History of the marriage license

[Derideo_Te]

View attachment 44870 Sure. Not a symbol of racism.

I wonder how the mind works sometimes. If they drove a Yugo, would yogo's be racist?

Because a group uses a symbol they did not create, it does not mean that the symbol is there's.

The symbol of the Swastika and its 12 000-year-old history Ancient Origins

The swastika symbol has been around for 12,000 years but can you see it today and not make the racist connection?

when did jewish become a race? I thought it was a religion.

Are you denying that the Nazi's were white supremacists?

John Wayne Gacy wore clown makeup, not much different than what you wear on your avatar.

Just a thought on symbolism.

Non sequitur.

How about we get back to the OP topic of the history of marriage licenses now?

 

[Votto]

The marriage license had nothing to do with racism. It had to do with taking the record keeping functions away from the clergy . Once the government created the Bureau of Vital Statistics marriage record keeping became a function of the government.

Interracial marriage was illegal until 1967.

Do learn to read.

As Pastor Trewhalla mentions, “George Washington was married without a
marriage license.” This is true. In fact, before the middle of the
nineteenth century, no license was required to marry at all. Then,
horror of horrors, some people started wanting to marry interracially!
What a concept! Miscegination up until that point had been totally
illegal, then some states started to adopt marriage licenses - specifically
for interracial couples. Meaning that, basically, anyone could get
married… unless you had different skin colors. That, of course,
required permission from the state.

 

[Votto]

The should have no interest in our personal relationships at all. Why should they?

A secular state treats us as evolutionary glorified animals that need to be herded and "Put down" when they no longer are useful to the state, so sex and marriage is viewed much the same. The secular state does not recognize sex as a spiritual union of any kind. Instead, sex is just another bodily function like going to the bathroom, so why should the state have an interest?

If two people wish to enter a legal agreement they should be allowed to do so no matter if they want to have sex with them or not.

Looking at the divorce rate in the US, I think it would be a good thing. It would put out of business divorce lawyers and end the notion that marrying someone for their money is a good idea. Perhaps this is the main reason the state is involved. After all, they are all lawyers themselves and the law profession is a big political lobbyist.

Of course, the main reason the state is involved at all, is because they wish to divide and conquer.

Currently they are using marriage now to divide and conquer over gay marriage as where before it was over racial matters.

But that is what politics is all about. If politicians treated us all the same then who would send them millions of dollars to get elected? No one would care. Instead, politics is all about obtaining political power to get a leg up on your fellow citizen. To survive, politicians require inequality.

 

[Redfish]

The should have no interest in our personal relationships at all. Why should they?

A secular state treats us as evolutionary glorified animals that need to be herded and "Put down" when they no longer are useful to the state, so sex and marriage is viewed much the same. The secular state does not recognize sex as a spiritual union of any kind. Instead, sex is just another bodily function like going to the bathroom, so why should the state have an interest?

If two people wish to enter a legal agreement they should be allowed to do so no matter if they want to have sex with them or not.

Looking at the divorce rate in the US, I think it would be a good thing. It would put out of business divorce lawyers and end the notion that marrying someone for their money is a good idea. Perhaps this is the main reason the state is involved. After all, they are all lawyers themselves and the law profession is a big political lobbyist.

Of course, the main reason the state is involved at all, is because they wish to divide and conquer.

Currently they are using marriage now to divide and conquer over gay marriage as where before it was over racial matters.

But that is what politics is all about. If politicians treated us all the same then who would send them millions of dollars to get elected? No one would care. Instead, politics is all about obtaining political power to get a leg up on your fellow citizen. To survive, politicians require inequality.

Would your "anyone can marry" idea apply to multiple persons, siblings, parent/child, cousins, etc?

Those kinds of "marriages" would be for tax purposes only. Would you condone them?

 

[Votto]

The should have no interest in our personal relationships at all. Why should they?

A secular state treats us as evolutionary glorified animals that need to be herded and "Put down" when they no longer are useful to the state, so sex and marriage is viewed much the same. The secular state does not recognize sex as a spiritual union of any kind. Instead, sex is just another bodily function like going to the bathroom, so why should the state have an interest?

If two people wish to enter a legal agreement they should be allowed to do so no matter if they want to have sex with them or not.

Looking at the divorce rate in the US, I think it would be a good thing. It would put out of business divorce lawyers and end the notion that marrying someone for their money is a good idea. Perhaps this is the main reason the state is involved. After all, they are all lawyers themselves and the law profession is a big political lobbyist.

Of course, the main reason the state is involved at all, is because they wish to divide and conquer.

Currently they are using marriage now to divide and conquer over gay marriage as where before it was over racial matters.

But that is what politics is all about. If politicians treated us all the same then who would send them millions of dollars to get elected? No one would care. Instead, politics is all about obtaining political power to get a leg up on your fellow citizen. To survive, politicians require inequality.

Would your "anyone can marry" idea apply to multiple persons, siblings, parent/child, cousins, etc?

Those kinds of "marriages" would be for tax purposes only. Would you condone them?

Why should taxes have anything to do with marriage?

 

[Redfish]

The should have no interest in our personal relationships at all. Why should they?

A secular state treats us as evolutionary glorified animals that need to be herded and "Put down" when they no longer are useful to the state, so sex and marriage is viewed much the same. The secular state does not recognize sex as a spiritual union of any kind. Instead, sex is just another bodily function like going to the bathroom, so why should the state have an interest?

If two people wish to enter a legal agreement they should be allowed to do so no matter if they want to have sex with them or not.

Looking at the divorce rate in the US, I think it would be a good thing. It would put out of business divorce lawyers and end the notion that marrying someone for their money is a good idea. Perhaps this is the main reason the state is involved. After all, they are all lawyers themselves and the law profession is a big political lobbyist.

Of course, the main reason the state is involved at all, is because they wish to divide and conquer.

Currently they are using marriage now to divide and conquer over gay marriage as where before it was over racial matters.

But that is what politics is all about. If politicians treated us all the same then who would send them millions of dollars to get elected? No one would care. Instead, politics is all about obtaining political power to get a leg up on your fellow citizen. To survive, politicians require inequality.

Would your "anyone can marry" idea apply to multiple persons, siblings, parent/child, cousins, etc?

Those kinds of "marriages" would be for tax purposes only. Would you condone them?

Why should taxes have anything to do with marriage?

tax breaks are given to married couples in order to encourage people to marry and provide a stable family to raise children. tax breaks are given to people who own houses in order to encourage people to own their homes. If you don't think those are worthy goals for a society, then you have a right to that opinion.

 

[Seawytch]

The should have no interest in our personal relationships at all. Why should they?

A secular state treats us as evolutionary glorified animals that need to be herded and "Put down" when they no longer are useful to the state, so sex and marriage is viewed much the same. The secular state does not recognize sex as a spiritual union of any kind. Instead, sex is just another bodily function like going to the bathroom, so why should the state have an interest?

If two people wish to enter a legal agreement they should be allowed to do so no matter if they want to have sex with them or not.

Looking at the divorce rate in the US, I think it would be a good thing. It would put out of business divorce lawyers and end the notion that marrying someone for their money is a good idea. Perhaps this is the main reason the state is involved. After all, they are all lawyers themselves and the law profession is a big political lobbyist.

Of course, the main reason the state is involved at all, is because they wish to divide and conquer.

Currently they are using marriage now to divide and conquer over gay marriage as where before it was over racial matters.

But that is what politics is all about. If politicians treated us all the same then who would send them millions of dollars to get elected? No one would care. Instead, politics is all about obtaining political power to get a leg up on your fellow citizen. To survive, politicians require inequality.

Would your "anyone can marry" idea apply to multiple persons, siblings, parent/child, cousins, etc?

Those kinds of "marriages" would be for tax purposes only. Would you condone them?

Why should taxes have anything to do with marriage?

So get rid of them.

 

[SwimExpert]

A Brief History of Marriage Licenses in the US

So there you have it. At the turn of the 20th century racist Progs created the marriage license in an effort to prevent blacks from marrying whites. Now they are using to prevent Polygamists from marrying. In fact, why should those who marry have any more rights than those who don't wish to marry? It makes no sense.

So why do conservatives still sanction state approved marriage?

Take back the country, do away with state sanctioned marriage.

The belief at the time, now, and through history, has been that a society is stronger if men and women commit to each other via marriage. That is the reason for giving tax benefits to married couples----to encourage marriage and stable families.

Its not the least bit complicated.

In other words, if a man is strong on his own, tax him until he's as weak as a man who is down trodden and resigned to listening to his wife bitch and nag him to death.

Fucking socialist.

 

[SwimExpert]

Holy matrimony is a religious rite. Marriage is a legal contract.

Holy Matrimony, as you describe it, is a relatively recent invention. For the majority of human existence, the act of creating a marriage was separate from any religious observation. It was first a personal matter, and then became a legal matter; its status as a legal matter has been the case for most of civilized history and remains the fundamental nature of marriage today. The relatively modern mixing of marriage with religion is probably the result of ancient cultures that mixed the role of priestly classes with that of being judges. People who presided over marriage ceremonies did so as judges, though eventually the public lost this understanding and confused the duty as being a priestly one. With a little help from medieval politics, no less.

 

[Pop23]

The should have no interest in our personal relationships at all. Why should they?

A secular state treats us as evolutionary glorified animals that need to be herded and "Put down" when they no longer are useful to the state, so sex and marriage is viewed much the same. The secular state does not recognize sex as a spiritual union of any kind. Instead, sex is just another bodily function like going to the bathroom, so why should the state have an interest?

If two people wish to enter a legal agreement they should be allowed to do so no matter if they want to have sex with them or not.

Looking at the divorce rate in the US, I think it would be a good thing. It would put out of business divorce lawyers and end the notion that marrying someone for their money is a good idea. Perhaps this is the main reason the state is involved. After all, they are all lawyers themselves and the law profession is a big political lobbyist.

Of course, the main reason the state is involved at all, is because they wish to divide and conquer.

Currently they are using marriage now to divide and conquer over gay marriage as where before it was over racial matters.

But that is what politics is all about. If politicians treated us all the same then who would send them millions of dollars to get elected? No one would care. Instead, politics is all about obtaining political power to get a leg up on your fellow citizen. To survive, politicians require inequality.

Would your "anyone can marry" idea apply to multiple persons, siblings, parent/child, cousins, etc?

Those kinds of "marriages" would be for tax purposes only. Would you condone them?

Why should taxes have anything to do with marriage?

tax breaks are given to married couples in order to encourage people to marry and provide a stable family to raise children. tax breaks are given to people who own houses in order to encourage people to own their homes. If you don't think those are worthy goals for a society, then you have a right to that opinion.

Let's not forget that those breaks, as they apply to the raising of children are there because

Raising children = raising future taxpayers, soldiers, doctors, law enforcement officers, teachers and on and on. And to do it in a way that is the least chaotic.

Remember, males are not monogamous by nature.

So your comment in polegamy is correct.

I might also point out another problem. The USSC did not just legalize gay marriage, it made these partnerships open to all same sex partnerships.

Imagine you have a pension and a widower. Your buddy who is also single has no pension. You find out you will die in a few years. Why not apply for a $50 marriage license and pass on both your pension and your social security benefits on to your buddy (now your spouse)?

Votto beleives the government should get out of Marriage. I think they will, not because they shouldn't have been in it in the first place, but because of the impossibility of it being financially viable once people understand how easy it is to make bank on it.

 

[Redfish]

The should have no interest in our personal relationships at all. Why should they?

A secular state treats us as evolutionary glorified animals that need to be herded and "Put down" when they no longer are useful to the state, so sex and marriage is viewed much the same. The secular state does not recognize sex as a spiritual union of any kind. Instead, sex is just another bodily function like going to the bathroom, so why should the state have an interest?

If two people wish to enter a legal agreement they should be allowed to do so no matter if they want to have sex with them or not.

Looking at the divorce rate in the US, I think it would be a good thing. It would put out of business divorce lawyers and end the notion that marrying someone for their money is a good idea. Perhaps this is the main reason the state is involved. After all, they are all lawyers themselves and the law profession is a big political lobbyist.

Of course, the main reason the state is involved at all, is because they wish to divide and conquer.

Currently they are using marriage now to divide and conquer over gay marriage as where before it was over racial matters.

But that is what politics is all about. If politicians treated us all the same then who would send them millions of dollars to get elected? No one would care. Instead, politics is all about obtaining political power to get a leg up on your fellow citizen. To survive, politicians require inequality.

Would your "anyone can marry" idea apply to multiple persons, siblings, parent/child, cousins, etc?

Those kinds of "marriages" would be for tax purposes only. Would you condone them?

Why should taxes have anything to do with marriage?

tax breaks are given to married couples in order to encourage people to marry and provide a stable family to raise children. tax breaks are given to people who own houses in order to encourage people to own their homes. If you don't think those are worthy goals for a society, then you have a right to that opinion.

Let's not forget that those breaks, as they apply to the raising of children are there because

Raising children = raising future taxpayers, soldiers, doctors, law enforcement officers, teachers and on and on. And to do it in a way that is the least chaotic.

Remember, males are not monogamous by nature.

So your comment in polegamy is correct.

I might also point out another problem. The USSC did not just legalize gay marriage, it made these partnerships open to all same sex partnerships.

Imagine you have a pension and a widower. Your buddy who is also single has no pension. You find out you will die in a few years. Why not apply for a $50 marriage license and pass on both your pension and your social security benefits on to your buddy (now your spouse)?

Votto beleives the government should get out of Marriage. I think they will, not because they shouldn't have been in it in the first place, but because of the impossibility of it being financially viable once people understand how easy it is to make bank on it.

there are several things in play here

1. the left wants to eliminate religious marriage
2. the left wants to use govt to declare homosexuality as normal
3. the SC ruling will bring polygamy, and all forms of multiple marriage, as well as sibling marriage.
4. once the govt realizes that this ruling will reduce tax revenue, they will find ways to reverse it.
5. civil unions for two SS gays would have solved the problem, but the gay agenda was/is not about solving the problem, it is about forcing societal acceptance of homos as normal

 

[Derideo_Te]

The should have no interest in our personal relationships at all. Why should they?

A secular state treats us as evolutionary glorified animals that need to be herded and "Put down" when they no longer are useful to the state, so sex and marriage is viewed much the same. The secular state does not recognize sex as a spiritual union of any kind. Instead, sex is just another bodily function like going to the bathroom, so why should the state have an interest?

If two people wish to enter a legal agreement they should be allowed to do so no matter if they want to have sex with them or not.

Looking at the divorce rate in the US, I think it would be a good thing. It would put out of business divorce lawyers and end the notion that marrying someone for their money is a good idea. Perhaps this is the main reason the state is involved. After all, they are all lawyers themselves and the law profession is a big political lobbyist.

Of course, the main reason the state is involved at all, is because they wish to divide and conquer.

Currently they are using marriage now to divide and conquer over gay marriage as where before it was over racial matters.

But that is what politics is all about. If politicians treated us all the same then who would send them millions of dollars to get elected? No one would care. Instead, politics is all about obtaining political power to get a leg up on your fellow citizen. To survive, politicians require inequality.

Would your "anyone can marry" idea apply to multiple persons, siblings, parent/child, cousins, etc?

Those kinds of "marriages" would be for tax purposes only. Would you condone them?

Why should taxes have anything to do with marriage?

tax breaks are given to married couples in order to encourage people to marry and provide a stable family to raise children. tax breaks are given to people who own houses in order to encourage people to own their homes. If you don't think those are worthy goals for a society, then you have a right to that opinion.

Let's not forget that those breaks, as they apply to the raising of children are there because

Raising children = raising future taxpayers, soldiers, doctors, law enforcement officers, teachers and on and on. And to do it in a way that is the least chaotic.

Remember, males are not monogamous by nature.

So your comment in polegamy is correct.

I might also point out another problem. The USSC did not just legalize gay marriage, it made these partnerships open to all same sex partnerships.

Imagine you have a pension and a widower. Your buddy who is also single has no pension. You find out you will die in a few years. Why not apply for a $50 marriage license and pass on both your pension and your social security benefits on to your buddy (now your spouse)?

Votto beleives the government should get out of Marriage. I think they will, not because they shouldn't have been in it in the first place, but because of the impossibility of it being financially viable once people understand how easy it is to make bank on it.

So you have gone from being opposed to gay marriage because they cannot have children to making up some kind of conspiracy for which you have absolutely no data whatsoever.

But even assuming your bogus scenario were to happen how many times has it already happened amongst heterosexuals?

Why aren't you whining about them doing the exact same thing?

Does the term hypocrite ring any (wedding) bells for you?

 

[Pop23]

The should have no interest in our personal relationships at all. Why should they?

A secular state treats us as evolutionary glorified animals that need to be herded and "Put down" when they no longer are useful to the state, so sex and marriage is viewed much the same. The secular state does not recognize sex as a spiritual union of any kind. Instead, sex is just another bodily function like going to the bathroom, so why should the state have an interest?

If two people wish to enter a legal agreement they should be allowed to do so no matter if they want to have sex with them or not.

Looking at the divorce rate in the US, I think it would be a good thing. It would put out of business divorce lawyers and end the notion that marrying someone for their money is a good idea. Perhaps this is the main reason the state is involved. After all, they are all lawyers themselves and the law profession is a big political lobbyist.

Of course, the main reason the state is involved at all, is because they wish to divide and conquer.

Currently they are using marriage now to divide and conquer over gay marriage as where before it was over racial matters.

But that is what politics is all about. If politicians treated us all the same then who would send them millions of dollars to get elected? No one would care. Instead, politics is all about obtaining political power to get a leg up on your fellow citizen. To survive, politicians require inequality.

Would your "anyone can marry" idea apply to multiple persons, siblings, parent/child, cousins, etc?

Those kinds of "marriages" would be for tax purposes only. Would you condone them?

Why should taxes have anything to do with marriage?

tax breaks are given to married couples in order to encourage people to marry and provide a stable family to raise children. tax breaks are given to people who own houses in order to encourage people to own their homes. If you don't think those are worthy goals for a society, then you have a right to that opinion.

Let's not forget that those breaks, as they apply to the raising of children are there because

Raising children = raising future taxpayers, soldiers, doctors, law enforcement officers, teachers and on and on. And to do it in a way that is the least chaotic.

Remember, males are not monogamous by nature.

So your comment in polegamy is correct.

I might also point out another problem. The USSC did not just legalize gay marriage, it made these partnerships open to all same sex partnerships.

Imagine you have a pension and a widower. Your buddy who is also single has no pension. You find out you will die in a few years. Why not apply for a $50 marriage license and pass on both your pension and your social security benefits on to your buddy (now your spouse)?

Votto beleives the government should get out of Marriage. I think they will, not because they shouldn't have been in it in the first place, but because of the impossibility of it being financially viable once people understand how easy it is to make bank on it.

So you have gone from being opposed to gay marriage because they cannot have children to making up some kind of conspiracy for which you have absolutely no data whatsoever.

But even assuming your bogus scenario were to happen how many times has it already happened amongst heterosexuals?

Why aren't you whining about them doing the exact same thing?

Does the term hypocrite ring any (wedding) bells for you?

If my scenerio is flawed, simply point out the flaw.

Marriage went from a lifelong commitment between a man and woman in a traditional way, to a simple financial transaction.

The general public is not nearly as aware of this as the gay population is yet.

Like anything though, once people realize that they can make money on this, it will happen, and who are you to say it had not yet??

 

[Votto]

Would your "anyone can marry" idea apply to multiple persons, siblings, parent/child, cousins, etc?

Those kinds of "marriages" would be for tax purposes only. Would you condone them?

Why should taxes have anything to do with marriage?

tax breaks are given to married couples in order to encourage people to marry and provide a stable family to raise children. tax breaks are given to people who own houses in order to encourage people to own their homes. If you don't think those are worthy goals for a society, then you have a right to that opinion.

Let's not forget that those breaks, as they apply to the raising of children are there because

Raising children = raising future taxpayers, soldiers, doctors, law enforcement officers, teachers and on and on. And to do it in a way that is the least chaotic.

Remember, males are not monogamous by nature.

So your comment in polegamy is correct.

I might also point out another problem. The USSC did not just legalize gay marriage, it made these partnerships open to all same sex partnerships.

Imagine you have a pension and a widower. Your buddy who is also single has no pension. You find out you will die in a few years. Why not apply for a $50 marriage license and pass on both your pension and your social security benefits on to your buddy (now your spouse)?

Votto beleives the government should get out of Marriage. I think they will, not because they shouldn't have been in it in the first place, but because of the impossibility of it being financially viable once people understand how easy it is to make bank on it.

So you have gone from being opposed to gay marriage because they cannot have children to making up some kind of conspiracy for which you have absolutely no data whatsoever.

But even assuming your bogus scenario were to happen how many times has it already happened amongst heterosexuals?

Why aren't you whining about them doing the exact same thing?

Does the term hypocrite ring any (wedding) bells for you?

If my scenerio is flawed, simply point out the flaw.

Marriage went from a lifelong commitment between a man and woman in a traditional way, to a simple financial transaction.

The general public is not nearly as aware of this as the gay population is yet.

Like anything though, once people realize that they can make money on this, it will happen, and who are you to say it had not yet??

I know one gay guy who is dating a sugar daddy who won't "put out". So he cheats on him.

But when he was afforded the opportunity to marry, he jumped at the chance, as he will continue to cheat on him

 

[Pop23]

Why should taxes have anything to do with marriage?

tax breaks are given to married couples in order to encourage people to marry and provide a stable family to raise children. tax breaks are given to people who own houses in order to encourage people to own their homes. If you don't think those are worthy goals for a society, then you have a right to that opinion.

Let's not forget that those breaks, as they apply to the raising of children are there because

Raising children = raising future taxpayers, soldiers, doctors, law enforcement officers, teachers and on and on. And to do it in a way that is the least chaotic.

Remember, males are not monogamous by nature.

So your comment in polegamy is correct.

I might also point out another problem. The USSC did not just legalize gay marriage, it made these partnerships open to all same sex partnerships.

Imagine you have a pension and a widower. Your buddy who is also single has no pension. You find out you will die in a few years. Why not apply for a $50 marriage license and pass on both your pension and your social security benefits on to your buddy (now your spouse)?

Votto beleives the government should get out of Marriage. I think they will, not because they shouldn't have been in it in the first place, but because of the impossibility of it being financially viable once people understand how easy it is to make bank on it.

So you have gone from being opposed to gay marriage because they cannot have children to making up some kind of conspiracy for which you have absolutely no data whatsoever.

But even assuming your bogus scenario were to happen how many times has it already happened amongst heterosexuals?

Why aren't you whining about them doing the exact same thing?

Does the term hypocrite ring any (wedding) bells for you?

If my scenerio is flawed, simply point out the flaw.

Marriage went from a lifelong commitment between a man and woman in a traditional way, to a simple financial transaction.

The general public is not nearly as aware of this as the gay population is yet.

Like anything though, once people realize that they can make money on this, it will happen, and who are you to say it had not yet??

I know one gay guy who is dating a sugar daddy who won't "put out". So he cheats on him.

But when he was afforded the opportunity to marry, he jumped at the chance, as he will continue to cheat on him

Not sure why that would surprise anyone. It's simply financial. More and more, people will understand that is a big part of our brave new world.

 

[Redfish]

tax breaks are given to married couples in order to encourage people to marry and provide a stable family to raise children. tax breaks are given to people who own houses in order to encourage people to own their homes. If you don't think those are worthy goals for a society, then you have a right to that opinion.

Let's not forget that those breaks, as they apply to the raising of children are there because

Raising children = raising future taxpayers, soldiers, doctors, law enforcement officers, teachers and on and on. And to do it in a way that is the least chaotic.

Remember, males are not monogamous by nature.

So your comment in polegamy is correct.

I might also point out another problem. The USSC did not just legalize gay marriage, it made these partnerships open to all same sex partnerships.

Imagine you have a pension and a widower. Your buddy who is also single has no pension. You find out you will die in a few years. Why not apply for a $50 marriage license and pass on both your pension and your social security benefits on to your buddy (now your spouse)?

Votto beleives the government should get out of Marriage. I think they will, not because they shouldn't have been in it in the first place, but because of the impossibility of it being financially viable once people understand how easy it is to make bank on it.

So you have gone from being opposed to gay marriage because they cannot have children to making up some kind of conspiracy for which you have absolutely no data whatsoever.

But even assuming your bogus scenario were to happen how many times has it already happened amongst heterosexuals?

Why aren't you whining about them doing the exact same thing?

Does the term hypocrite ring any (wedding) bells for you?

If my scenerio is flawed, simply point out the flaw.

Marriage went from a lifelong commitment between a man and woman in a traditional way, to a simple financial transaction.

The general public is not nearly as aware of this as the gay population is yet.

Like anything though, once people realize that they can make money on this, it will happen, and who are you to say it had not yet??

I know one gay guy who is dating a sugar daddy who won't "put out". So he cheats on him.

But when he was afforded the opportunity to marry, he jumped at the chance, as he will continue to cheat on him

Not sure why that would surprise anyone. It's simply financial. More and more, people will understand that is a big part of our brave new world.

Its more than that. its about using government to force change of societal beliefs of right and wrong.

 

[Pop23]

Let's not forget that those breaks, as they apply to the raising of children are there because

Raising children = raising future taxpayers, soldiers, doctors, law enforcement officers, teachers and on and on. And to do it in a way that is the least chaotic.

Remember, males are not monogamous by nature.

So your comment in polegamy is correct.

I might also point out another problem. The USSC did not just legalize gay marriage, it made these partnerships open to all same sex partnerships.

Imagine you have a pension and a widower. Your buddy who is also single has no pension. You find out you will die in a few years. Why not apply for a $50 marriage license and pass on both your pension and your social security benefits on to your buddy (now your spouse)?

Votto beleives the government should get out of Marriage. I think they will, not because they shouldn't have been in it in the first place, but because of the impossibility of it being financially viable once people understand how easy it is to make bank on it.

So you have gone from being opposed to gay marriage because they cannot have children to making up some kind of conspiracy for which you have absolutely no data whatsoever.

But even assuming your bogus scenario were to happen how many times has it already happened amongst heterosexuals?

Why aren't you whining about them doing the exact same thing?

Does the term hypocrite ring any (wedding) bells for you?

If my scenerio is flawed, simply point out the flaw.

Marriage went from a lifelong commitment between a man and woman in a traditional way, to a simple financial transaction.

The general public is not nearly as aware of this as the gay population is yet.

Like anything though, once people realize that they can make money on this, it will happen, and who are you to say it had not yet??

I know one gay guy who is dating a sugar daddy who won't "put out". So he cheats on him.

But when he was afforded the opportunity to marry, he jumped at the chance, as he will continue to cheat on him

Not sure why that would surprise anyone. It's simply financial. More and more, people will understand that is a big part of our brave new world.

Its more than that. its about using government to force change of societal beliefs of right and wrong.

It won't stop here. Plural marriage and same sex sibling marriage will be the next. At some point the government will be forced out of the marriage license business or recognized just about any human relationship as marriage (that won't happen).

Then I guess we can look back at the question "how does gay marriage effect yours"

And of course, who caused this

Careful what you ask for, you might get it.

 

[Redfish]

racist banner? The stars and bars is not, and never was, the flag of the confederacy, it was a regimental battle flag. Only the left wing media and the race baiters have tried to make it a symbol or racism.

Now, I don't think it should fly over any government buildings. but any place else is up to whoever owns the property.

View attachment 44870 Sure. Not a symbol of racism.

I wonder how the mind works sometimes. If they drove a Yugo, would yogo's be racist?

Because a group uses a symbol they did not create, it does not mean that the symbol is there's.

The symbol of the Swastika and its 12 000-year-old history Ancient Origins

The swastika symbol has been around for 12,000 years but can you see it today and not make the racist connection?

when did jewish become a race? I thought it was a religion.

Are you denying that the Nazi's were white supremacists?

are jews not white people? are they negroes, mongoloids.

Do you even understand what a race of humans is?

 

[Redfish]

for you libs that don't understand that jewish and hispanic are not races.

The Five Human Races

 

[Debra K]

The should have no interest in our personal relationships at all. Why should they?

A secular state treats us as evolutionary glorified animals that need to be herded and "Put down" when they no longer are useful to the state, so sex and marriage is viewed much the same. The secular state does not recognize sex as a spiritual union of any kind. Instead, sex is just another bodily function like going to the bathroom, so why should the state have an interest?

If two people wish to enter a legal agreement they should be allowed to do so no matter if they want to have sex with them or not.

Looking at the divorce rate in the US, I think it would be a good thing. It would put out of business divorce lawyers and end the notion that marrying someone for their money is a good idea. Perhaps this is the main reason the state is involved. After all, they are all lawyers themselves and the law profession is a big political lobbyist.

Of course, the main reason the state is involved at all, is because they wish to divide and conquer.

Currently they are using marriage now to divide and conquer over gay marriage as where before it was over racial matters.

But that is what politics is all about. If politicians treated us all the same then who would send them millions of dollars to get elected? No one would care. Instead, politics is all about obtaining political power to get a leg up on your fellow citizen. To survive, politicians require inequality.

Would your "anyone can marry" idea apply to multiple persons, siblings, parent/child, cousins, etc?

Those kinds of "marriages" would be for tax purposes only. Would you condone them?

Why should taxes have anything to do with marriage?

tax breaks are given to married couples in order to encourage people to marry and provide a stable family to raise children. tax breaks are given to people who own houses in order to encourage people to own their homes. If you don't think those are worthy goals for a society, then you have a right to that opinion.

Let's not forget that those breaks, as they apply to the raising of children are there because

Raising children = raising future taxpayers, soldiers, doctors, law enforcement officers, teachers and on and on. And to do it in a way that is the least chaotic.

Remember, males are not monogamous by nature.

So your comment in polegamy is correct.

I might also point out another problem. The USSC did not just legalize gay marriage, it made these partnerships open to all same sex partnerships.

Imagine you have a pension and a widower. Your buddy who is also single has no pension. You find out you will die in a few years. Why not apply for a $50 marriage license and pass on both your pension and your social security benefits on to your buddy (now your spouse)?

Votto beleives the government should get out of Marriage. I think they will, not because they shouldn't have been in it in the first place, but because of the impossibility of it being financially viable once people understand how easy it is to make bank on it.

there are several things in play here

1. the left wants to eliminate religious marriage
2. the left wants to use govt to declare homosexuality as normal
3. the SC ruling will bring polygamy, and all forms of multiple marriage, as well as sibling marriage.
4. once the govt realizes that this ruling will reduce tax revenue, they will find ways to reverse it.
5. civil unions for two SS gays would have solved the problem, but the gay agenda was/is not about solving the problem, it is about forcing societal acceptance of homos as normal

Life in America would be a lot easier for everyone if the allegedly "big tent" Republican party did not capitalize on the ignorance and low-information attributes of the mindless bible-bangers, et al. At the same time these uneducated fruit loops are standing in the cheese line to get their share of government largess, they whine because someone they don't like might be standing in that same line. At the same time these uneducated fruit loops are buying disposable diapers for their babies with welfare money, they complain because some other person they disfavor might be doing the same thing. Then they place their ignorance on display as if it were a badge of honor. They serve the masters of the "big tent" as useful idiots.

Here is what is truly in play:

1. The uneducated low-information fools falsely believe in their own alleged superiority and want to deprive others of liberty and equal protection secured by the Supreme Law of the Land.

2. The uneducated low-information fools want to demonize homosexuality and impose their morals on others through the operation of discriminatory laws (while they simultaneously fail to live up to their own morals). The fact that a same-sex couple may obtain a state-issued marriage license and enter a civil contract called marriage does not impugn the "sanctity" of any one of their serial marriages.

3. The uneducated low-information fools are incapable of reason and fail to employ logic when composing their arguments. They should study logical fallacies and familiarize themselves with the "slippery slope".

4. Marriage is not a tax loophole. If the government wants to increase tax revenue, then the government should close the tax loopholes that allow the wealthiest among us to escape paying their fair share.

5. The discredited "separate but equal" doctrine is oppressive and perpetuates inequality and societal discord. Treating one segment of the population as second-class citizens does not solve any problems but rather creates problems. Nevertheless, anyone in society can think or believe whatever they want even if their thoughts or beliefs are ignorant.

6. Useful idiots are so far out there into "right wing wacko land" that they are unaware that politicians are merely playing lip-service to their prejudices in order to get their votes and nothing more.

7. Useful idiots should educate themselves and their children and move into the center where sanity prevails and the rule of law is respected.