The Marriage Amendment

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ophelia23
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Elsa1 said:
Yes. Why shouldn’t they be treated the same? They are all Americans, are they not?
Click to expand...
The state would not pay for my married daughters daycare but it did pay for her unmarried friend’s day care. My daughter had no income but her friend made over $18,000 a years. Is that fair?
 
Stephen168 said:
The state would not pay for my married daughters daycare but it did pay for her unmarried friend’s day care. My daughter had no income but her friend made over $18,000 a years. Is that fair?
Click to expand...
Of course it is not fair. Firstly, the government ( that’ us!) should not be paying for anyone’s daycare. Whether the parents are “married” or not is utterly irrelevent. Moreover, your married daughter should have NO RIGHT to receive a tax credit for having a child…neither shoudl her so-called “unmarried” friend.

If people have children, then they and they alone are responsible for their financial and materials needs. NOT the taxpayer and certainly NOT the childless taxpayer.
 
Stephen168 said:
So whatever marriage is, it has no effect on society? and never has?
Click to expand...
Marriage has an affect on society only insomuch as the relationship bewteen the man and woman is a healthy and stable one. The result is harmony between the sexes, but it pretty much stops there. But “civil marriage” is not representative of what I consider a true marriage to be. A common law marriage, in my view, is the highest form, most ethical and most moral form of marriage there is as it simply requires agreement from the man and woman that they are indeed husband and wife. Anything else if superfluous and worse, unethical particulary when financial and legal advantages are granted to it by the State that have nothing to do with the definition of traditional marriage.
 
Elsa1 said:
Why shouldn’t they be treated the same? They are all Americans, are they not?
Click to expand...
Elsa1 said:
. Moreover, your married daughter should have NO RIGHT to receive a tax credit for having a child…neither shoudl her so-called “unmarried” friend.

If people have children, then they and they alone are responsible for their financial and materials needs. NOT the taxpayer and certainly NOT the childless taxpayer.
Click to expand...
They are treated the same by the state in this regard, as you said they should be.
 
Elsa1 said:
A common law marriage, in my view, is the highest form, most ethical and most moral form of marriage there is as it simply requires agreement from the man and woman that they are indeed husband and wife.
Click to expand...
Why bother? What makes it marriage and not just living together?
 
Stephen168 said:
Why bother? What makes it marriage and not just living together?
Click to expand...
What makes you think 'living together" is any different than marriage? Marriage is the act of committing your life to the other person and living as man and woman. So where is the difference morally speaking?
 
Elsa1 said:
What makes you think 'living together" is any different than marriage? Marriage is the act of committing your life to the other person and living as man and woman. So where is the difference morally speaking?
Click to expand...
So if one man and one woman commit their lives together then they are married?
 
Stephen168 said:
Child related Tax credit(s) are given to people with children regardless of marital status. They are treated the same in this regard.
Click to expand...
Sure, but the child tax credit is, in and of itself, immoral and unethical. No one should be receiving a tax break simply because they have kids. Where is the equivalent in the tax code for people who do not have kids? Where do you suppose the government makes up the difference for all of these millions of child credits?
 
Stephen168 said:
So if one man and one woman commit their lives together then they are married?
Click to expand...
Yes, provided they are not incestuous or first cousins. Also provided they say they are. Some couples may not want to called “married”, although in truth they are.
 
Elsa1 said:
Sure, but the child tax credit is, in and of itself, immoral and unethical. No one should be receiving a tax break simply because they have kids. Where is the equivalent in the tax code for people who do not have kids? Where do you suppose the government makes up the difference for all of these millions of child credits?
Click to expand...
They are treated the same, you just don’t like how they are treated. Just like homosexuals who want to be treated like married people you want to be treated like a parent.
Elsa1 said:
Yes, provided they are not incestuous or first cousins. Also provided they say they are. Some couples may not want to called “married”, although in truth they are.
Click to expand...
How is this going to be enforced?
 
Stephen168 said:
They are treated the same, you just don’t like how they are treated. Just like homosexuals who want to be treated like married people you want to be treated like a parent.=Quote]

I could not care less who is a parent and who is not. That is not the issue. The issue is that if someone chooses to be a parent, that is their problem. Why should those who have chosen not to be parents or who simply are not parents out of circumstance or those parents whose children are grown, be burdended with higher taxes because YOU decided to have children? Your children are no one else’s problem. My children are no one else’s problem. If you have kids, YOU and YOU ALONE are responsible for their matierial needs. Not society at large!

How is this going to be enforced? [/QUOTE said:
How is it enforced now? These examples of incest and first cousin unions are tragically as old as time. If in fact, using the construct that I suggest, you have instances of these kinds of unions presenting themselves as being married, there is nothing you can do othe than have seperate laws forbidding them. And unless, tragically, a child with physical and mental handicaps is the result, in many instance, society at large would probably never know. That is why to use them as a reason to maintain civil marriage is fruitless. The fact is, these unions, horrifically, happen today irrespective of the existance of civil marriage and any laws against them.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
40.png
Stephen168:
Question???
 
Stephen168 said:
The government regulates marriage. It seems by your own definition marriage does not include siblings and first cousins. Should it include people of the same sex?
Click to expand...
It already does. Gay marriage already exists, even if the state does not recognize it. My point is that in my construct, the state would not only NOT recognize gay marriage, it woul also NOT recognize heterosexual marriage. The only place a marriage could exist is in the private sector or the religious sector.

Moreover, no segment of society would be given special privileges (ie, tax breaks, easy access to low cost legal solutions, etc) over others in society, rendering American society more Constitutional for all. ( I also support the flat tax, so…)

Now, if you want to say that you are totally against “gay marriage” for religious reasons, no problem! Once agin,in my scenario the State is NOT giving out marriage licenses to anyone! Moreover, in my scenario, the religious marriage is fully respected because the State would have NOTHING to say about what your church does in regards to marriage which is NOT the case today. Today, no church in America, incuding the Catholic Church, will marry you and your fiancee without FIRST having a civil marriage license. What an absolute disgrace that is! So, my scenario allows the Church total freedom, unconstrained and never taking second place to the State! A total seperation! As the saying goes, I will render to Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s, but I will never render to Ceasar that which is God’s". My scenario answers that need that we have lost.

Lastly, under no circumstances, whether a common law marriage or a religious marriage ( your free to choose which you want), in my scenario not a single red cent or legal privilege woudl be granted to you for having married your spouse. Marriage would simply once again, be a spiritual and physical union designed for what it was meant for. Nothing more, nothing less. Beautiful!

Where I find many religious people get hung up with this scenario most is on the giving up of all of those financial and legal goodies. Tells me that they too have lost the true meaning of marriage, too. Little wonder!
 
Elsa1 said:
Where I find many religious people get hung up with this scenario most is on the giving up of all of those financial and legal goodies. Tells me that they too have lost the true meaning of marriage, too. Little wonder!
Click to expand...
I’ve never met a girl that wanted to get married for the “financial and legal goodies;” even back when a working married couple paid more taxes, she still wanted to be “married” as oppose to not. why?
 
Stephen168 said:
Are you saying the government treats single and married people the same? or the Government should treat them the same?
Click to expand...
We the people… by the people…for the people

Each individual is EQUAL to all others. Each Person make up We the People
Stephen168 said:
Why bother? What makes it marriage and not just living together?
Click to expand...
The sacraments before GOD and with our friends/family around us to assist us on our journey.
Stephen168 said:
You didn’t really answer the question. Why bother declaring yourself married as oppose to not?
Click to expand...
Because it would not be a sacramental marriage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top