Marriage

[cbk]

I believe I have a solution to this question about Gays being able to marry their partner. The solution? Make all "marriages" a domestic, civil, union. And make all adult, sane, people eligible to enter into a domestic civil union. Now for those who wish to still define their union as a traditional marriage; that's O.K. You can call it anything you wish. But down at the court house your arrangement will be listed as a legal, domestic, civil, union. Does your religion only wish to accept the traditional union between and man and a woman as a marriage? That's O.K. too because you don't have to be a member of that religion. If you wish your Gay civil union to be recognized by a religion, go find one that will recognize it. Churches have the right to define their rules just as Gays have the right to join into a domestic, civil, union. The minority does NOT have the right to redefine everything according to their wishes.
In fact, I've been thinking that defining something as that which is concerned with sex is pretty stupid. For instance, say there are two sister living together because they were left widows. O.K. now these sisters aren't lesbians. They don't have any kind of sexual relationship. But they would like to share certain advantages that a "married" couple has. i.e. insurance, tax filings etc. So they would be able to go to the court house and register their civil union and thus get the advantages of a "married" couple. The union would be open to all. If four people wished to register as partners in a civil union; who cares?
These odd couples don't want the advantages given to "married" people. They want to force us to respect them, to accept them. Well, sorry 'bout that but I think y'all are weird.

[jerrycsmith]

Government benefits are extended to married couples because it is assumed most will produce children, and will need the added tax breaks, etc to cope with the expenses of raising them. Gays, of course, do not normally have this expectation nor, in my worthless opinion, should they ever attempt to adopt or artificially create a child. Therefore, nothing but he/she relationships should receive benefits. But that's just me, using plain logic again, which has nothing at all to do with what's going on.

[Tommy Thompson]

Mar 28, 2013 22:31:29 GMT -5 jerrycsmith said:

Government benefits are extended to married couples because it is assumed most will produce children, and will need the added tax breaks, etc to cope with the expenses of raising them. Gays, of course, do not normally have this expectation nor, in my worthless opinion, should they ever attempt to adopt or artificially create a child. Therefore, nothing but he/she relationships should receive benefits. But that's just me, using plain logic again, which has nothing at all to do with what's going on.

I heard someone else making similar deductions. They answered by asking the question...what about those over 55 years old? At that age they are not likely to be having kids....should they be banned from being married? LOL

[jerrycsmith]

..what about those over 55 years old? At that age they are not likely to be having kids....should they be banned from being married? LOL

A lifetime of experience should discourage people of that age from getting married, and just live together. Sure has worked well for me in the past. At that age our duty to the species is done, so why mess up a hard-earned rest?

[cbk]

OR, get the government out of marriage all together. Don't make any special tax bracket for married folks. Just change our tax laws to something that makes sense. A flat tax would do it for me. But if the majority didn't like a flat tax, how about a federal tax when one buys goods? There are many ideas out there that would make taxes more better as we used to say in Hawaii.
As far as unions between people goes, why should the government be in it at all?
Tommy posted a Supreme Court decision (on another site) that said that we don't need a driver's license in order to drive any private vehicle on public roads. Yet look how governments require us to get one.
Government only has power when we give it power. If everyone just ignored silly, restrictive laws that infringe on our natural, God given rights under the Constitution those laws would go away.....just as some old fashion laws that require us to NOT spit on the roadway.
A LOT of government growth can be laid at the feet of the citizens who have been so lazy that they expected the government to run on auto-pilot.

[jerrycsmith]

I would be for a flat-rate sales tax for everything we buy or hire done instead of an income tax, even though it would cost me more. At least everyone would pull their fair share of the load. Obviously, I'm not a Democrap.

[Steve Turner]

CBK, I believe that your solution has makes a lot of sense. The only problem that I can imagine is that it opens-up so many more aspects that could possibly be considered, unless the law is written to be VERY specific. I don't think that a law can be written specific enough to exclude those that want to marry their dogs, cows, or whatever. If this is passed, there will be another 1700 pages of regulations that will take another 3 years to decipher and decide what is now legal.

[jerrycsmith]

You know, I hate to admit it, but the Democraps might be right. Rather than trust lawmakers to improve the economy and save the country, just vote for whoever will give me the most money while there's still enough to spread around and people dumb enough to work themselves to death making it happen.
It seems no matter how these college boys try to apply common sense, every effort runs to thousands of pages where two or three sentences would do. For instance: Everything purchased in the United States will bear a tax surcharge of (xx)%. There will be NO exceptions, and no new infrastructure will be created to handle it. All infrastructure related to income tax will be dismantled by the end of the year following this ordinance

[cbk]

;D Something I could support.
And how about the other thing that seems to turn on people. That is that the members of Congress will have term limit. They will retire on Social Security and any money they have managed to save in their lifetimes. They will also NOT have special medical programs but will be made to use Medicare. They will not be allowed to vote themselves raises in excess of the percentage of the cost of living. In other words, politicians will not be looked upon as the employers but as the employees that they are (or should be :

[jb]

Catching up here on the site. You guys always give me food for thought!!!!!! As always, enjoy your opinions!!!!