Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Should they just ban marriage?

xus00HAY
Posts: 1,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 4:13:31 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Now that the supreme court has issued an edict that America has to believe in Same-Sex marriage whether we want to or not, the governors of the states where it had still been a crime have to just shut up and get used to it, like they did when the court said it is ok to burn the flag.
Or do they? Could they just ban all marriages, and blame it on the court?
If the straights can't get a marriage license either, there is no discrimination. If the protection under the law is zero it is equal, no matter what the 2 people are.
Look, a same-sex marriage is just something they do to prove how gay they are, should they get a tax break for that?
Back in the day a man would get his girlfriend knocked up. He would then step up to the plate and show everyone what a good man he was by marrying her. For that he deserved to get a tax break.
Times have changed. If the man has a good job, his girl might want to marry him instead of the abortion. he does not need a lower tax. Besides she probably earns more than he does so he won't get the tax break anyway.
If the man does not have a good job, he is a loser, so his girl will not want to be saddled with him for the rest of her life, so she will just take an abortion pill and decide to be more careful in the future. She doesn't want her children to inherit his defective genes either.
There is no good reason why an underpaid man should pay more tax than a good one. So the tax break one can get for having a dependant should be good enough.
You can do a wedding without a license anyway.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 5:16:31 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Marriage is a God-given right. You shouldn't have to ask the government to get married. All you need to do is find a pastor who will marry you. Btw, Lincoln didnt had a marriage license.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2015 5:39:58 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
A person should be able to have a non-governmental marriage with anybody they please.

Every person, even an unmarried person, should be treated equally by the law. That is a married person should not receive benefits for having a bed partner.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
kingkd
Posts: 100
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 2:00:13 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 4:13:31 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
Now that the supreme court has issued an edict that America has to believe in Same-Sex marriage whether we want to or not, the governors of the states where it had still been a crime have to just shut up and get used to it, like they did when the court said it is ok to burn the flag.
Or do they? Could they just ban all marriages, and blame it on the court?
If the straights can't get a marriage license either, there is no discrimination. If the protection under the law is zero it is equal, no matter what the 2 people are.
Look, a same-sex marriage is just something they do to prove how gay they are, should they get a tax break for that?
Back in the day a man would get his girlfriend knocked up. He would then step up to the plate and show everyone what a good man he was by marrying her. For that he deserved to get a tax break.
Times have changed. If the man has a good job, his girl might want to marry him instead of the abortion. he does not need a lower tax. Besides she probably earns more than he does so he won't get the tax break anyway.
If the man does not have a good job, he is a loser, so his girl will not want to be saddled with him for the rest of her life, so she will just take an abortion pill and decide to be more careful in the future. She doesn't want her children to inherit his defective genes either.
There is no good reason why an underpaid man should pay more tax than a good one. So the tax break one can get for having a dependant should be good enough.
You can do a wedding without a license anyway.

No you are a stupid single person who doesn't know much about anything
The Constitution is just a damn piece of paper
-Barack Obama
"I actually support ...the Spanish inquisition, the murder of natives and so much more."
airmax1227
"Water is wet."
airmax1227
slo1
Posts: 4,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2015 2:28:31 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 12/13/2015 4:13:31 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
Now that the supreme court has issued an edict that America has to believe in Same-Sex marriage whether we want to or not, the governors of the states where it had still been a crime have to just shut up and get used to it, like they did when the court said it is ok to burn the flag.
Or do they? Could they just ban all marriages, and blame it on the court?
If the straights can't get a marriage license either, there is no discrimination. If the protection under the law is zero it is equal, no matter what the 2 people are.
Look, a same-sex marriage is just something they do to prove how gay they are, should they get a tax break for that?
Back in the day a man would get his girlfriend knocked up. He would then step up to the plate and show everyone what a good man he was by marrying her. For that he deserved to get a tax break.
Times have changed. If the man has a good job, his girl might want to marry him instead of the abortion. he does not need a lower tax. Besides she probably earns more than he does so he won't get the tax break anyway.
If the man does not have a good job, he is a loser, so his girl will not want to be saddled with him for the rest of her life, so she will just take an abortion pill and decide to be more careful in the future. She doesn't want her children to inherit his defective genes either.
There is no good reason why an underpaid man should pay more tax than a good one. So the tax break one can get for having a dependant should be good enough.
You can do a wedding without a license anyway.

You and many Americans have many misconceptions of what a state marriage is. A state marriage is NOT a religious marriage even though many erroneously think of them as one in the same.

The purpose of state marriage is not only to promote child rearing via tax breaks. It also creates standards and expectations when a marriage is dissolved. Society has a vested interest when two people who legally combine their financial obligations and then decide to dissolve the agreement. Without those protections marriages would end and in many cases one partner would be left with nothing because the other partner had control of finances and took it all.

So as you might like to eliminate marriage, there will be marriage and there needs to be a method to solve the tort law issue of how they are dissolved regardless if with same sex or not.

What needs to happen is separate religious marriage from state marriage. Let's call "state marriage" as a "civil union".

Civil union tort law is the one which is the law of the land. If someone wants to self opt into religious standards such as divorcing only in cases of adultery that is fine until an individual opts out.