Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Not necessarily, they should just be given to all people as a benefit.
And how would that work?
I need a place to stay - my buddy Nick is in the Marines - so he just tells the Marines I'm moving in with him in on-base housing and that I now have access to the base commissary?
Every single American now has the right to give a green card to any foreigner?
I now have the right to file countless wrongful death suits and clutter up the legal system anytime anybody dies, no matter how remote my attachment to them was?
How about medical decisions when there is no living will? With no legal rights attached to marriage, a spouse would no longer have right. How do you suggest that right be "given to all people as a benefit"? -- or would you just suggest that right be done away with, thereby taking that right from the spouse and, I would think, giving it back to the closest blood relative? (I guess Terri Schiavo would still be "alive" if marriage didn't confer any legal rights)
You're a bit off. They get to take their child's deduction and exemption. I am fine with this law because it applies to EVERYONE who is a dependent on someone's tax return, it JUST doesn't apply to children, but to ALL DEPENDENTS of the tax filer, children can be considered dependents of course.
You're splitting hairs. It's still unequal treatment of those who are dependentless - is it not?
That this question is even asked is indicative of how far astray our society has gone from God's rules for life. Even if you callously reject God' s rule and make your own rules, it has been obvious to thinking people from time immemorial that a child should be raised by their parents and that a strong family structure is critical to a wholesome society.
Marriage is a legal joining of two people - for certain aspects - into one joint entity. That's why they can be treated as singular financial entity.
I have a tangential question: do you agree with the unequal treatment of the childless? People with children get a tax credit. Should that law be done away with?
Also, how about these legal rights of civil marriage:
The right of a military member live with his spouse in on-base military housing.
The right of a military spouse to shop at the base commissary.
The right to be legally considered immediate family thereby entitled to sue for the wrongful death of your spouse.
The right to sponsor your foreign born spouse for a green card.
Should these all be done away with?
I agree with most of what you have posted as long as the two people are a man and a woman. People of the same sex should not be considered married under any circumstances.
How is that relevant? That's not the case in America.
What are you saying? That marriage between man/woman is not the case, or that women didn't have rights?
I don't understand your point. Not criticizing, just need clarification.
Thanks.
We do it because it is in the best interest of society. Supporting the idea that families consist of two parents as a unit, in order to take care of child's financial, physical, and emotional needs, alleviates the government from having to raise children and take care of mothers. No, not every couple will have children, but it sets up the structure in the event they do. Notice how much more the government has had to pay to raise children as the institute of marriage has broken down? And it has based on divorce and out-of-wedlock birth rates.
Notice how much more the government has had to pay to raise children as the institute of marriage has broken down? And it has based on divorce and out-of-wedlock birth rates.
And how much society has paid for having young people who were never taught right from wrong running loose.
We do it because it is in the best interest of society. Supporting the idea that families consist of two parents as a unit, in order to take care of child's financial, physical, and emotional needs, alleviates the government from having to raise children and take care of mothers. No, not every couple will have children, but it sets up the structure in the event they do. Notice how much more the government has had to pay to raise children as the institute of marriage has broken down? And it has based on divorce and out-of-wedlock birth rates.
I've been waken up and smelled the coffee. The government actually encourages out-of-wedlock births and single motherhood.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
