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.
I thought rights were of an individual nature. Why should people get additional benefits and rights because they're married? Why can't we all be treated equally under the law?
Gosh, I don't know. Do you think it could have anything to do with bringing children into legally recognized matrimony and being able to follow established inheritance law the world in order to perpetuate the human race might have something to do with it? You see, it is natural for a man and a woman to marry and have children. That's natural and applies to the vast majority of the population. Those who do what is natural to human nature, ie: a man and a woman procreating, under our Constitution, also bear a greater financial burden and societal responsibility. Those who live responsibly should be entitled to certain tax credits.
I thought rights were of an individual nature. Why should people get additional benefits and rights because they're married? Why can't we all be treated equally under the law?
What "rights" are you talking about? Or is this just another whiny thread about why society looks upon a couple of gay men, differently then they do a married man and woman?
Gosh, I don't know. Do you think it could have anything to do with bringing children into legally recognized matrimony and being able to follow established inheritance law the world in order to perpetuate the human race might have something to do with it? You see, it is natural for a man and a woman to marry and have children. That's natural and applies to the vast majority of the population. Those who do what is natural to human nature, ie: a man and a woman procreating, under our Constitution, also bear a greater financial burden and societal responsibility. Those who live responsibly should be entitled to certain tax credits.
This is the main reason why government involves itself in marriage, the children born to women are the future to any nation, and the best place for them to be raised and cared for is in a stable marriage with their parents.
It's not as if government decided to just support and endorse marriages just so they could give tax out breaks. If that were the case, then boyfriends and girlfriends who are "going steady" would be getting these tax cuts too.
This is the main reason why government involves itself in marriage, the children born to women are the future to any nation, and the best place for them to be raised and cared for is in a stable marriage with their parents.
It's not as if government decided to just support and endorse marriages just so they could give tax out breaks. If that were the case, then boyfriends and girlfriends who are "going steady" would be getting these tax cuts too.
This is an interesting spin, by this rationale then couples who don't have children should be penalized. If i think about the argument from a sustainability perspective. If a marriage that can't produce kids is not sustainable for our civilization, ie homosexual marriage therefore they should not qualify for the benefits that encourage that union, then the same should apply for hetero couples who choose not to have kids, how about couples who marry after their child bearing ages.
This is an interesting spin, by this rationale then couples who don't have children should be penalized. If i think about the argument from a sustainability perspective. If a marriage that can't produce kids is not sustainable for our civilization, ie homosexual marriage therefore they should not qualify for the benefits that encourage that union, then the same should apply for hetero couples who choose not to have kids, how about couples who marry after their child bearing ages.
What would you do with the numerous (and every growing) percentage of married (or would be married) homosexual couples that do have children?
Should this couple not be able to access the legal rights of marriage?
If you don't want to read the article, it's about the first Democrat elected to the San Diego County Board in several decades. He's married to another man (and Air Force veteran), and the have adopted (after first foster parenting) 5 children (ages 4-17).
This is the main reason why government involves itself in marriage, the children born to women are the future to any nation, and the best place for them to be raised and cared for is in a stable marriage with their parents.
It's not as if government decided to just support and endorse marriages just so they could give tax out breaks. If that were the case, then boyfriends and girlfriends who are "going steady" would be getting these tax cuts too.
But governmental involvement in marriage adds a strain if one decides to break up and it'll get real nasty. I could careless about the benefits of the institution.
You're splitting hairs. It's still unequal treatment of those who are dependentless - is it not?
I would suggest that singles be given an extra bump in compensation (wages) to make up for the benefit inequity. I did just that when I accepted a position at a company several years ago. When I realized that my married coworkers were receiving FREE healthcare for an entire family, I requested that I get paid $5,000/yr more than them to make up for it. I got it.
Gosh, I don't know. Do you think it could have anything to do with bringing children into legally recognized matrimony and being able to follow established inheritance law the world in order to perpetuate the human race might have something to do with it? You see, it is natural for a man and a woman to marry and have children. That's natural and applies to the vast majority of the population. Those who do what is natural to human nature, ie: a man and a woman procreating, under our Constitution, also bear a greater financial burden and societal responsibility. Those who live responsibly should be entitled to certain tax credits.
Reproduction is natural, but marriage is not. Marriage is a construct created to bind the union of two people. Marriage is not required or needed for reproduction. How about gay people who are raising children, why are they denied the same 1049 rights as straight people? The children of those families are punished because the majority does not want to accept the union of their parents.
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.
