Should Government be in the Marriage business?

[asterism]

We could just kill everyone and be done with all the bullshit...

Why do you hate gay people?

Because they're people.

Well that just nullifies my argument then.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Really? Many cultures would disagree. Ask an anthropologist.

Provide a link to back this claim up, because it counters the little I know about cultural anthropology.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Reality differs.

We as a society should encourage households, not wife beater/passive aggressive wife marriages. We should not discriminate against those who take on neighbor kids who have only the house they live in and the empty burned out lot next door where their parents died. We should not discriminate against any two parent household that picks up where fate left off by agreeing to make a lifetime commitment to an orphan.

For every "husband and wife and that's the natural law" argument I can find multiple divorces, 53 hour marriages, and non-procreating unions that negate that premise - and you can't find any harm in taking a worthy human child out of foster care and foisted upon a non conventional family that puts that child at the forefront of priorities.

Go find me some gay folk that actually have kids who are bad parents if you disagree. Go find me someone that you think would be be better off in the hands of a government social worker.

That is stupid, there is no way you can convince someone is automatically going to be a good parent because they are gay. This is as stupid as arguing that they are going to be bad parents because they are gay. I believe that gays have the potential to be great parents, but I also realize that they are as human as anyone else, and that they also have the potential to be bad parents. Most of them will be somewhere in the middle, just like everyone else.

 

[THE LIGHT]

Maybe the best way to get that is to get government to redefine its participation in marriage.

the best way to get that is to stop discriminating

You know what? Screw it. Just end marriage. Problem solved.

Ending marriage of any kind would solve ALOT of problems. Just think, there wouldn't be any divorces.

 

[Synthaholic]

I say no. I think that for the Christians sake, marriage is between a man and a woman and their Creator. While at the same time, homosexuals should be able to have whatever unions they choose on their own as well.

I just don't think the gov. should be involved in telling either side what to do.

What say you?

The government should ensure non-discrimination in all things governmental, medical, and financial. Other than that, people should be able to be married or get civil unions from whomever they believe is qualified to represent their religious/nonreligious views.

 

[THE LIGHT]

I say no. I think that for the Christians sake, marriage is between a man and a woman and their Creator. While at the same time, homosexuals should be able to have whatever unions they choose on their own as well.

I just don't think the gov. should be involved in telling either side what to do.

What say you?

The government should ensure non-discrimination in all things governmental, medical, and financial. Other than that, people should be able to be married or get civil unions from whomever they believe is qualified to represent their religious/nonreligious views.

Good luck with finding an objective/non-discriminatory government. It just doesn't exist. That's why the founders tried to limit it. They knew that an all powerful government would hinder the freedoms of the minority no matter who was in power. That is just the nature of man.

 

[Skull Pilot]

so those trying to support their family should have their taxes raised or the billionaire playboy should have his taxes lessened because he's being taxed to death?

What does this have to do with income?

just because someone chooses to have a gaggle of rug rats, does that entitle them to pay less for government when they will probably be using more government services than someone without said gaggle of rug rats?

The point of tax breaks for those with children if to make it easier to support themselves instead of taking the money that would feed their kids so the government can spend it on roads, vacations, and feeding their kids and their neighbors'.

I don't care if you want to have kids but the fact that I pay a higher percentage of my income because I do not have kids means that more of my money than your money is going to pay for the government services for your kids.

not if you provide tax breaks so they can more readily feed their own children

If you want kids then you pay for them.

Hence the tax breaks for those with children

If you can't afford to have kids without taking money from people who choose not to have kids then maybe you shouldn't have children.

Why should a person with kids pay thousands less in taxes than a person with no kids? Does not that large family use more government services than a single person or a couple with no kids?

 

[asterism]

That is stupid, there is no way you can convince someone is automatically going to be a good parent because they are gay. This is as stupid as arguing that they are going to be bad parents because they are gay.

I wasn't trying to argue that point, I merely said to do find some bad ones. Surely they exist but I think you'd be surprised at how few actually are statistically speaking.

I believe that gays have the potential to be great parents, but I also realize that they are as human as anyone else, and that they also have the potential to be bad parents. Most of them will be somewhere in the middle, just like everyone else.

I agree and therefore are a better option than foster care.

 

[american chaos]

Should not the question be:Should religion be into the marriage business?

Think about it, A marriage has to be recognized by a government BEFORE federal, or even state law can be used to legitimize it.

And the key word is "legitimize"--how can property be distributed or taxes rightly collected if the marriage is not recognized by a government. Forget being witnessed by god, is it documented in the courts!

I really believe these religious nuts lost something to a godless entity called the republic!

Remember: All men are equal under the law, that includes your Jesus H Christ!

 

[JBeukema]

What does this have to do with income?

just because someone chooses to have a gaggle of rug rats, does that entitle them to pay less for government when they will probably be using more government services than someone without said gaggle of rug rats?

The point of tax breaks for those with children if to make it easier to support themselves instead of taking the money that would feed their kids so the government can spend it on roads, vacations, and feeding their kids and their neighbors'.


not if you provide tax breaks so they can more readily feed their own children

If you want kids then you pay for them.

Hence the tax breaks for those with children

If you can't afford to have kids without taking money from people who choose not to have kids then maybe you shouldn't have children.

Why should a person with kids pay thousands less in taxes than a person with no kids? Does not that large family use more government services than a single person or a couple with no kids?

Who said anything about taking money from anyone else, you lying dolt?

The government not taking your money =/= you taking money form someone else

 

[Skull Pilot]

The point of tax breaks for those with children if to make it easier to support themselves instead of taking the money that would feed their kids so the government can spend it on roads, vacations, and feeding their kids and their neighbors'.


not if you provide tax breaks so they can more readily feed their own children
Hence the tax breaks for those with children

If you can't afford to have kids without taking money from people who choose not to have kids then maybe you shouldn't have children.

Why should a person with kids pay thousands less in taxes than a person with no kids? Does not that large family use more government services than a single person or a couple with no kids?

Who said anything about taking money from anyone else, you lying dolt?

The government not taking your money =/= you taking money form someone else

If you pay less taxes than I because you have kids, then my money is subsidizing your rug rats. So my money is being taken from me to benefit your crumb grabbers rather than you paying for them 100%

 

[Hister]

If you can't afford to have kids without taking money from people who choose not to have kids then maybe you shouldn't have children.

Why should a person with kids pay thousands less in taxes than a person with no kids? Does not that large family use more government services than a single person or a couple with no kids?

Who said anything about taking money from anyone else, you lying dolt?

The government not taking your money =/= you taking money form someone else

If you pay less taxes than I because you have kids, then my money is subsidizing your rug rats. So my money is being taken from me to benefit your crumb grabbers rather than you paying for them 100%

Skull, you pissed that you're sterile, or that his kid might be the orderly who wipes your ass when you're senile (if you're not already)?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Who said anything about taking money from anyone else, you lying dolt?

The government not taking your money =/= you taking money form someone else

If you pay less taxes than I because you have kids, then my money is subsidizing your rug rats. So my money is being taken from me to benefit your crumb grabbers rather than you paying for them 100%

Skull, you pissed that you're sterile, or that his kid might be the orderly who wipes your ass when you're senile (if you're not already)?

I'm not sterile fuck nut. I just chose not to have a gaggle of rug rats.

Why should a person with no kids pay more in taxes than a person with kids? If you want equity then start by having everyone pay their fair share.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Marriage is a legal contract issue and that means the government is involved. I NEED the government to recognize my martial state. I do not however NEED any religious recognition of being married.

then you would get a civil union contract
quite simple

It's called civil marriage contract not civil union.

 

[Hister]

If you pay less taxes than I because you have kids, then my money is subsidizing your rug rats. So my money is being taken from me to benefit your crumb grabbers rather than you paying for them 100%

Skull, you pissed that you're sterile, or that his kid might be the orderly who wipes your ass when you're senile (if you're not already)?

I'm not sterile fuck nut. I just chose not to have a gaggle of rug rats.

Why should a person with no kids pay more in taxes than a person with kids? If you want equity then start by having everyone pay their fair share.

You pissed that you're too ugly to have a girl want your kids?
So let's say I have 2 kids and you have none. When they grow up, that'll be 3 people paying taxes to your one (a taxpayer that will soon die out). So please either get a brain or stfu.

 

[DiveCon]

Marriage is a legal contract issue and that means the government is involved. I NEED the government to recognize my martial state. I do not however NEED any religious recognition of being married.

then you would get a civil union contract
quite simple

It's called civil marriage contract not civil union.

well, in getting the government totally out of marriage, we would drop that name from any legal documents

 

[Skull Pilot]

Skull, you pissed that you're sterile, or that his kid might be the orderly who wipes your ass when you're senile (if you're not already)?

I'm not sterile fuck nut. I just chose not to have a gaggle of rug rats.

Why should a person with no kids pay more in taxes than a person with kids? If you want equity then start by having everyone pay their fair share.

You pissed that you're too ugly to have a girl want your kids?
So let's say I have 2 kids and you have none. When they grow up, that'll be 3 people paying taxes to your one (a taxpayer that will soon die out). So please either get a brain or stfu.

So your job is to produce future tax payers?

Here's a tip ass wipe.

Your rug rats use more services than I do so you should pay for them not me.

I will pay my way and you pay yours you lazy greedy fuck.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wasn't trying to argue that point, I merely said to do find some bad ones. Surely they exist but I think you'd be surprised at how few actually are statistically speaking.

Just how many bad parents do you think there are among heterosexuals, statistically speaking? I would be willing to bet that the per capita numbers are comparable.

I agree and therefore are a better option than foster care.

Wouldn't placing kids with gay parents actually be foster care?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Should not the question be:Should religion be into the marriage business?

Think about it, A marriage has to be recognized by a government BEFORE federal, or even state law can be used to legitimize it.

And the key word is "legitimize"--how can property be distributed or taxes rightly collected if the marriage is not recognized by a government. Forget being witnessed by god, is it documented in the courts!

I really believe these religious nuts lost something to a godless entity called the republic!

Remember: All men are equal under the law, that includes your Jesus H Christ!

Sorry, but religion has been in the marriage business longer than government, and any attempt to deny a religion the right to have a say in their rites would be unconstitutional.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you can't afford to have kids without taking money from people who choose not to have kids then maybe you shouldn't have children.

Why should a person with kids pay thousands less in taxes than a person with no kids? Does not that large family use more government services than a single person or a couple with no kids?

Who said anything about taking money from anyone else, you lying dolt?

The government not taking your money =/= you taking money form someone else

If you pay less taxes than I because you have kids, then my money is subsidizing your rug rats. So my money is being taken from me to benefit your crumb grabbers rather than you paying for them 100%

He thinks that the government subsidies are free, don't confuse him.