creates victims.
Don't even try that bit of truly flawed logic, it just won't fly.

__________________

shuamort

Great volley JustineCredible

JustineCredible

I just couldn't resist. He handed himself over on a silver plater, for crying out loud. I would have been remiss to have allowed that post, which was just one fat lie after another, to go unchallenged.

Quertol

marriage= man + woman...

Simple...

__________________
"Liberalism is a mental disorder"
...Michael Savage...

Jaxian

That is what legal marriage is today. But we have the power to change what legal marriage is. And when someone approaches you and explains that a man and a man have just as much need for marriage as a man and a women, and that they deserve equal treatment, how do you justify leaving that equation as it is?