Should Government be in the Marriage business?

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I guess that depends on where you live.

What Is a Civil Union? — Infoplease.com

 

[FA_Q2]

This is a joke. Marriage is NOT just a religious institution, it is also legal one. Because you want to keep some 'sacred' meaning to the word matters not to me and what the state does with it should in no way diminish what you hold sacred. You r belief in the sacredness is inconsequential to what the legal terms are and it is not all right to limit the legal status of anyone based on your own beliefs, lifestyle or outlook. That is what we are currently doing. It is a terrible thought to have the government not recognize marriage ether. Marriage is the base of the family unit, the base for which we organize our lives. Changing the word does not make any sense whatsoever. I fail to realize why people are willing to GIVE UP marriage as long as it is not 'tainted' by another person marrying someone of their own sex. Allowing gays to marry is not a radical redefinition, it is a simple extension of the same rights that you experience to those that are not receiving them. Removing it entirely and only allowing only civil unions which ARE NOT AS EXTENSIVE as marriage IS a complete redefining of how the system works and is completely incorrect. If a civil union is brought up to be the same as marriage THEN WHY IN THE HELL WOULD IT MATTER. It is a bullshit cover if all you are arguing about is the actual WORD as that is not important and if you are extending the same rights then you need not marginalize others by referring it as another term. There is no threat to marriage by extending the right to gays and there is even less reason to give them some sort of special term just so you can be comforted that gays are not actually marring each other, they are doing that 'other' thing.

I have no qualms with allowing churches to not recognize or perform ceremonies for gay couples, that is within their rights and within their belief systems. You may do the same. The GOVERNMENT may not.

 

[DiveCon]

This is a joke. Marriage is NOT just a religious institution, it is also legal one. Because you want to keep some 'sacred' meaning to the word matters not to me and what the state does with it should in no way diminish what you hold sacred. You r belief in the sacredness is inconsequential to what the legal terms are and it is not all right to limit the legal status of anyone based on your own beliefs, lifestyle or outlook. That is what we are currently doing. It is a terrible thought to have the government not recognize marriage ether. Marriage is the base of the family unit, the base for which we organize our lives. Changing the word does not make any sense whatsoever. I fail to realize why people are willing to GIVE UP marriage as long as it is not 'tainted' by another person marrying someone of their own sex. Allowing gays to marry is not a radical redefinition, it is a simple extension of the same rights that you experience to those that are not receiving them. Removing it entirely and only allowing only civil unions which ARE NOT AS EXTENSIVE as marriage IS a complete redefining of how the system works and is completely incorrect. If a civil union is brought up to be the same as marriage THEN WHY IN THE HELL WOULD IT MATTER. It is a bullshit cover if all you are arguing about is the actual WORD as that is not important and if you are extending the same rights then you need not marginalize others by referring it as another term. There is no threat to marriage by extending the right to gays and there is even less reason to give them some sort of special term just so you can be comforted that gays are not actually marring each other, they are doing that 'other' thing.

I have no qualms with allowing churches to not recognize or perform ceremonies for gay couples, that is within their rights and within their belief systems. You may do the same. The GOVERNMENT may not.

you are missing the point then

take the LEGAL issues currently associated with marriage OUT
put them on civil union contracts
marriage is left with just being a religious ceremony for those that want it

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Perhaps it is because it is advantageous for a single income families to exist. Maybe because it is because we want parents to be able to be parents. Perhaps because children are not going to take a job at five and families operate as single units that cost far more to run than a single person on his own income costs. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with a larger deduction for a family as IT COSTS MORE TO RAISE A FAMILY. I am sure you will not mind when the children grow up and begin to pay taxes of their own that may well help keep this country going when you are old and not contributing anymore. Why is it you hate the simple concept of the government wanting functional families. I would agree that there should not be any credits and people should not be receiving money from the government but there should be differing levels of deductions for a single individual than there is for a family.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is a joke. Marriage is NOT just a religious institution, it is also legal one. Because you want to keep some 'sacred' meaning to the word matters not to me and what the state does with it should in no way diminish what you hold sacred. You r belief in the sacredness is inconsequential to what the legal terms are and it is not all right to limit the legal status of anyone based on your own beliefs, lifestyle or outlook. That is what we are currently doing. It is a terrible thought to have the government not recognize marriage ether. Marriage is the base of the family unit, the base for which we organize our lives. Changing the word does not make any sense whatsoever. I fail to realize why people are willing to GIVE UP marriage as long as it is not 'tainted' by another person marrying someone of their own sex. Allowing gays to marry is not a radical redefinition, it is a simple extension of the same rights that you experience to those that are not receiving them. Removing it entirely and only allowing only civil unions which ARE NOT AS EXTENSIVE as marriage IS a complete redefining of how the system works and is completely incorrect. If a civil union is brought up to be the same as marriage THEN WHY IN THE HELL WOULD IT MATTER. It is a bullshit cover if all you are arguing about is the actual WORD as that is not important and if you are extending the same rights then you need not marginalize others by referring it as another term. There is no threat to marriage by extending the right to gays and there is even less reason to give them some sort of special term just so you can be comforted that gays are not actually marring each other, they are doing that 'other' thing.

I have no qualms with allowing churches to not recognize or perform ceremonies for gay couples, that is within their rights and within their belief systems. You may do the same. The GOVERNMENT may not.

you are missing the point then

take the LEGAL issues currently associated with marriage OUT
put them on civil union contracts
marriage is left with just being a religious ceremony for those that with it

No, I am not missing the point then. What that amounts to is the argument over a damn WORD. That is it, a word. If all the legalities are met and equal then all that is left is the decrepit fact that people cannot handle the thought that gays are able to say the word MARRIED. That is simply pathetic. You r marriage is NOT affected. It looks like all anyone wants is their own moral superiority in the matter.

And here is a nice tidbit for you - As soon as the government got out of marriage and turned it over to the churches GAYS WOULD IMMEDIATELY FIND A CHURCH THAT WOULD MARRY THEM. After all that, gays would be getting married anyway. You would have restructured the whole system for a word and they would STILL be able to get married.

 

[DiveCon]

This is a joke. Marriage is NOT just a religious institution, it is also legal one. Because you want to keep some 'sacred' meaning to the word matters not to me and what the state does with it should in no way diminish what you hold sacred. You r belief in the sacredness is inconsequential to what the legal terms are and it is not all right to limit the legal status of anyone based on your own beliefs, lifestyle or outlook. That is what we are currently doing. It is a terrible thought to have the government not recognize marriage ether. Marriage is the base of the family unit, the base for which we organize our lives. Changing the word does not make any sense whatsoever. I fail to realize why people are willing to GIVE UP marriage as long as it is not 'tainted' by another person marrying someone of their own sex. Allowing gays to marry is not a radical redefinition, it is a simple extension of the same rights that you experience to those that are not receiving them. Removing it entirely and only allowing only civil unions which ARE NOT AS EXTENSIVE as marriage IS a complete redefining of how the system works and is completely incorrect. If a civil union is brought up to be the same as marriage THEN WHY IN THE HELL WOULD IT MATTER. It is a bullshit cover if all you are arguing about is the actual WORD as that is not important and if you are extending the same rights then you need not marginalize others by referring it as another term. There is no threat to marriage by extending the right to gays and there is even less reason to give them some sort of special term just so you can be comforted that gays are not actually marring each other, they are doing that 'other' thing.

I have no qualms with allowing churches to not recognize or perform ceremonies for gay couples, that is within their rights and within their belief systems. You may do the same. The GOVERNMENT may not.

you are missing the point then

take the LEGAL issues currently associated with marriage OUT
put them on civil union contracts
marriage is left with just being a religious ceremony for those that with it

No, I am not missing the point then. What that amounts to is the argument over a damn WORD. That is it, a word. If all the legalities are met and equal then all that is left is the decrepit fact that people cannot handle the thought that gays are able to say the word MARRIED. That is simply pathetic. You r marriage is NOT affected. It looks like all anyone wants is their own moral superiority in the matter.

And here is a nice tidbit for you - As soon as the government got out of marriage and turned it over to the churches GAYS WOULD IMMEDIATELY FIND A CHURCH THAT WOULD MARRY THEM. After all that, gays would be getting married anyway. You would have restructured the whole system for a word and they would STILL be able to get married.

because these legalities should never have been put on that word in the first place

and as for gays getting married in a church, so what?
there already exist such churches
its just that the government shouldnt have been involved with marriages in the first place

 

[THE LIGHT]

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 **** 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.

But they will be paying taxes as individuals and the IRS doesn't care who your mommy or daddy is, all they care about is that you pay your taxes. Who knows, your kids just may grow up to be welfare suckers in which case skull will have to work 3 times as hard to pay taxes for you three.

 

[uscitizen]

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?

I don't think the govt should be in the marriage business. ie tax deductions for being married, etc.

 

[asterism]

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.

Not in my observation.

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

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

Not if they adopt.

 

[JBeukema]

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%

Right... so everyone who isn't in the same tax bracket as Bill Gates is unable to provide for their own children

 

[JBeukema]

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.

:lol;


No, I just don't make the moronic assertion that 90-odd percent of Americans who aren't in the highest tax bracket are unable to fend for themselves and every single person who receives any tax credit for having a child is unable to provide for their child and is living off Bill Gates' taxes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not in my observation.

There are hundreds of millions of parents in the US alone, and I would bet that the really bad ones total less than 500,000. How many gay parents are there again?

Not if they adopt.

Last I checked you don't just adopt.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

:lol;


No, I just don't make the moronic assertion that 90-odd percent of Americans who aren't in the highest tax bracket are unable to fend for themselves and every single person who receives any tax credit for having a child is unable to provide for their child and is living off Bill Gates' taxes.

Nope, you believe that no one is able to pay their taxes without help unless they make more money than God.

 

[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%

Right... so everyone who isn't in the same tax bracket as Bill Gates is unable to provide for their own children

This has nothing to do with what tax bracket you are in. If you and I made the exact same income and you had a bunch of brats and I didn't, you would pay less in taxes than I even though I am less of a burden on government services than you.

It has everything to do with people being responsible for their choices. If you want kids go ahead and have them, just don't expect me to subsidize them.

 

[JBeukema]

I make more money than god. Your god took the form of a homeless beggar living off of handouts.

It's like you put forth an effort to out-stupid yourself.

 

[JBeukema]

This has nothing to do with what tax bracket you are in.

Right... you're bitching about people paying different levels of taxation yet your moronic statements having nothing to do with tax brackets

You not having the money you need to provide for your children taken by the government =/= me subsidizing your kids, you dolt

 

[Skull Pilot]

This has nothing to do with what tax bracket you are in.

Right... you're bitching about people paying different levels of taxation yet your moronic statements having nothing to do with tax brackets

You not having the money you need to provide for your children taken by the government =/= me subsidizing your kids, you dolt

I am saying people should not get a tax deduction for children. It has nothing to do with what tax bracket you're in. When a person without kids pays more in taxes than a person with kids, the person without kids is subsidizing the children of others.

Your children are your responsibility not mine.

 

[JBeukema]

Not taking their money enables them to more readily provide for their children so you don't end up paying for their care after the money they need to feed their children is taken by the state, you ******* retard. That's the point of the deduction. It's not that ******* complicated. Try to get it through your thick ******* skull.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not taking their money enables them to more readily provide for their children so you don't end up paying for their care after the money they need to feed their children is taken by the state, you ******* retard. That's the point of the deduction. It's not that ******* complicated. Try to get it through your thick ******* skull.

Get it through your head that your children are not my responsibility. They are yours and yours alone. I should not have to pay a higher percentage of my income to pay for government services for your kids.

If you can't feed your kids and pay your fair share of taxes then have fewer kids so you don't need my money to pay for them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I make more money than god. Your god took the form of a homeless beggar living off of handouts.

It's like you put forth an effort to out-stupid yourself.

Wow, someone else who thinks they know what I believe, and they immediately prove themselves wrong.

Want to try again?