From: mason@lambda.msfc.nasa.gov (Jim Mason)
Subject: Re: Presidential talk
Organization: NASA/MSFC
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:58:31 GMT

lhughes@b11.b11.ingr.com (Lawrence Hughes) writes:

>In my view, the tax laws are not part of the "social contract" between an
>individual and the state. I never agreed (nor would I ever agree) to let them 
>steal such a large percentage of my income for such ignoble purposes. They
>are able to do this ONLY because they possess (for now) superior armament.
>Again, I am much in the same position as anyone that is the victim of a
>protection racket - if I don't pay taxes, they will come rearrange my face.
>Some "voluntary contract".

> [...] 

> My only point was that I can't think of any convincing or logical
> argument that could differentiate tax treatment of DINKs and
> homosexual couples. Where we differ is that I think that conventional
> (here I mean one parent of each sex with one or more offspring of the
> parents) marriages should get preferential treatment compared to
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> either. On the other hand, I really do personally disapprove of
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I was under the impression that libertarians don't advocate use of the
GOVERNMENT to encourage, give preferential treatment to, or discourage
activities which involve individual autonomy, such as when (or whether)
to have children.

The power to tax is the power to destroy.  I find it inconsistent that
a self-avowed libertarian would advocate governmental involvement to
advance a certain social agenda.

But thanks for pointing out that, indeed, heterosexuals do enjoy
PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.  One of the shreweder things that opponents of
gays and lesbians have done is to say that gays and lesbians are
trying to get SPECIAL RIGHTS, when in reality we are trying to achieve
parity.

> homosexual marriages, and most especially of extending tax breaks to
> them that are intended to foster conventional reproduction and
> continuation of our species.

One assumption in your argument is that increased production of
children will increase chances of continuation of the species.
Considering the positive population growth we now "enjoy", it will
only be a matter of time before the finite resources are exhausted,
and renewable resources will reach a state where they cannot be
replenished at a rate sufficient to keep up with demand.  If THIS is
true, then using your premise (that we should use the government to
ensure continuation of the species), we should PENALIZE breeders, and
reward those who are childless (sorta like what's already having to
happen in China).

Would you be willing to have the government PENALIZE you for
preservation of the species, or does that as a legitimate function of
government only apply when you are not among those being penalized?
As well, there are also many other things that help preserve the
species (for example, education).  I didn't think that the LP (or
libertarians in general) advocated government involvement in any
of these areas.

>Sorry, I still consider homosexual proclivity to be a larger departure from
>acceptable behaviour than enjoying "far side", or having political opinions
>past the 4th standard deviation. In particular, I feel that choosing such a
>lifestyle inherently disqualifies one from participation in the raising of
>children, or in tax benefits designed to encourage such activity.

Though it has been said many times, and I'm sure it will be said
again, sexual orientation is not chosen.  That is not uniquely a gay
or lesbian position; after all, did you CHOOSE to be HET?  While I
think most people could masquerade as heterosexual, if they were gay,
or pretend to be gay even if they were not, such pretense would not be
enjoyable or satisfying.  Given the choice, people will eventually act
on the orientation which is innate to them, be it gay or het.

-Jim

  ACTION == LIFE
        \     	   Jim Mason                              --------------
         \    	   NTI Systems Group                         Standard  
        / \   	   NASA/Marshall Space Flight Centre        Disclaimer 
       /   \  	   +1 205 544 2122                        --------------
 SILENCE == DEATH