This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Should the federal government even have laws regarding marriage?

#21Zero_DestroyerPosted 3/27/2013 10:34:20 PM
mystic belmont posted...
Yeah, won't it be great to hit every surviving spouse with an estate tax right during the grieving process? You want to live in that house you both have been paying to maintain? That'll cost you $163,000.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/shakespeares_sister/shakes6/bootstraps.jpg
---
The Official Shiek Mainer in SSBB.
I am ZERO! The deck maker o' DOOM!
#22IamvegitoPosted 3/27/2013 10:35:20 PM
From: Sniper_Brosef | #001
It is usually argued, and I agree, that marriage is a religious concept

As stated by everyone else here, you're wrong from the get-go.
---
"A day will come when you think yourself safe and happy, and suddenly your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth, and you'll know the debt is paid."
#23mystic belmontPosted 3/27/2013 10:38:20 PM
If marriage is a religious concept, why can atheists get married?
---
"Freedom was meaningless without ownership and control over one's own body" -Henry McNeal Turner
[Evil Republican]
#24Zero_DestroyerPosted 3/27/2013 10:39:16 PM
mystic belmont posted...
If marriage is a religious concept, why can atheists get married?


It's God's Test, clearly.
---
The Official Shiek Mainer in SSBB.
I am ZERO! The deck maker o' DOOM!
#25blacktrancePosted 3/28/2013 12:02:47 AM
From: Zero_Destroyer | #017
you know, I think a lot of the child-related ones seem

like

necessary

Parental rights need not have anything to do with marriage.
---
"With enough brutal force the thieving rabble can be kept in line." - Rebelscum
#26Zero_DestroyerPosted 3/28/2013 2:51:02 AM
blacktrance posted...
From: Zero_Destroyer | #017
you know, I think a lot of the child-related ones seem

like

necessary

Parental rights need not have anything to do with marriage.


Alright then.

Belmont's post and fiscal things like that still apply.
---
The Official Shiek Mainer in SSBB.
I am ZERO! The deck maker o' DOOM!
#27PhoroPosted 3/28/2013 3:01:08 AM
I think the current government system in place for the handling of the institution of marriage is more-or-less adequate. It just needs to include all consenting adults. And yeah, that means polygamy too. You're adults? You consent? *shrug* Do whatever you want with one another.
---
You're killin' me, Smalls.
#28MysteryMan2000Posted 3/28/2013 5:21:52 AM
azuresou1 posted...
First and foremost, marriage is not a religious institution, so let's not even pretend churchs should have some monopoly on marriage. My parents are not religious; their marriage is not null and void because they did it at a county clerk's office rather than in a church.


The Church would not have a monopoly with the abscence of State intervention. Marriage is a personal matter. It could be as simple as "Hey, wanna refer to each other as married?" "Yeah, that sounds good." People can choose to do a ritual in a Church, or they can choose to exchange bottle caps and have that represent their marriage to one another.

As to why government should care about marriage, it's because it's more or less proven that most people are just more productive and happier when they're in a good relationship. Productive and happy members of society are good for a nation. Plus, they tend to raise at least relatively well-adjusted children, who will then become part of society, even gay couples who can adopt. That, too, is a good thing. Thus, it's really in government's best marriage to track and promote marriages, and also to allow marriage equality.


Marriage is not the same as a good relationship. Many couples, gay and straight, are happy together, and they are not married or want to marry. Marriage is not the same as good parents either. Many unmarried couples, gay and straight, raise well adjusted children. The State has no authority in subsidizing social constructs.

mystic belmont posted...
Yeah, won't it be great to hit every surviving spouse with an estate tax right during the grieving process? You want to live in that house you both have been paying to maintain? That'll cost you $163,000.


Well, that just shows you how bad estate taxes are, not how good marriage is. Why should an unmarried couple have to be in the same situation? We need to get rid of State intervention in both for marriage and estate taxes.

Masta Crouton posted...
Cutting benefits to all married couples because gay people might get them too is great policy.


When it comes to taxes, we would go with the lowest tax rate offered. So, rather than slap currently married couples with an increase, we would lower everyone else's taxes to match theirs. As for the other contractual stuff, that can be taken care of by other means. I want equality for all, heterosexuals, homosexuals, polyamorous people, and single people. State intervention does not allow for this.

When you really isolate marriage for what it is, you realize that it is a personal matter that doesn't need State legitimacy.
#29azuresou1Posted 3/28/2013 6:23:40 AM
The government can't determine from a bird's eye view what a good relationship is. Seriously, there are 300 million people living in the US, there are bound to be good domestic partnerships and terrible marriages. In lieu of government monitoring the status of every single relationship, the number of marriages should serve as an approximate indicator of overall good relationships.
---
Face it, Blake Griffin is more a SF than (Rashard) Lewis is - Bullet_Proof_18
Formerly Known As SSJ5Vegeta
#3082xenoPosted 3/28/2013 6:38:41 AM
"If 'they' get to marry, then NO ONE SHOULD GET BENEFITS!"

That's what this topic kinda sounds like.

But to be honest, as a single working guy, it sucks that I pay so much in taxes when I get the least benefit, and I always thought it was unequal anyways, so I have agreed even before this current hoopla of gay marriage.
---
GOP - "Obama believes in redistribution of wealth".
So do you - http://www.epi.org/publication/ib330-productivity-vs-compensation/