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.
My guess is it's a way to get around the inheritance tax. There is no incest or anything like that.
There have been cases of same-sex couples who have zero romantic relationship marrying for tax purposes, health insurance, and suchlike reasons, so why not blood relatives. It's a legal thing only.
I'm quite OK with this. In my view there should be two kinds of marriage.
One is the historically religion based one that carries morality based on the rules of the religion. They obey the rules of their religion (in theory). You can be married in any church that will have you, and it's none of the governments business if you so choose.
The other is the legal government sanctioned component of marriage.
The government, IMHO cannot have any say on the kind of relationship the married people have or their sex lives. It's a contract just like an employment contract and the rules are what the law says.
But getting married at the city hall doesn't grant you a marriage in the eyes of any church, that is to say I cannot go to a justice of the peace, get married, and then show up at a Catholic church and expect them to honor that if I've never been a Catholic.
Not a great analogy.
If I enter into an employment contract, I may or may not be free to work for competing businesses or hire other employees.
Marriage has always been limited to a single partner.
That is the state deciding what sort of sexual relationship you have (monogamous).
My guess is it's a way to get around the inheritance tax. There is no incest or anything like that.
There have been cases of same-sex couples who have zero romantic relationship marrying for tax purposes, health insurance, and suchlike reasons, so why not blood relatives. It's a legal thing only.
I'm quite OK with this. In my view there should be two kinds of marriage.
One is the historically religion based one that carries morality based on the rules of the religion. They obey the rules of their religion (in theory). You can be married in any church that will have you, and it's none of the governments business if you so choose.
The other is the legal government sanctioned component of marriage.
The government, IMHO cannot have any say on the kind of relationship the married people have or their sex lives. It's a contract just like an employment contract and the rules are what the law says.
But getting married at the city hall doesn't grant you a marriage in the eyes of any church, that is to say I cannot go to a justice of the peace, get married, and then show up at a Catholic church and expect them to honor that if I've never been a Catholic.
That is what I was thinking too. It could be about any number of legal or financial protections and nothing else, spouses have many special rights.
Maybe it's a parent trying to give their offspring some financial security through "marrying" them. That way their kid will qualify for spousal social security benefits, pension, healthcare, etc as a "spouse".
This may be more of a financial arrangement than a romantic life partner sort of arrangement.
Which means anyone can benefit from something that was intended to make sure there was another generation on the horizon. Sounds like an absolutely wonderful reason to remove all incentives for people to get married if it is available to anyone as well as those without a moral compass. The benefits that were created to carry on the survival of the species seems to be turning in on itself and decaying social norms that are far older than Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Anyone can get married but that shouldn’t be sanctioned or subsidized by any governing authority. OASDI be damned...
Last edited by BigJon3475; 04-10-2021 at 09:39 PM..
It drags the rest of us into whatever "icky" arrangement these two damaged people have in mind.
This is where same-sex marriage brought us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by YanMarcs
Do not put gay marriage in this ... if you want to find a culprit, blame yourself and the state ... that you have made a private institution, something public that has granted you a series of rights and privileges over other people.
When same-sex marriage came along, we threw away the rationale for marriage being a unique legal institution joining one adult male and an unrelated adult female.
It was nature's model for procreation and the best stable arrangement for children produced by the parent's exclusive sexual union, but it didn't work for homosexuals that wanted to say, "Us too!" and play house with real babies.
So now it's gone, and all we have to hold back every perversion under the sun is, they have to be consenting adults.
When same-sex marriage came along, we threw away the rationale for marriage being a unique legal institution joining one adult male and an unrelated adult female.
It was nature's model for procreation and the best stable arrangement for children produced by the parent's exclusive sexual union, but it didn't work for homosexuals that wanted to say, "Us too!" and play house with real babies.
So now it's gone, and all we have to hold back every perversion under the sun is, they have to be consenting adults.
It still is good for children, and the benefits are intact. If gays or related people or childfree people marry it doesn't change that.
I am really impressed how conservative here are against incest ... according to your legend, the brothers of Eve and Adam practiced incest to populate the land ... when did that stop being right to become a sin?
When same-sex marriage came along, we threw away the rationale for marriage being a unique legal institution joining one adult male and an unrelated adult female.
It was nature's model for procreation and the best stable arrangement for children produced by the parent's exclusive sexual union, but it didn't work for homosexuals that wanted to say, "Us too!" and play house with real babies.
So now it's gone, and all we have to hold back every perversion under the sun is, they have to be consenting adults.
Well put. What's been lost in the entire argument is that there is a public purpose and societal benefit to marriage, as traditionally defined. If the standard for marriage is nothing more than "consenting adults", it becomes meaningless. If two men can be "married", why can't fifteen men be "married"? Why can't mother and son?
It still is good for children, and the benefits are intact. If gays or related people or childfree people marry it doesn't change that.
Source?
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.
