Butters 0 #26 March 23, 2011 QuoteIn a legal context, what are the extra responsibilities of marriage (except for alimony, which is really an imposed responsibility for the dissolution of marriage) Wendy P. If you are dating and your partner gets injured, you are not responsible for the bills. If you are married and your partner get injured, you are responsible for the bills. That's just one ..."That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #27 March 23, 2011 Quote The monetary tax perks related to being married, as well as a number of other rights associated with being married, are not available to homosexual couples whether they have a "civil union" or otherwise. The simplest solution for this imbalance, to me, is to let homosexuals get married. Some people, however, don't like the idea of homosexuals getting married for whatever reason and so they do one of three things: 1) Suggest that we remove some or all of the perks and advantages of being married, saying that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business anyway. The reason the debate is so exasperating is because 1) and 2) are political impossibilites. And you can explain to the people that suggested them why they're never going to happen, and they'll probably agree with you. But then at the end of the discussion they'll still insist that homosexuals not be allowed to get married and that, "Hey, I suggested 1) or 2), it's not my fault it didn't work out." all the while happily enjoying the imbalanced benefits and rights. You are painting with a broad brush here. I have some libertarian leanings and am against the state being involved in regulating relationships between adults (including marriage as a default civil contract). I believe couples should make their own contracts between themselves if they wish. I also believe the government should treat people equally as individuals. I do not support these things because I am somehow otherwise against gay marriage. I have stated that I would prefer state and federal government recognize gay marriage rather than continue the unequal treatment that exists now. I believe that time is surely coming quickly. I also realize that the state doing away with marriage is fairly unlikely. That doesn't mean I have to stop supporting it as the preferred outcome which is consistent with my personal beliefs and philosophy."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #28 March 23, 2011 >Because the Ponzi scheme know as modern civilized society requires >people to breed and create new worker drones to pay more tax dollars to >the state. Well, except our current system has resulted in a _lower_ birthrate. We're growing now because of immigration, not breeding. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #29 March 23, 2011 Quote>Because the Ponzi scheme know as modern civilized society requires >people to breed and create new worker drones to pay more tax dollars to >the state. Well, except our current system has resulted in a _lower_ birthrate. We're growing now because of immigration, not breeding. Ohhhh... So we need all those immigrants here to pay taxes to support the society. And yes, even illegals who work for cash pay taxes. Sales taxes, property taxes (either directly on property they own or indirectly by paying rent that the landlord then uses part of toward taxes). Excise taxes (gas, alcohol, cigarettes, ect)."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arvoitus 1 #30 March 23, 2011 Quote>Because the Ponzi scheme know as modern civilized society requires >people to breed and create new worker drones to pay more tax dollars to >the state. Well, except our current system has resulted in a _lower_ birthrate. We're growing now because of immigration, not breeding. Lower birthrate isn't related to marriage. Its related to womens education and career opportunities. In every poor non-western country the birthrate has plummeted as women have become more educated.Your rights end where my feelings begin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,132 #31 March 23, 2011 >Lower birthrate isn't related to marriage. Sounds like you're arguing with your own statement! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #32 March 23, 2011 QuoteIn a legal context, what are the extra responsibilities of marriage (except for alimony, which is really an imposed responsibility for the dissolution of marriage) Wendy P. Taxes. I believe the IRS can come after you for taxes owed by your spouse. (They certainly can after the death of a spouse).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #33 March 24, 2011 QuoteQuote The monetary tax perks related to being married, as well as a number of other rights associated with being married, are not available to homosexual couples whether they have a "civil union" or otherwise. The simplest solution for this imbalance, to me, is to let homosexuals get married. Some people, however, don't like the idea of homosexuals getting married for whatever reason and so they do one of three things: 1) Suggest that we remove some or all of the perks and advantages of being married, saying that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business anyway. The reason the debate is so exasperating is because 1) and 2) are political impossibilites. And you can explain to the people that suggested them why they're never going to happen, and they'll probably agree with you. But then at the end of the discussion they'll still insist that homosexuals not be allowed to get married and that, "Hey, I suggested 1) or 2), it's not my fault it didn't work out." all the while happily enjoying the imbalanced benefits and rights. You are painting with a broad brush here. I have some libertarian leanings and am against the state being involved in regulating relationships between adults (including marriage as a default civil contract). I believe couples should make their own contracts between themselves if they wish. I also believe the government should treat people equally as individuals. I do not support these things because I am somehow otherwise against gay marriage. I have stated that I would prefer state and federal government recognize gay marriage rather than continue the unequal treatment that exists now. I believe that time is surely coming quickly. I also realize that the state doing away with marriage is fairly unlikely. That doesn't mean I have to stop supporting it as the preferred outcome which is consistent with my personal beliefs and philosophy. Thank you for forcing me to clarify. I think (1) as a standalone goal is perfectly valid and I didn't mean to suggest that everyone who takes that stance is doing so as an insincere gesture of support for equality. The key difference in your case is the clause, "...in the meantime, treat homosexual couples equally." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arvoitus 1 #34 March 24, 2011 Quote>Lower birthrate isn't related to marriage. Sounds like you're arguing with your own statement! No. The OP asked why the state gives money to married people. And the state does it because it thinks married people are more likely to breed then single people. Which is what the state needs people to do. Womens education is something external that doesn't relate to being single or married. Or maybe there is a small correlation to being a careerist woman and living alone with 12 cats.Your rights end where my feelings begin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
