- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Should govt. be completely out of the marriage/family business?
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:08 am
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:08 am
Blast away with your reasons. The point I put to you is that if you say yes, then all tax deductions for being married, having children or any other benefit granted by govt. for married and children reasonings should be eliminated to have total disconnect from the government.
Right or wrong?
Right or wrong?
14
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:16 am to Homesick Tiger
Absolutely yes. We should eliminate the income tax and pass the FAIR Tax Act. We should then create (at the state level) a legal document (or a series of them) that would essentially allow consenting adults to create community property as though they were married under the current system. The process for dissolving one of these contracts would be similar to divorce. These documents could also handle custody of children, succession, power of attorney, ect.
That way, churches or really anyone who wants to can perform a "marriage" ceremony. Churches aren't afraid of being forced to do "gay weddings". The religious don't have to worry about the word "marriage" being redefined by the government. The gays get their weddings and their insurance benefits. Everybody wins, except the IRS, who as a result of the Fair Tax Act, gets dismantled.
That way, churches or really anyone who wants to can perform a "marriage" ceremony. Churches aren't afraid of being forced to do "gay weddings". The religious don't have to worry about the word "marriage" being redefined by the government. The gays get their weddings and their insurance benefits. Everybody wins, except the IRS, who as a result of the Fair Tax Act, gets dismantled.
This post was edited on 6/23/14 at 9:17 am
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:18 am to kingbob
I'm with
quote:
kingbob
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:20 am to TrueTiger
quote:
I'm with
quote:
kingbob
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:20 am to Homesick Tiger
Absolutely not. I think it's a good thing that the government encourages a strong family unit.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:24 am to Homesick Tiger
I've never really made the distinction between "marriage" as the govnermnet uses is and "marriage" in a religious contect.
I think the government should promote 'marraige' or civil unions, both for heterosexuals and for homosexuals.
I'd be OK with calling it a civil union for government purposes and marriage for religious pruposes if the word 'marriage' is really that important to religious people.
I'm only for the govnernment recognizing same-sex unions. I am for allowing churches to choose for themselves.
Is that forcing my gay beliefs on others?
I think the government should promote 'marraige' or civil unions, both for heterosexuals and for homosexuals.
I'd be OK with calling it a civil union for government purposes and marriage for religious pruposes if the word 'marriage' is really that important to religious people.
I'm only for the govnernment recognizing same-sex unions. I am for allowing churches to choose for themselves.
Is that forcing my gay beliefs on others?
This post was edited on 6/23/14 at 9:25 am
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:25 am to The Spleen
quote:
Absolutely not. I think it's a good thing that the government encourages a strong family unit.
But they don't. They encourage single mothers to not work and have an ever increasing number of kids out of wedlock because they get more money for each kid and if they work more than a minimum wage job or save their money, they lose their benefits (subsidized housing, free cell phone, free healthcare, food stamps, ect)
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:26 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
Is that forcing my gay beliefs on others?
Stop sticking your gay beliefs up my arse, God Damnit
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:27 am to Homesick Tiger
Yes
I love when the gay lobby says "You conservatives are all for small government except when it comes to gay marriage"
We want government OUT of the marriage business. That is small government. At the very least, we believe marriage is a states issue, not federal.
It's the gay lobby who wants legal gay marriage in all 50 states who are pro-big government.
I love when the gay lobby says "You conservatives are all for small government except when it comes to gay marriage"
We want government OUT of the marriage business. That is small government. At the very least, we believe marriage is a states issue, not federal.
It's the gay lobby who wants legal gay marriage in all 50 states who are pro-big government.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:29 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
if the word 'marriage' is really that important to religious people.
It absolutely is. Take a poll of Americans. If you poll them on whether or not they support gay marriage, you get about a 50/50 split. If you poll them on civil unions, you get 75/25 in favor with the 25 opposing it because they believe there's too much of a capacity for fraud (see "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry"). This entire debate is over two things: benefits and semantics. The gay community wants the benefits, the religious community refuses to redefine a word. If the government just changed the "word" they use to refer to marriage so that the word "marriage" doesn't have to be redefined to include "a man and a man" or a "woman and a woman", you get a compromise that everyone can live with.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:30 am to Homesick Tiger
Yes. Flat tax.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:31 am to kingbob
quote:
The gay community wants the benefits, the religious community refuses to redefine a word. If the government just changed the "word" they use to refer to marriage so that the word "marriage" doesn't have to be redefined to include "a man and a man" or a "woman and a woman", you get a compromise that everyone can live with.
If that is true then sign me the frick up and let's move on.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:34 am to kingbob
quote:
If the government just changed the "word" they use to refer to marriage so that the word "marriage" doesn't have to be redefined to include "a man and a man" or a "woman and a woman", you get a compromise that everyone can live with.
Well that ship sailed in the 90's when the gay community pushed for civil unions(not marriage) and they were pushed back by a lot of the same people fighting them on gay marriage today.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:35 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
The gay community wants the benefits, the religious community refuses to redefine a word. If the government just changed the "word" they use to refer to marriage so that the word "marriage" doesn't have to be redefined to include "a man and a man" or a "woman and a woman", you get a compromise that everyone can live with.
If that is true then sign me the frick up and let's move on.
It is absolutely true, the only issue is politics. If the politicians fix the problem, they can't continue to drum up votes by saying they're going to fix it. They can't fear monger that the other side is going to fix it the wrong way (either ban gay marriage completely or completely legalize gay marriage and force churches to perform them to maintain their non-profit status). If they fix the problem, they lose an important wedge issue that they use to get reelected and distract from real issues like campaign finance reform, immigration, the national debt, international entanglements, healthcare, entitlements, energy policy, ect.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:36 am to The Spleen
quote:
If the government just changed the "word" they use to refer to marriage so that the word "marriage" doesn't have to be redefined to include "a man and a man" or a "woman and a woman", you get a compromise that everyone can live with.
Well that ship sailed in the 90's when the gay community pushed for civil unions(not marriage) and they were pushed back by a lot of the same people fighting them on gay marriage today.
That was 20 years ago. Times have changed and so have opinions, attitudes, and demographics.
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:37 am to kingbob
Do straight people get married purely for the tax/legal benefits?
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:38 am to Homesick Tiger
Right.
I can't believe we have allowed legislators to try to bend the arc of our private lives in any particular direction. Government should neither encourage nor discourage marriage and families. It is absurd to assign them such a role.
I can't believe we have allowed legislators to try to bend the arc of our private lives in any particular direction. Government should neither encourage nor discourage marriage and families. It is absurd to assign them such a role.
This post was edited on 6/23/14 at 9:42 am
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:39 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Do straight people get married purely for the tax/legal benefits?
Believe it or not, many many do.
The issue is equal treatment under the law vs the definition of a word that refers to a religious sacrament. If the Civil Rights Act had never been passed, gay marriage wouldn't even be an issue because private clubs, businesses, and property owners wouldn't have to fear the government forcing them to provide services for gay weddings.
The real solution is to just take the decision out of the government's hands and give it to the individual couples themselves as to whether or not they themselves should be allowed to be "married". Those people can call it whatever they want. The religious can call it whatever they want. However, if the government calls it what it will, that is perceived to be more authoritative and concrete. Under no rational, constitutional basis, should the federal government have any say as to whether or not two consenting adults can marry, for OR against. Therefore, government should not decide and take no part.
Freedom means the freedom for other people to do things you don't agree with, the freedom for you to disagree with them, and the freedom to go ahead and do things they disagree with as well. Freedom is a double-edged sword with no hilt.
This post was edited on 6/23/14 at 9:45 am
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:41 am to Mickey Goldmill
quote:
Do straight people get married purely for the tax/legal benefits?
I'm getting married in 5 days and it's safe to say that neither of us are doing it because it gives either of us a tax break.
And, "changing the word" is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard and just shows how ignorant we've dumbed ourselves down to be. You can put a prom dress on a pig and most people still recognize it to be a pig.
This post was edited on 6/23/14 at 9:42 am
Posted on 6/23/14 at 9:41 am to kingbob
quote:
That was 20 years ago. Times have changed and so have opinions, attitudes, and demographics.
Yep, which is why gay marriage in all 50 states is inevitable. It's really not that big of a deal for a large majority of the under 30 crowd, and it's gaining acceptance with the over 30 crowd.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News