Sex

[Votto]

At least I know everyone will read my post now.

Here are some questions I have.

1. What role, if any, should sex play in the government? Specifically, why should we get tax perks and certain privlidges just because of sexual unions?

2. Should sexual relations imply obligations legally of any kind? Should a spouse be allowed, for example, to simply leave all of their estate to someone other than their sexual partner, or should the fact that two people had sex together for a specified time make them legally obligated to get a cut?

3. Why buy a marriage license? Why should we pay?

4. Should those who are monogomous be allowed to discriminate against those who are not by having special government privlidges over them?

5. What about asexual people? Shouldn't they have the same rights as those who are sexually active? For example, if two people live together and are the best of friends but don't have sex together, why is it they can't file jointly with taxes and provide the same privlidges those that have sex have?

I think the idea is that marriage produces a stable household that is deemed beneficial to raising children.

Tell that to over half the population who divorce.

If a stable household for children is the criterea, then what does marriage have to do with it?

 

[Dreamy]

At least I know everyone will read my post now.

Here are some questions I have.

1. What role, if any, should sex play in the government? Specifically, why should we get tax perks and certain privlidges just because of sexual unions?

2. Should sexual relations imply obligations legally of any kind? Should a spouse be allowed, for example, to simply leave all of their estate to someone other than their sexual partner, or should the fact that two people had sex together for a specified time make them legally obligated to get a cut?

3. Why buy a marriage license? Why should we pay?

4. Should those who are monogomous be allowed to discriminate against those who are not by having special government privlidges over them?

5. What about asexual people? Shouldn't they have the same rights as those who are sexually active? For example, if two people live together and are the best of friends but don't have sex together, why is it they can't file jointly with taxes and provide the same privlidges those that have sex have?

I think the idea is that marriage produces a stable household that is deemed beneficial to raising children.

Tell that to over half the population who divorce.

If a stable household for children is the criterea, then what does marriage have to do with it?

Marriage in itself is not what makes a family stable but it can provide a good arrangement for raising children. In truth it has always been the people in the union who create stability by staying with one partner for life when possible. Of course that means sometimes actually working at a marriage and riding out the tough times and not bailing. Less and less do that no matter if they are unwed, wed or in a gay marriage.

 

[PaulS1950]

If it was as hard to get a marriage license as it is to get a divorce then there would be fewer divorces - probably fewer marriages too. When I am to perform a marriage I have three counselling sessions with the couple before I commit to performing the marriage. If I see that the two are not compatible then I tell them that they will have to find someone else to perform the ceremony. I have done this only twice in my career as a minister and of all the marriages that I have performed there have been two divorces. One was due to an addiction that was discovered after the wedding and the other was due to the lack of sharing responsibility of children from a previous marriage. I tried to counsel both couples but neither was successful.
You don't need to buy a license to get married in some states. Your minister can use a church document as long as it contains the information that the state needs for its records. It does have to be filed so there is a record of the marriage for tax purposes. You ask why tax breaks for sexual unions - there are none. The tax breaks are for married couples because it has been shown that families (not broken ones) raise kids that are better citizens. The tax breaks were originated because the working partner raised the money and supported the family financially. In todays world that is rarer but it does still happen. The government does give tax allowances for raising children whether you are married or not. It costs money to raise children - more than most without children realize and a lot more than the allowance.
Why not give the same tax breaks for co-habitation? Well that is because those who co-habitate rarely stay together as long as a married couple. 50% of marriages end in the first three years. About 25% make it past 10 years. 12% make it through the 25 year mark and only about 7% stay married until the death of a partner. Married women typically live 10 years longer than their hsbands and only about a third re-marry. How many who co-habitate stay together for life? I would be willing to bet that fewer than 1%. I know that more than 50% don't make it through the first year. There are individual groups that defy the rule but they are a small minority and are responsible for the figures being as good as they are( if it can be considered good to have relationships last less than two years for a large majority of cases)
As far as gay marriages go I have only a limited experience in that area but it has been my limited experience that shows that they are much better at staying together than the straight population. The know how to communicate and do so more often than straights. Communication is one of the key elements in keeping trust and that is the foundation of all relationships. Without trust there can be no marriage.

 

[blackhawk]

At least I know everyone will read my post now.

Here are some questions I have.

1. What role, if any, should sex play in the government? Specifically, why should we get tax perks and certain privlidges just because of sexual unions?

2. Should sexual relations imply obligations legally of any kind? Should a spouse be allowed, for example, to simply leave all of their estate to someone other than their sexual partner, or should the fact that two people had sex together for a specified time make them legally obligated to get a cut?

3. Why buy a marriage license? Why should we pay?

4. Should those who are monogomous be allowed to discriminate against those who are not by having special government privlidges over them?

5. What about asexual people? Shouldn't they have the same rights as those who are sexually active? For example, if two people live together and are the best of friends but don't have sex together, why is it they can't file jointly with taxes and provide the same privlidges those that have sex have?

Don't be a title tease that's not nice.

 

[del]

At least I know everyone will read my post now.

Here are some questions I have.

1. What role, if any, should sex play in the government? Specifically, why should we get tax perks and certain privlidges just because of sexual unions?

2. Should sexual relations imply obligations legally of any kind? Should a spouse be allowed, for example, to simply leave all of their estate to someone other than their sexual partner, or should the fact that two people had sex together for a specified time make them legally obligated to get a cut?

3. Why buy a marriage license? Why should we pay?

4. Should those who are monogomous be allowed to discriminate against those who are not by having special government privlidges over them?

5. What about asexual people? Shouldn't they have the same rights as those who are sexually active? For example, if two people live together and are the best of friends but don't have sex together, why is it they can't file jointly with taxes and provide the same privlidges those that have sex have?

You're beginning with the faulty assumption that sex is the only reason people get married, that it's little more than prostitution by contract.

That's a rather narrow and dim view of marriage. In spite of the fact that it is that for too many people (see: divorce rate), that doesn't negate the fact that marriage is much, much more than just a deal for lifetime sex.

he specializes in narrow and dim for obvious reasons.

it's pretty funny to watch all the alleged *libertarians* do gymnastics that nadia comenic wouldn't try in her prime to justify telling people what to do in their bedrooms.

usually they say *git gubmint outta the marriage bidness* when what they mean is *them queers got no right to be equal, dadgummit*

 

[Votto]

If it was as hard to get a marriage license as it is to get a divorce then there would be fewer divorces - probably fewer marriages too. When I am to perform a marriage I have three counselling sessions with the couple before I commit to performing the marriage. If I see that the two are not compatible then I tell them that they will have to find someone else to perform the ceremony. I have done this only twice in my career as a minister and of all the marriages that I have performed there have been two divorces. One was due to an addiction that was discovered after the wedding and the other was due to the lack of sharing responsibility of children from a previous marriage. I tried to counsel both couples but neither was successful.
You don't need to buy a license to get married in some states. Your minister can use a church document as long as it contains the information that the state needs for its records. It does have to be filed so there is a record of the marriage for tax purposes. You ask why tax breaks for sexual unions - there are none. The tax breaks are for married couples because it has been shown that families (not broken ones) raise kids that are better citizens. The tax breaks were originated because the working partner raised the money and supported the family financially. In todays world that is rarer but it does still happen. The government does give tax allowances for raising children whether you are married or not. It costs money to raise children - more than most without children realize and a lot more than the allowance.
Why not give the same tax breaks for co-habitation? Well that is because those who co-habitate rarely stay together as long as a married couple. 50% of marriages end in the first three years. About 25% make it past 10 years. 12% make it through the 25 year mark and only about 7% stay married until the death of a partner. Married women typically live 10 years longer than their hsbands and only about a third re-marry. How many who co-habitate stay together for life? I would be willing to bet that fewer than 1%. I know that more than 50% don't make it through the first year. There are individual groups that defy the rule but they are a small minority and are responsible for the figures being as good as they are( if it can be considered good to have relationships last less than two years for a large majority of cases)
As far as gay marriages go I have only a limited experience in that area but it has been my limited experience that shows that they are much better at staying together than the straight population. The know how to communicate and do so more often than straights. Communication is one of the key elements in keeping trust and that is the foundation of all relationships. Without trust there can be no marriage.

Wouldn't it be nice if marriage was given this much thought before people were allowed to marry? The state only asks for a few dollars to marry them.

 

[PaulS1950]

Votto,
The state make up for it in divorce fees. It make lawyers wealthy and they pay taxes. The ones that get hurt in divorces are the kids.

 

[PixieStix]

The only way sex should play a role in government is the fact that sex is how each and every elected official got here on earth

 

[del]

The only way sex should play a role in government is the fact that sex is how each and every elected official got here on earth

link?

 

[PixieStix]

The only way sex should play a role in government is the fact that sex is how each and every elected official got here on earth

link?

You want a pic of Obama's mom and dad doing it?

 

[Votto]

At least I know everyone will read my post now.

Here are some questions I have.

1. What role, if any, should sex play in the government? Specifically, why should we get tax perks and certain privlidges just because of sexual unions?

2. Should sexual relations imply obligations legally of any kind? Should a spouse be allowed, for example, to simply leave all of their estate to someone other than their sexual partner, or should the fact that two people had sex together for a specified time make them legally obligated to get a cut?

3. Why buy a marriage license? Why should we pay?

4. Should those who are monogomous be allowed to discriminate against those who are not by having special government privlidges over them?

5. What about asexual people? Shouldn't they have the same rights as those who are sexually active? For example, if two people live together and are the best of friends but don't have sex together, why is it they can't file jointly with taxes and provide the same privlidges those that have sex have?

Don't be a title tease that's not nice.

Does that help?

 

[Votto]

At least I know everyone will read my post now.

Here are some questions I have.

1. What role, if any, should sex play in the government? Specifically, why should we get tax perks and certain privlidges just because of sexual unions?

2. Should sexual relations imply obligations legally of any kind? Should a spouse be allowed, for example, to simply leave all of their estate to someone other than their sexual partner, or should the fact that two people had sex together for a specified time make them legally obligated to get a cut?

3. Why buy a marriage license? Why should we pay?

4. Should those who are monogomous be allowed to discriminate against those who are not by having special government privlidges over them?

5. What about asexual people? Shouldn't they have the same rights as those who are sexually active? For example, if two people live together and are the best of friends but don't have sex together, why is it they can't file jointly with taxes and provide the same privlidges those that have sex have?

You're beginning with the faulty assumption that sex is the only reason people get married, that it's little more than prostitution by contract.

That's a rather narrow and dim view of marriage. In spite of the fact that it is that for too many people (see: divorce rate), that doesn't negate the fact that marriage is much, much more than just a deal for lifetime sex.

he specializes in narrow and dim for obvious reasons.

it's pretty funny to watch all the alleged *libertarians* do gymnastics that nadia comenic wouldn't try in her prime to justify telling people what to do in their bedrooms.

usually they say *git gubmint outta the marriage bidness* when what they mean is *them queers got no right to be equal, dadgummit*

I know it frightens you when people talk of government relinquishing control of anything Del. By all means, continue to have politicians act like idiots talking about gay sex instead of actually passing a budget or ending a war abroad.

Idiot.

 

[Votto]

The only way sex should play a role in government is the fact that sex is how each and every elected official got here on earth

link?

You want a pic of Obama's mom and dad doing it?

Actually from what I hear there are pictures like that on the internet.

Let's just say she was liberal about most everything.

 

[PixieStix]

link?

You want a pic of Obama's mom and dad doing it?

Actually from what I hear there are pictures like that on the internet.

Let's just say she was liberal about most everything.

I am not here to trash anyone's mom. I was making a joke with del. I thought his response to me was hilarious

Cause my mom did it with my dad

 

[PaulS1950]

Well, I wish that was the only connection between our government officials and sex.
Some women can't resist the guy with power and some with power can't resist the chance to use it to have sex - with whomever happens to be there.
There is a community where that kind of power exchange is the norm but it has no place in government - not on my dime!

 

[del]

The only way sex should play a role in government is the fact that sex is how each and every elected official got here on earth

link?

You want a pic of Obama's mom and dad doing it?

i'd settle for proof that any of them are human.

 

[del]

You're beginning with the faulty assumption that sex is the only reason people get married, that it's little more than prostitution by contract.

That's a rather narrow and dim view of marriage. In spite of the fact that it is that for too many people (see: divorce rate), that doesn't negate the fact that marriage is much, much more than just a deal for lifetime sex.

he specializes in narrow and dim for obvious reasons.

it's pretty funny to watch all the alleged *libertarians* do gymnastics that nadia comenic wouldn't try in her prime to justify telling people what to do in their bedrooms.

usually they say *git gubmint outta the marriage bidness* when what they mean is *them queers got no right to be equal, dadgummit*

I know it frightens you when people talk of government relinquishing control of anything Del. By all means, continue to have politicians act like idiots talking about gay sex instead of actually passing a budget or ending a war abroad.

Idiot.

surprisingly, the only control i have over politicians is my vote, and the next time the govt scares me will be the first time.

there's no need to sign your posts.

 

[del]

link?

You want a pic of Obama's mom and dad doing it?

Actually from what I hear there are pictures like that on the internet.

Let's just say she was liberal about most everything.

stay classy, cracker.

 

[Cecilie1200]

At least I know everyone will read my post now.

Here are some questions I have.

1. What role, if any, should sex play in the government? Specifically, why should we get tax perks and certain privlidges just because of sexual unions?

I hate to break it to you, but just because YOU think of these relationships primarily - or perhaps only - in terms of sex, they are NOT primarily sexual, and the government doesn't deal with them on that basis. Notice, if you will, that when a married couple files a joint tax return, for example, there is no box to be checked for whether they have sex with each other or not.

2. Should sexual relations imply obligations legally of any kind? Should a spouse be allowed, for example, to simply leave all of their estate to someone other than their sexual partner, or should the fact that two people had sex together for a specified time make them legally obligated to get a cut?

Once again, these relationships are NOT primarily sexual in nature, as a rule, nor is that the basis on which the government deals with them.

People are allowed to leave their personally-owned property to anyone they wish, and I am not entitled to any of my husband's estate on the basis of having had sex with him, but on the basis of having married him. Whether or not we EVER had sexual relations, so long as neither of us complained officially about it, is irrelevant to that law.

3. Why buy a marriage license? Why should we pay?

The purpose of the marriage license is to bring the relationship into the legal purview of the government, for the purpose of making it an official, binding legal contract, as a marriage happens to be. The fee charged for it, which is generally nominal, is to defray the administrative costs of doing the paperwork.

4. Should those who are monogomous be allowed to discriminate against those who are not by having special government privlidges over them?

Sorry, but that's not what's happening. Once again, you are projecting your personal view of relationships onto the whole world, and assuming that everyone else views them, and has always viewed them, the way you do.

Society recognizes and encourages some relationships - NOT sexual - over others because those types of contracts have, typically in the past, redounded to the benefit of society as a whole.

5. What about asexual people? Shouldn't they have the same rights as those who are sexually active? For example, if two people live together and are the best of friends but don't have sex together, why is it they can't file jointly with taxes and provide the same privlidges those that have sex have?

What ABOUT asexual people? They HAVE the same rights as everyone else. If they perform the same actions as other people, society will give them the same treatment. Once again, no one anywhere is being forced to check any boxes regarding whether or not they have sex with their partner, or with anyone else. Society and the government DO NOT CARE about the sexual activity in your relationship, in this respect. YOU see it that way; that doesn't make it the way it is.

Asexual people who remain single, just like single people who **** everything that buys them drinks the bar, do not benefit society in so doing, and so society makes no effort to reward or encourage that behavior.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're beginning with the faulty assumption that sex is the only reason people get married, that it's little more than prostitution by contract.

That's a rather narrow and dim view of marriage. In spite of the fact that it is that for too many people (see: divorce rate), that doesn't negate the fact that marriage is much, much more than just a deal for lifetime sex.

For men it is a lifetime contract for sex and maybe to have children. For women it is a romantic fantasy which rarely lives up to their ideal.

Well, I never thought of marriage like that ~shrug~

Me either, which may be why mine has lasted so long.