Your quote "Money does not equal liberty" is inaccurate. Well, money does not in itself. If I were able to acquire it with no effort, it would not represent my time. I unfortunately, have not learned that trick, so for me (and hundreds of millions of other americans) money means time. My time. If all taxes were used for, was to run a government (pay for roads, military, police, fire, judges,congress, etc..), then asking me to pay that is not an infringement on my liberties.

When you create a social program however (like healthcare), and I am required to pay for some else's service with money I am required to earn. I am working in the service of others forcibly. I become an indentured servant. That is a loss of liberty.

So two ways to fix this.

• No social programs funded by the government. (Aside from education, as that one is profitable. Educated people make more money, and thus pay more taxes)
  
• flat tax with no exceptions.
  

Either one of those goes into service, then no longer is the government taking away my liberties (with respect to taking my time and giving it to someone else)

As for your comment that no one is forcing you to become rich (and 1/3 of what I make goes to the government, and I am anything but rich), is the same argument that no one is forcing a man to marry a woman.

You say not having same sex marriage is a loss of liberty. I could say that's true only if a gay man was not allowed to marry a woman, and straight men were allowed to marry men.

Every man in this country has the same right with respect to marriage. Every one of then can marry a woman. If you don't want to (for whatever reason), that's not a loss of liberty.

There you go, I used your philosophy about rich and poor, and applied it to marriage. It sounds just as stupid there too.

Even a lot of conservative economists would call your ideas poorly thought out.

Flat taxes just flat out don't work, because they would have to be somewhere around 30% to work.  That makes poor people's disposable income much lower, which means that over 95% of the consumers in the economy have less disposable income than they used to.  I don't think I need to go any further to tell you that this will hurt EVERYONE, especially the rich people who own all the corporations that make a profit based on how strong aggregate demand is.  Those with higher incomes more reliably save their income, so those who were benefitting from the flat tax system (the highest in income) would not be able to make up for the loss in demand.

So even if what you are proposing is "fair," it would derail the economy and stifle demand.  And that would mean EVEN LESS money for rich people, since there would be less demand for the goods and services that the companies they own/work for offer.

So it is highly probable that rich people would actually end up making less money under a flat tax, since the economy would  not be as strong as it would be otherwise.  Not to mention wages would most likely have to be higher since most people would be paying higher taxes.

You didn't explain how in your fair system how the wealthy will secure their wealth?  With a bank insurance? With police?  With a military?  Well if there's a flat tax and minimal government services, then what do the poor and middle class get for paying the higher taxes?

Who decides what's a good thing to spend government money on? Roads? Not everyone benefits equally from roads.  Military... what poor person cares who their master is, if they live in a system that doesn't provide any benefits?

Think about history for a minute.  What has happened in countries where the rich didn't take care of the poor?  (Hint: French Revolution, Russian and then the Bolshevic Revolution, most of modern day Africa, every Asian communist country, and failed colonies.) I'm not saying it's fair or right, just that it works.

Your missing the point on my stance on gay marriage.  Why not let people do something that doesn't harm anyone, when it will give them one less thing to revolt over.  The fact of the matter is gay marriage upsets a lot of straight people, but if it is allowed, then they will get used to it with time.  If the ban continues, the civil unrest will continue.  It's just what works.

I wil complete my whole idea from earlier.

The balance is between liberty and order.  People rebel for the sake of liberty when they have significantly less than they want.  It fails and order is restored with less liberty than before.  If you don't manage with liberty and order in mind, you will have neither.

My original line was used to show that we are going to far in the direction of order, and now we have people rioting.  That is a failure of government.

I'd rather not get into much of the debate on this issue. I'll just simply say two things:

First, that I disagree fervently with you. I wouldn't go as far as calling you a bigot (which I don't believe you are), but I certainly don't think highly of your attempted justifications for your unacceptance of gay sex. However, I realize that that is your belief so it's absurd to be offended by it. So I apologize if I may sound somewhat condescending, it's just an issue where I find myself incapable of any hint of objectivity.

Secondly, and on a lighter note, your quoted argument is similar to that of Angel's father from X-Men: The Last Stand regarding the cure for mutants. Again, you have my apologies, this time for reminding you of this movie and what a huge disappointment it was.

 So I assume you are against the current police and education system as well yes? Why should I have to pay to investigate someone robbing you? I shouldn't have to pay to educate your children either. Why is my liberty going to furthering someone else?

 I assume you are against the above statements however. We should not privatize the police department, education (fully), the fire department, or a number of other governmental services. The question is not whether the government has a right to take your money to help the someone you don't know. The question is why is it ok in certain circumstances. The services are normally something any individual can be expeted to have to deal with, and serves the greater good of the society as a whole. Everyone is expected to get sick, and it is in the best interest of society to heal the sick. It makes as much sense to privatize health care as it does to privatize criminal justice.

 On a broader scale there is no such thing as true freedom in our society. Nothing you have proposed would even bring us closer to that. At the end of the day we are subject to whatever policies our government puts forth. The will of the majority is pushed on everyone else. Thats just the way society works. In our society the majority of money is controlled by a minority of people. This means the more money you have, the more likely you are to be at odds with the government on some issues. If you don't like it I suggest you find a remote island somewhere to live off the land. There you will have true freedom that you desire.

"Individuals should not be prohibited from doing things that do not damage the welfare of others or security of the nation, whether or not the majority of citizens or their representatives want to."

QFT!

That is exactly how it should be.

I know I am missing 4 pages of religious zealot arguments that have no real basis in any religious teachings beyond cryptic quotes taken out of context, but I just don't have time to read blind faith.

As a Muslim I don't think God intends us to be homosexuals, especially since that goes against the continuation of human life. However, I also don't think God will consider it a crime. After all, it would be pretty hypocritical to punish a homosexual when God creates people with both sexual organs. Who are they allowed to marry? After all, technically they are both woman and man.

So, if God can make a human that is both and then it is that person's inner desires that decides which team they are on, why can't God make a man or woman have inner desires for someone of the same sex?