Gay vs. Plural

[davjohns 1]

Now there's a line of thought that had not crossed my mind. Interesting. I'll ponder it.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

So how about it? If you have no problem with gay marriage, do you support plural marriage? Vice versa?

I think government shouldn't be in the business of "marriage" at all, but from a historical and legal standpoint they have to be involved in the civil aspects of it if for no other reason than tax and survivor benefits.

.

From a historical and legal perspective there is no reason the government has to treat single people differently from married people for purposes of taxes and survivor benefits.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So how about it? If you have no problem with gay marriage, do you support plural marriage? Vice versa?

I think government shouldn't be in the business of "marriage" at all, but from a historical and legal standpoint they have to be involved in the civil aspects of it if for no other reason than tax and survivor benefits.
.

From a historical and legal perspective there is no reason the government has to treat single people differently from married people for purposes of taxes and survivor benefits.

Other than the fact they ALWAYS have, which is historical and legal precedent.

Sure, they don't -have- to, but just try changing it and see what happens.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

A benefit is a benefit, and if it's been earned, it should go to whoever the person who earned it says it should go to.

careful, thinking like that in this forum will get you called nasty names

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Sure, they don't -have- to, but just try changing it and see what happens.

Don't do it because it's too hard to do.

Dismiss the discussion out of hand because it makes enough sense that people get uncomfortable.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Sure, they don't -have- to, but just try changing it and see what happens.

Don't do it because it's too hard to do.
Dismiss the discussion out of hand because it makes enough sense that people get uncomfortable.

I'm not dismissing it out of hand, but I'm a realist when it comes to certain things. There will never be a way to remove government from certain civil aspects of life. Governments will always collect taxes. The government might not have to link marriage and taxes together, nor do couple have to file jointly, but they certainly have always had the option to and in my mind it makes sense. Likewise I suppose the government could just say to hell with any inheritance and at death all property becomes that of the state, but I certainly don't see that ever happening either, nor do I think it should.

So, what are you left with? People having the option to file jointly and spouses taking control of their partner's property when they've died.

How exactly would you change that? Are you certain you'd even want to consider it?

Think carefully now, don't just dismiss the question because it makes you "uncomfortable."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Mormon fundamentalists believe that fallacy, too.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[winsor 187]

Quote

Quote

So how about it? If you have no problem with gay marriage, do you support plural marriage? Vice versa?

I think government shouldn't be in the business of "marriage" at all, but from a historical and legal standpoint they have to be involved in the civil aspects of it if for no other reason than tax and survivor benefits.

Gay marriage from a legal stand point is revenue neutral from a "normal" straight marriage.

Plural marriage could open up a can of worms when you consider a group of people getting together to take advantage of tax and inheritance loopholes. I'm certain there are other legal aspects I haven't considered in the last 30 seconds since I've started typing this.

Oh, so now you think it's okay to discriminate against bisexuals?

Who says someone should not marry someone of each sex? It is only fair, and to deny people their rights because of some outdated prejudices is just wrong.

And what about inter-species marriage? There have been many cases of old ladies leaving everything to their poodles and what have you; if that is legal, what is the problem with making it official?

The whole argument that the nuclear family is based on a man and a woman by virtue of the process of procreation has been made moot by the miracles of modern medicine. If another species can carry a IVF baby to term, should it not be provided with the legal rights that come with parenthood?

Marriage is a wonderful thing. Anyone should be able to marry anything, I say!


BSBD,

Winsor

[Ion01 1]

Quote

Thanks for the clarification, but where does the bible prohibit plural marriage? Abraham engaged in it. David was sure a fan. Saul was too. Jacob worked hard to marry two sisters. It wasn't until Rome imposed it's morals on the Jews that it went away. Paul espoused not getting married if you were widowed, but if you had to, he recommended the Roman preference for monogamous marriage.

Matt. 19 where Jesus is speaking. There were many things that changed with the new testament as compared with the old.

[Ion01 1]

Quote

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Mormon fundamentalists believe that fallacy, too.

So the constitution is some sort of fallacy?

[Ion01 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So how about it? If you have no problem with gay marriage, do you support plural marriage? Vice versa?

I think government shouldn't be in the business of "marriage" at all, but from a historical and legal standpoint they have to be involved in the civil aspects of it if for no other reason than tax and survivor benefits.

Gay marriage from a legal stand point is revenue neutral from a "normal" straight marriage.

Plural marriage could open up a can of worms when you consider a group of people getting together to take advantage of tax and inheritance loopholes. I'm certain there are other legal aspects I haven't considered in the last 30 seconds since I've started typing this.

Oh, so now you think it's okay to discriminate against bisexuals?

Who says someone should not marry someone of each sex? It is only fair, and to deny people their rights because of some outdated prejudices is just wrong.

And what about inter-species marriage? There have been many cases of old ladies leaving everything to their poodles and what have you; if that is legal, what is the problem with making it official?

The whole argument that the nuclear family is based on a man and a woman by virtue of the process of procreation has been made moot by the miracles of modern medicine. If another species can carry a IVF baby to term, should it not be provided with the legal rights that come with parenthood?

Marriage is a wonderful thing. Anyone should be able to marry anything, I say!


BSBD,

Winsor

I don't see how anyone you quoted was saying its okay to discriminate. That accusation is complete unfounded.

[winsor 187]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

So how about it? If you have no problem with gay marriage, do you support plural marriage? Vice versa?

I think government shouldn't be in the business of "marriage" at all, but from a historical and legal standpoint they have to be involved in the civil aspects of it if for no other reason than tax and survivor benefits.

Gay marriage from a legal stand point is revenue neutral from a "normal" straight marriage.

Plural marriage could open up a can of worms when you consider a group of people getting together to take advantage of tax and inheritance loopholes. I'm certain there are other legal aspects I haven't considered in the last 30 seconds since I've started typing this.

Oh, so now you think it's okay to discriminate against bisexuals?

Who says someone should not marry someone of each sex? It is only fair, and to deny people their rights because of some outdated prejudices is just wrong.

And what about inter-species marriage? There have been many cases of old ladies leaving everything to their poodles and what have you; if that is legal, what is the problem with making it official?

The whole argument that the nuclear family is based on a man and a woman by virtue of the process of procreation has been made moot by the miracles of modern medicine. If another species can carry a IVF baby to term, should it not be provided with the legal rights that come with parenthood?

Marriage is a wonderful thing. Anyone should be able to marry anything, I say!


BSBD,

Winsor

I don't see how anyone you quoted was saying its okay to discriminate. That accusation is complete unfounded.

Whooosh.

[Prior23 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Right, but churches are private parties and can say anything they want. I am no more obligated to accept a churches validation of a marriage than I am to accept their statements about a man living inside of a fish or about having 72 virgins waiting fo rme.

Which I can't do anything about, sure they can preach that man lived with dinosaurs and we were all willed into existence and the world is 6,000 years old. While I wish they didn't teach such ignorance, they have every right to do so, but once they start to picket and cause an uproar saying it should be against the law and our service men and women are discriminated against that's where I have an issue.

So bottom line, you have issue with free speech.

Are you for or against the gay community being allowed to picket those same venues?

I have an issue with people attempting to deny others their rights and freedoms.

B.A.S.E. #1734

[jumpwally 0]

Once again it boils down to my religion is better than your religion,,or my religion is the right one with the right vaues,,,hence we go to war,,,ever notice how no one starts wars over pussy and marghaita's ?

smile, be nice, enjoy life
FB # - 1083

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sure, they don't -have- to, but just try changing it and see what happens.

Don't do it because it's too hard to do.
Dismiss the discussion out of hand because it makes enough sense that people get uncomfortable.

I'm not dismissing it out of hand, but I'm a realist when it comes to certain things. There will never be a way to remove government from certain civil aspects of life. Governments will always collect taxes. The government might not have to link marriage and taxes together, nor do couple have to file jointly, but they certainly have always had the option to and in my mind it makes sense. Likewise I suppose the government could just say to hell with any inheritance and at death all property becomes that of the state, but I certainly don't see that ever happening either, nor do I think it should.

So, what are you left with? People having the option to file jointly and spouses taking control of their partner's property when they've died.

How exactly would you change that? Are you certain you'd even want to consider it?

Think carefully now, don't just dismiss the question because it makes you "uncomfortable."

I see, if we have a discussion on SC about a hypothetical situation that allows all individuals to be treated equally rather than whiny demographics fighting over perceived special privileges over other whiny demographic groups......

It's not a good discussion until provided with a full implementation plan.

So I have to assume that you believe congress reads this stuff and cuts in changes based on Speaker's Corner "realism".

admit that you just want to talk the subjective social issue and not the other tangents - then you can join tangents that interest you instead of just pissing all over anything that doesn't match your personal preferences. Seems that's all you try to do lately though.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Prior23 0]

Quote

Once again it boils down to my religion is better than your religion,,or my religion is the right one with the right vaues,,,hence we go to war,,,ever notice how no one starts wars over pussy and marghaita's ?

Well the war in Afghanistan was cause by pussy if you count the 72 virgins as a motive 9/11 attacks.

B.A.S.E. #1734

[winsor 187]

Quote

Quote

Once again it boils down to my religion is better than your religion,,or my religion is the right one with the right vaues,,,hence we go to war,,,ever notice how no one starts wars over pussy and marghaita's ?

Well the war in Afghanistan was cause by pussy if you count the 72 virgins as a motive 9/11 attacks.

Again, the martyr makes it 73 virgins.

This contradicts the contention that no one starts wars over pussy and margaritas. The fact that these guys aren't getting any turns them into homicidal/suicidal maniacs.


BSBD,

Winsor

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Mormon fundamentalists believe that fallacy, too.

So the constitution is some sort of fallacy?

Nice try.
The fallacy is that there ARE laws against plural marriages and polygamy...regardless of what the constutution or the Bill of Rights say.

You do know the quote is from Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights, don't you?

So, do you support the constitution and the Bill of Rights or do you twist them to make exceptions to fit your personal preferences?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[davjohns 1]

I have to heartily disagree. Yeshua was very clear that he did not come to change one little tittle or tot of the Torah. The only thing that changed was the nature of the sacrifice necessary for attonement. He did refute many of the man-made fencing requirements of the religious leaders of the day. But those were not part of the Torah.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Skyrad 0]

Firstly...

Quote

(Saul / Paul). He was espousing the Roman ideal, not the law given by God.

I'm glad that someone else recognises that also.
Secondly, in South Africa plural marriages are recognised for both sexes under one of the most liberal consitutions in the world. How therefore is it that in the so called 'Land of the free' which is not a Christian country but a secular one that plural marriages are not allowed?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

marriage is a religious term

If that is the case then how is it possible to get married in a civil setting with a non religious cerimony? Maybe the definition of marriage differs in the USA but looking at my Marriage certificate it definatly says marriage and we had a civil wedding.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Once again it boils down to my religion is better than your religion,,or my religion is the right one with the right vaues,,,hence we go to war,,,ever notice how no one starts wars over pussy and marghaita's ?

Are you sure that has never happened?

I assume you meant Margarita, and I am pretty sure that margaritas were not part of the equasion, but wars hae been started of women.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Once again it boils down to my religion is better than your religion,,or my religion is the right one with the right vaues,,,hence we go to war,,,ever notice how no one starts wars over pussy and marghaita's ?

Are you sure that has never happened?

I assume you meant Margarita, and I am pretty sure that margaritas were not part of the equasion, but wars hae been started of women.

Fine.. then get on your nice little Trireme with the rest of your greek buddies and set sail for Troy already.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Sure, they don't -have- to, but just try changing it and see what happens.

Don't do it because it's too hard to do.
Dismiss the discussion out of hand because it makes enough sense that people get uncomfortable.

I'm not dismissing it out of hand, but I'm a realist when it comes to certain things. There will never be a way to remove government from certain civil aspects of life. Governments will always collect taxes. The government might not have to link marriage and taxes together, nor do couple have to file jointly, but they certainly have always had the option to and in my mind it makes sense. Likewise I suppose the government could just say to hell with any inheritance and at death all property becomes that of the state, but I certainly don't see that ever happening either, nor do I think it should.

So, what are you left with? People having the option to file jointly and spouses taking control of their partner's property when they've died.

How exactly would you change that? Are you certain you'd even want to consider it?

Think carefully now, don't just dismiss the question because it makes you "uncomfortable."

Sure, we've always done it that way before is a great justification for government action

Property after death should go to whoever the person wills it to. They can will it to whoever they consider their partner or spouse or to the kids or anybody else.

No reason for any sort of joint filing status. It is discriminatory.

I know you think you are just being realistic (and you probably are) but this blunts and distorts your sense of social justice and right and wrong in incredible ways.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rehmwa 2]

Apparently, it's more important to drive a social agenda that provides unfair advantages to 3 or 4 groups 'equally' than to consider a concept that treats all individuals equally

how can you buy votes if you don't pander to someone that wants special treatment - or at least parity to some other group that already gets (or is perceived to get) special treatment?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants