Dude, read the following posts after that one.konfusion wrote:
Yes, because it's not been done with "real" marriage...Superior Mind wrote:
The problem is you can have two guys who aren't in a relationship getting a "civil union" just to scam the government for benefits.JohnG@lt wrote:
It's just a copout.
-kon
- Superior Mind
- (not macbeth)
- +1,755|6979
Marriage was abducted by the religious organisations. Lets just take it back.konfusion wrote:
Just make everything civil unions, and leave marriage to religions - figured everyone would have gotten that by now.
-kon
How about we cut all tax subsidies, benefits etc for married couples.
They get enough economies sharing a house already.
They get enough economies sharing a house already.
Fuck Israel
Not a bad idea. Why should someone who does not want marriage be at a disadvantage?Dilbert_X wrote:
How about we cut all tax subsidies, benefits etc for married couples.
They get enough economies sharing a house already.
As far as getting married to scam I'm sure it happens in a man/woman relationship too.
Take your pick..
or
lul
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Usually the main point for the mother (bot all mothers... just most) is to be a homemaker and take care of the children.Dilbert_X wrote:
How about we cut all tax subsidies, benefits etc for married couples.
They get enough economies sharing a house already.
Fix'edDilbert_X wrote:
How about we you cut all tax subsidies, benefits etc for married couples.
They get enough economies sharing a house already.
It's already like that in the country you live in.
I believe at the time the system was created the idea was to promote procreation. Make an incentive to get married and have kids by reducing the cost. Whether they still need that now I cannot say, I don't know what the population demographic is like in the states.Kmarion wrote:
Not a bad idea. Why should someone who does not want marriage be at a disadvantage?Dilbert_X wrote:
How about we cut all tax subsidies, benefits etc for married couples.
They get enough economies sharing a house already.
As far as getting married to scam I'm sure it happens in a man/woman relationship too.
This is course raises all kinds of problem in itself, but I'm sure we're all intelligent enough to figure them out alone (look at the states today).
The shape of an eye in front of the ocean, digging for stones and throwing them against its window pane. Take it down dreamer, take it down deep. - Other Families
Big knockers and a good argument yes, but my guess is that most people who are against gay marriage are concerned about the children growing up in a gay environment, and she didn't talk about that.
ƒ³
If 3 pigs makes you the wealthiest man in the village it sure does ...Flaming_Maniac wrote:
It's not about the quality of a relationship, it's about the traditions of a relationship. Since when has marriage been about love? Giving away your daughter for three pigs isn't about love.
She missed the point.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Which is why tax breaks and/or subsidies to those with children is a much better solution. If you hadn't noticed being married does not guarantee children, and having children does not guarantee that you're married. But having children (shocking logic coming up, but stick with me) does guarantee having children.Pochsy wrote:
I believe at the time the system was created the idea was to promote procreation. Make an incentive to get married and have kids by reducing the cost. Whether they still need that now I cannot say, I don't know what the population demographic is like in the states.Kmarion wrote:
Not a bad idea. Why should someone who does not want marriage be at a disadvantage?Dilbert_X wrote:
How about we cut all tax subsidies, benefits etc for married couples.
They get enough economies sharing a house already.
As far as getting married to scam I'm sure it happens in a man/woman relationship too.
This is course raises all kinds of problem in itself, but I'm sure we're all intelligent enough to figure them out alone (look at the states today).
Well, the primary issue with marriage benefits is not so much tax breaks but insurance benefits, pension benefits, social security benefits, medicaid benefits etc. Most insurance is provided via the employer rather than bought directly by the consumer. Think of it like this: instead of purchasing your own car insurance policy that you pay into monthly, your employer pays for your car insurance for you as a benefit. They normally cover a persons spouse and children as well, as an added benefit. These benefits packages were all designed during WWII to attract workers while there was a severe manpower shortage on the home front and... they just stuck around. Solution to the insurance dilemma would be to move it all to an entirely consumer based commodity.DrunkFace wrote:
Which is why tax breaks and/or subsidies to those with children is a much better solution. If you hadn't noticed being married does not guarantee children, and having children does not guarantee that you're married. But having children (shocking logic coming up, but stick with me) does guarantee having children.Pochsy wrote:
I believe at the time the system was created the idea was to promote procreation. Make an incentive to get married and have kids by reducing the cost. Whether they still need that now I cannot say, I don't know what the population demographic is like in the states.Kmarion wrote:
Not a bad idea. Why should someone who does not want marriage be at a disadvantage?
As far as getting married to scam I'm sure it happens in a man/woman relationship too.
This is course raises all kinds of problem in itself, but I'm sure we're all intelligent enough to figure them out alone (look at the states today).
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
No... marriage came from there. I don't think restraint is necessarily an evolutionary thing - I think our social culture dictates that - and whether you want to admit it, most of our social culture comes from some religion.DrunkFace wrote:
Marriage was abducted by the religious organisations. Lets just take it back.konfusion wrote:
Just make everything civil unions, and leave marriage to religions - figured everyone would have gotten that by now.
-kon
-kon
Can't GLBT's already adopt? I think Florida might be the only state that does not permit it right now.oug wrote:
Big knockers and a good argument yes, but my guess is that most people who are against gay marriage are concerned about the children growing up in a gay environment, and she didn't talk about that.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I'd say that cultures that predate our current religions provided those 'social cultures' to religion. Chicken or the egg discussion perhaps, but I'm going to side with the fact that most of the laws listed in the Old Testament predate Judaism and the writing of the first Torah scroll.konfusion wrote:
No... marriage came from there. I don't think restraint is necessarily an evolutionary thing - I think our social culture dictates that - and whether you want to admit it, most of our social culture comes from some religion.DrunkFace wrote:
Marriage was abducted by the religious organisations. Lets just take it back.konfusion wrote:
Just make everything civil unions, and leave marriage to religions - figured everyone would have gotten that by now.
-kon
-kon
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Outstanding speech. Too bad that most people probably will not have heard it.
Key points:
"Sanctity of Marriage" = Religious issue
"Legality of Marriage" = State issue
I think people get wrapped around the terminology/word "marriage" rather than what's actually happening. Hence the position of "civil unions" for the state/government and "marriage" for the church. The former a legally binding thing, the latter a religious sacrament.
Key points:
"Sanctity of Marriage" = Religious issue
"Legality of Marriage" = State issue
I think people get wrapped around the terminology/word "marriage" rather than what's actually happening. Hence the position of "civil unions" for the state/government and "marriage" for the church. The former a legally binding thing, the latter a religious sacrament.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
You forget rituals in the stone age. And probably even before that.JohnG@lt wrote:
I'd say that cultures that predate our current religions provided those 'social cultures' to religion. Chicken or the egg discussion perhaps, but I'm going to side with the fact that most of the laws listed in the Old Testament predate Judaism and the writing of the first Torah scroll.konfusion wrote:
No... marriage came from there. I don't think restraint is necessarily an evolutionary thing - I think our social culture dictates that - and whether you want to admit it, most of our social culture comes from some religion.DrunkFace wrote:
Marriage was abducted by the religious organisations. Lets just take it back.
-kon
-kon