What - should - government marriage mean?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by kaz, Dec 21, 2011.

  1. kaz
    Offline

    kaz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    43,228
    Thanks Received:
    4,389
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Independence Hall
    Ratings:
    +14,278
    Note the "should." A central argument of gay marriage advocates is the assumption that it's not "fair" that heterosexual couples get "benefits" they don't. I question why heterosexual couples should get any "benefits." Here are some of the points brought up. I do believe strongly in marriage, just not government marriage. I'm going to group them.

    Legitimate arguments:

    1) Protection of a spouse from being forced to testify against their spouse. A Constitutional right and I say rightly so. A marriage is a unit and you should be no more forced to testify against your spouse then yourself.


    Unnecessary arguments:

    1) Death tax - The death tax is one of if not the most morally depraved liberal view. People pay taxes when they earn it, invest it and spend it. A tax because you died is just evil.

    2) Progressive income taxes - Taxes should be flat and simple. The only reason to have a joint return is to protect a couple from being hit as hard with a progressive rate when the wife is home with kids. Though when both parties work they get screwed by this.

    3) Regulations - Regulations requiring employers, insurance companies, etc. should be eliminated rather then expanded with more types of marriage.

    4) With things like living wills, hospital visitation and other dealings that spouses get priviliges, why not just clean up the regulations and make it easier for people to specify who they want to have access or make decisions for them if they can't? Why would you necessarily want it to be your spouse anyway? If you want that, you can say it. If you want your sister or your friend because they have better judgement in your view, say them.

    5) Children - In the old days, you assumed parentage by marriage. Now there are DNA tests, widespread children outside wedlock and with divorce widespread and deals have to be worked out anyway. Again, why not make that easier rather then locking in marriage as a major determinant?

    Bottom line is that marriage should be religous or personal. Government should be the same for all. The only issue that's legitimately a government issue is that a spouse should not be forced to testify against their partner. But wow, the benefit of cleaning up all the other messes marriage creates dwarfs that one problem.
     
  2. Steelplate
    Offline

    Steelplate Bluesman

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    7,773
    Thanks Received:
    931
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Central PA
    Ratings:
    +932
    But it's not equal for all.

    Just because you want a flat tax and all of the rest of that, doesn't mean it's going to happen.

    SO....if all things stay the same, those "unnecessary arguments" are pretty valid.
     
  3. kaz
    Offline

    kaz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    43,228
    Thanks Received:
    4,389
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Independence Hall
    Ratings:
    +14,278
    I clearly started the thread to say what "should" government marriage mean. If you're not interested in discussing that, why are you posting in the thread? There are plenty of others to do that.
     
  4. Steelplate
    Offline

    Steelplate Bluesman

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    7,773
    Thanks Received:
    931
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Central PA
    Ratings:
    +932
    yeah... it's just burning up the board.
     

Share This Page