|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 25, 2015 12:58:41 GMT -5
The government's involvement in marriage should really be close to zero. It could set up an archive like that for wills, where individuals could record copies of contracts. But fundamentally, marriage is a contract between two individuals which can be as detailed or as sparse as they wish. Government should also enact laws governing the responsibilities of parents to children; a contract could stipulate additional but not fewer such responsibilities, dividing them according to the wishes of those involved. Regarding the responsibilities of two adults to each other? Zero, unless contractually stipulated. Possibly there's a social interest in preventing close blood relatives from marrying because the high medical costs of inbreeding are likely to fall largely on the taxpayer, who does not deserve to pay for that.
Lawyers and other organizations would then create boilerplate contracts that would serve all but the corner cases. Of course, you'd need government's machinery to enforce a contract (the courts) should an involved party default, but that machinery already exists.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 25, 2015 13:01:48 GMT -5
Marriage licenses are not rooted in racism... marriage licenses are rooted in biology... the ability to reproduce... and complicated by laws with regard to taxation... IMHO... marriage within one's own gender... and race... is always the better thing to do for all involved... and yes, it is Scriptural... Ah. One more for the staggeringly long list of things aboutwell thinks he knows, but doesn't. You do not need a license to reproduce. Nor do we need tax laws that treat people differently based on their marital status. Up until about 150 years ago, it was none of the government's business who people married or had children with. Marriage licenses came about to keep blacks from marrying whites, and Jews from marrying Christians. They are fundamentally, and irreconcilably rooted in racist ideas about the wrong people marrying each other. Well, you're right about one thing... couples don't need a license to reproduce... (but the directions to do that are Scriptural)... but man has given them one in order to give them certain tax incentives and breaks that "unwed" individuals don't get... nothing to do with racism...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 25, 2015 13:03:18 GMT -5
The government's involvement in marriage should really be close to zero. It could set up an archive like that for wills, where individuals could record copies of contracts. But fundamentally, marriage is a contract between two individuals which can be as detailed or as sparse as they wish. Government should also enact laws governing the responsibilities of parents to children; a contract could stipulate additional but not fewer such responsibilities, dividing them according to the wishes of those involved. Regarding the responsibilities of two adults to each other? Zero, unless contractually stipulated. Possibly there's a social interest in preventing close blood relatives from marrying because the high medical costs of inbreeding are likely to fall largely on the taxpayer, who does not deserve to pay for that. Lawyers and other organizations would then create boilerplate contracts that would serve all but the corner cases. Of course, you'd need government's machinery to enforce a contract (the courts) should an involved party default, but that machinery already exists. Marriage is not far from a "partnership" to begin with... it treats them as one...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 25, 2015 13:06:27 GMT -5
Ah. One more for the staggeringly long list of things aboutwell thinks he knows, but doesn't. You do not need a license to reproduce. Nor do we need tax laws that treat people differently based on their marital status. Up until about 150 years ago, it was none of the government's business who people married or had children with. Marriage licenses came about to keep blacks from marrying whites, and Jews from marrying Christians. They are fundamentally, and irreconcilably rooted in racist ideas about the wrong people marrying each other. Well, you're right about one thing... couples don't need a license to reproduce... (but the directions to do that are Scriptural)... but man has given them one in order to give them certain tax incentives and breaks that "unwed" individuals don't get... nothing to do with racism... Except it is not appropriate (or Constitutional) for the government to discriminate against people based on their marital status. And the roots of marriage licensing remains racist.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 25, 2015 13:13:50 GMT -5
I'm certain tax breaks for married people were meant to encourage people to get and remain married, and decrease government's assumed responsibility for the issue of single parents who could not easily take care of children.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 25, 2015 13:16:57 GMT -5
I'm certain tax breaks for married people were meant to encourage people to get and remain married, and decrease government's assumed responsibility for the issue of single parents who could not easily take care of children. I'm sure of that as well. I'm also sure if you're getting married for the tax breaks, you shouldn't be getting married.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 25, 2015 13:46:36 GMT -5
Well, you're right about one thing... couples don't need a license to reproduce... (but the directions to do that are Scriptural)... but man has given them one in order to give them certain tax incentives and breaks that "unwed" individuals don't get... nothing to do with racism... Except it is not appropriate (or Constitutional) for the government to discriminate against people based on their marital status. And the roots of marriage licensing remains racist. Well, you're right about that first part... and many people are becoming more aware of that every day...(inappropriate, but not unconstitutional)... which is why I support the idea of "domestic partnerships" for same-sex couples... you are wrong on the latter comment...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 25, 2015 13:49:25 GMT -5
I'm certain tax breaks for married people were meant to encourage people to get and remain married, and decrease government's assumed responsibility for the issue of single parents who could not easily take care of children. I'm certain that the primary reason marriage license came to be was so the government could "legally" consider the two people as one entity... for a number of reasons... including taxation...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 25, 2015 13:53:07 GMT -5
Except it is not appropriate (or Constitutional) for the government to discriminate against people based on their marital status. And the roots of marriage licensing remains racist. Well, you're right about that first part... and many people are becoming more aware of that every day...(inappropriate, but not unconstitutional)... which is why I support the idea of "domestic partnerships" for same-sex couples... you are wrong on the latter comment... I'm sorry, but that's just not so. The original purpose of marriage licensing was to prevent inter-racial marriage and inter-religious marriage. The entire concept is rooted in racism and bigotry. There was no other purpose for it when it was conceived.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 25, 2015 14:03:51 GMT -5
Fence post... I can go outside and talk to one of them...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jan 25, 2015 14:11:50 GMT -5
Fence post... I can go outside and talk to one of them... You really should stop doing that. The fence posts have clearly been telling you a lot of lies.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Jan 25, 2015 14:56:46 GMT -5
Its all about control by those that think they know "whats right" and your rights be damned.
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Jan 25, 2015 15:05:05 GMT -5
I'm certain tax breaks for married people were meant to encourage people to get and remain married, and decrease government's assumed responsibility for the issue of single parents who could not easily take care of children. Yet for this last generation government has been encouraging single parenthood with taxes, welfare rules and other payments. Another of the governments unthinking distortions of society.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 25, 2015 15:21:29 GMT -5
Yet for this last generation government has been encouraging single parenthood with taxes, welfare rules and other payments. Another of the governments unthinking distortions of society. Liberals would say they are stepping in to provide a social safety net that recognizes reality. I would opine that if you reward bad behavior you will get more of it.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 25, 2015 16:03:41 GMT -5
I'm certain tax breaks for married people were meant to encourage people to get and remain married, and decrease government's assumed responsibility for the issue of single parents who could not easily take care of children. Yet for this last generation government has been encouraging single parenthood with taxes, welfare rules and other payments. Another of the governments unthinking distortions of society. But isn't that circumventing the marriage license according to some here?...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 25, 2015 16:06:04 GMT -5
Its all about control by those that think they know "whats right" and your rights be damned. They tell me they are covering for the jackasses behind them... and I believe 'em...
|
|
|
Post by rocketwolf on Jan 25, 2015 16:59:20 GMT -5
Yet for this last generation government has been encouraging single parenthood with taxes, welfare rules and other payments. Another of the governments unthinking distortions of society. Liberals would say they are stepping in to provide a social safety net that recognizes reality. I would opine that if you reward bad behavior you will get more of it. I agree but government is always too stupid to realize that. Proof will come soon enough as its shills defend stupid
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 25, 2015 20:00:45 GMT -5
Yet for this last generation government has been encouraging single parenthood with taxes, welfare rules and other payments. Another of the governments unthinking distortions of society. Liberals would say they are stepping in to provide a social safety net that recognizes reality. I would opine that if you reward bad behavior you will get more of it. Make it hard to earn... hard to keep... be sure they're qualified... and working to get unqualified...
|
|
|
Post by aponderer on Jan 25, 2015 20:18:20 GMT -5
I'm certain tax breaks for married people were meant to encourage people to get and remain married, and decrease government's assumed responsibility for the issue of single parents who could not easily take care of children. Tax breaks? Did you ever hear of the "marriage penalty" for married couples where one of the spouses earns an income not too different from the other?
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 25, 2015 20:39:34 GMT -5
Tax breaks? Did you ever hear of the "marriage penalty" for married couples where one of the spouses earns an income not too different from the other? No, because the situation never applied to me. At a guess? When the code was written that was an uncommon situation. IMO, there should be neither benefit nor penalty for being married. Everyone fills out their own tax return, if they have taxable income. End of story.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jan 25, 2015 20:51:08 GMT -5
Well, you're right about that first part... and many people are becoming more aware of that every day...(inappropriate, but not unconstitutional)... which is why I support the idea of "domestic partnerships" for same-sex couples... you are wrong on the latter comment... I'm sorry, but that's just not so. The original purpose of marriage licensing was to prevent inter-racial marriage and inter-religious marriage. The entire concept is rooted in racism and bigotry. There was no other purpose for it when it was conceived. I find that I will have to concede to you on marriage licenses... but what I found isn't exactly the way you said it was... "Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal."
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 25, 2015 21:08:29 GMT -5
It's an exercise in logic. If you don't believe in God, then you have to believe in Man. There are no other choices. And if you believe in Man, then you accept that Man must know what's "best" for all of us. It depends what you mean by "believe in Man". I do not believe that man is infallible. I do not believe infallible exists *anywhere*. Man makes a good try at it, but often fails and must constantly improve. Thus, new civil rights are from time to time discovered and acted upon. If we stuck by what the Bible says to do, there would be a lot of oppressed people - we'd still own slaves, for one example. Religious types assure me the Bible is the inerrant word of God. Either that's true, and God's okay with mistreating certain classes of people, or it's not, leading me to wonder what else the religious are wrong about. Choose. That would depend on whether you read the Old Testament or the New. Christ said the slave is our brother, and the poor our children. What He never said was "an it's up to government to take care of them". If you read the Ten Commandments, He gave us all the rights we will ever need. It's when we deviate from those that new "rights" have to be invented, like murdering your unborn children, or leeching on others to provide your health care.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jan 26, 2015 8:49:20 GMT -5
That would depend on whether you read the Old Testament or the New. Christ said the slave is our brother, and the poor our children. What He never said was "an it's up to government to take care of them". If you read the Ten Commandments, He gave us all the rights we will ever need. It's when we deviate from those that new "rights" have to be invented, like murdering your unborn children, or leeching on others to provide your health care. That's only relevant to believers. Despite their (your) apparent opinion to the contrary, we live in a secular society where believers do not get to make the rules for everyone. And since we know what theocracies are like from examining the Muslim theocracies, I am grateful that's true. I doubt a Christian theocracy would be any kinder to non-believers; the historical ones weren't.
|
|
|
Post by redleg on Jan 26, 2015 9:15:10 GMT -5
That would depend on whether you read the Old Testament or the New. Christ said the slave is our brother, and the poor our children. What He never said was "an it's up to government to take care of them". If you read the Ten Commandments, He gave us all the rights we will ever need. It's when we deviate from those that new "rights" have to be invented, like murdering your unborn children, or leeching on others to provide your health care. That's only relevant to believers. Despite their (your) apparent opinion to the contrary, we live in a secular society where believers do not get to make the rules for everyone. And since we know what theocracies are like from examining the Muslim theocracies, I am grateful that's true. I doubt a Christian theocracy would be any kinder to non-believers; the historical ones weren't. And secular (atheist) societies have been so much better? How many millions died in Stalin's USSR? In Mao's China purges? In Pol Pot's reign? We can also argue that our "secularized" society is so much better, correct? Where the hysterics demand punishment for "sexual assault" on college campuses, based solely on the accusation? Where immorality is prized over morality?
|
|