| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
Given the result of judicial activists in the SCOTUS what's to prevent a man from marrying his uncle, brother, father, or son? What's to prevent a woman from marrying her aunt, sister, mother, or daughter? http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/lifestyle/2016/12 /06/argentine-judge-rules-woman-can-marry-her-own- stepdaughter/ Heck, if precautions are taken to avoid pregnancy, what is to stop any manner of adult incestuous "marriage"? What's that? You've suddenly discovered a moral objection concerning what ought to constitute a "marriage" within our society? Hey, if you don't like incestual marriage, then don't marry your siblings, parents, or children. They just want to be happy, so who are we to object then? You know what will follow, hetero-special/bestial relationships. Bet against it; I dare you. What was the rumor about Catherine the Great? Well, she wasn't about any long term commitment. Just the horsing around. | ||
| Blake |
Google shows... http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/2011/11/freq uently-asked-question-why-is-incest.html http://hotair.com/archives/2015/07/10/german-thoug ht-leaders-move-to-legalize-incest/ | ||
| Aesquire |
Why are you trying to stop the grand traditions that have brought us the British Royal Family? Chuck the Prince that shall Never Be King, who drives around in his supercar fueled by alcohol from his own private winery, and lectures us on how our lifestyles are too extreme, is a prime example of what happens when "families are very close" and recessive genes rule. Of course if eugenics is your objection, then we have much low hanging fruit to pick first. Example would be encouraging Progressives to not reproduce to save the planet from Global Warming as we slide into the next mini-ice-age. If it's the hard hearted idea that you don't want the government to tax you more to support the damaged offspring of the oh-so-close relatives, then I have some sympathy. As a proportion though, the number should be tiny compared to the medical costs of the Obama program to import Democrat Voters from countries with plagues we've conquered here.... until now. | ||
| Ducbsa |
Once you "progress" from marriage being only between a man and a woman, it is the proverbial slippery slope. http://www.mantecabulletin.com/archives/8094/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2014/01/09 /ny-times-and-the-left-champions-of-judeo-christia n-busting-polygamy/ https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/209728/ | ||
| Pwnzor |
Why can't we police ourselves on this? Why must there be laws, wasting the time and efforts of our governing bodies? If a group of people wants to marry trees and go to hell for it, then I say we pray for them, council them, and move on. I've got bigger fish to fry. | ||
| Reepicheep |
The problems are real, I get that, but rules and laws are never a good solution. So we should save them for when they are the "least worst" possibility. If we aren't comfortable sending a person with a gun to tell someone to do (or stop doing) something, and shoot them if they don't, then we should be very cautious about making it something we enforce through laws. Murder, rape, theft, kidnapping, destruction of other people's property? Yup, no problem. Who wants to marry whom, provided both are consenting adults? Mainly just none of my business. | ||
| Aesquire |
There are non-faith based objections to gay & incest marriage based on the tax privileges marriage gives. Those legal & tax aspects of marriage do cause some folk angst. As in "why do they get benefits while I don't" or "unearned". Considering that the origin of marriage licenses is the Democrats hated mixed race couples, Party of slavery & The Klan that they shall always be, I think we should dump the practice. Marriage benefits are social engineering programs. To encourage behavior we want. In this case responsibility & support for family. Good causes. True, families are weirder now. But even that complaint is old..... and repeated each generation. | ||
| Aesquire |
Remember the 3 stages of government interference in your private life. None of your business. None of your damn business. No wonder you want to take our guns. I note gun sales are at an all time high. The above is not a joke, really. | ||
| Pwnzor |
I don't want any tax anything related to marriage. I work and pay taxes, my wife works, pays taxes. If I pay for my kid's school, sure give me a break. Other than that or charitable donations, leave it alone Keep it simple. No tax refunds. Decide what's owed, and everybody pays it. Processing money in both directions makes NO sense. People who use the government as a yearly bonus program are foolhardy in my opinion. I balance my weekly deductions so I actually owe a little tax at the end of the year. I'd rather owe them money than the other way around. One of these years, we'll start getting letters from the government telling us they can't afford to give us our money back. | ||
| Damnut |
Marry your uncle, who cares? If someone wants to marry someone else, can you guess what happens to my life? NOTHING. Nothing at all. If your religion teaches you to hate someone then why bother with that religion? | ||
| Airbozo |
"If I pay for my kid's school, sure give me a break." Isn't this a tax break for a future investment? Why should there be a break for educating your children? Why should someone else help foot the bill for _your_ child's education? | ||
| Swampy |
There are groups that believe that the "Marriage License" laws are contracts between the couple and the State that gives the State rights to intervene in the marriage relationship and ownership of the offspring, resulting in the courts presiding over divorces, child support and alimoney...and of course enrichening the coffers of lawyers and fiend of the court personnel, which is paid by the Feds based on a percentage of the proceeds it collects "for the children" | ||
| Aesquire |
One of these years, we'll start getting letters from the government telling us they can't afford to give us our money back. Welcome to New York.... but they couldn't afford the letters, just delayed the checks. I pay a lot of taxes. More than people in other states & counties. I can't afford to bribe my politicians to give me breaks, like Wall Street folk paid Hillary, so I'll take any break I can. For example, medical expenses. I've paid out of pocket a few thousand dollars this year and I'll get some back, and that's good for me. If you become a cyborg too, you'll find this a good idea. Mortgage interest. Frankly I couldn't afford the house I'm paying the bank to pretend I own, without the deduction for interest. Does this mean I bought too much house? Maybe. It sure means I pay too much to live where I live. If you guys want to dump all the tax breaks & penalties for marriage, I'm fine with that. At my income it's about a break even, and it would make my taxes a little easier to fill out. Btw, I just want to remind you that EVERY generation is convinced that the next is diving off the cliff into hell. It just so happens that this last century is the time when rabid Communism/Fascism/Socialism has murdered nearly ( or maybe over ) a Billion innocent lives. Not in war. Murdered to keep power in the Holy State. It's also true that the SAME evil has pushed to destroy the Family & ANY OTHER RELIGION, By Any Means Necessary. So I'm not even a little surprised that Judges given power with the above ideology think it's grand that every rational taboo be crushed to destroy families. In the cover of being for your own good, for the children, etc. etc. | ||
| Hootowl |
Marriage licenses didn't used to exist. Only implemented to keep whites and blacks from getting married, and later, gays. Now that anyone can marry anyone, let's get rid of this government overreach once and for all. | ||
| Aesquire |
None of their damn business. | ||
| Torquehd |
I have tried to figure out the correct answer for this dilemma. It seems the state and federal gov should stay out of marriage, but if that's the case - do they just cease to recognize that people are married? If so, what does that do for custody of children? I'm not very bright on this stuff but it seems like it would potentially get complicated. When I married my wife, I adopted her son, so he's my son now. The process was easy because the state recognized that we are married. | ||
| Hootowl |
"do they just cease to recognize that people are married" They do what they did before they started issuing licenses. | ||
| Blake |
Jim (Damnut), >>> If someone wants to marry someone else, can you guess what happens to my life? NOTHING. Nothing at all. There are currently dozens of cases where people are being fired, fined, forced to attend tolerance training, and/or threatened with imprisonment for declining to participate in same sex weddings, or in some cases merely supporting traditional marriage. You were saying? Live and let live? Not for the rainbow militia, probably about 2-3% of the 2-3% of LGBT identifiers in the country. I wonder what would happen if instead of burning Old Glory, protesters started burning the Gay Pride flag? (Message edited by blake on December 07, 2016) | ||
| Blake |
You may not be seeing these cases reported in the establishment news media. There are more and more cases like this where people are being persecuted for refusing to participate in same sex weddings: http://www.christianpost.com/news/illinois-commiss ion-panel-says-christian-owned-bed-breakfast-must- host-gay-weddings-171931/ Here's a list from over a year ago: http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/courts-conclude-faith-l oses-to-gay-demands/print/ | ||
| Blake |
Live and let live is my view. Govt don't see it that way, and neither do the LGBT militia. Patrick, You're in even rarer form today. "Chuck the Prince" and "plagues we've conquered...". Incisive and funny. You and Ann Coulter should produce offspring. She might make you carry it to term. You can do it. (Message edited by blake on December 07, 2016) | ||
| Pwnzor |
Why should someone else help foot the bill for _your_ child's education? How do you translate ME paying for MY KID'S school as someone else helping to foot the bill? The benefit extends to anyone who pays for someone else's school. If I pay a slightly smaller amount in taxes, it's only for the limited time that the kid is actually in school. Also it creates an incentive to educate children and to actually have children in the first place. Of course, if we were to move to a consumption-based tax system, it would not matter at all. | ||
| Airbozo |
I was referring to a tax break for paying for education. That is the tax payer helping to fund your child's education (outside of the normal public education system). Just like so many on this board upset over tax breaks for electric vehicles and solar systems. Don't get me wrong, I do support my local property taxes being used to pay for the local schools, but beyond that should be up to the child or their parents. In my experience, when you pay for your own education, you try harder and commit more of your time to succeed. I have found the same thing applies to those who get student loans vs those who work to put themselves through college. ..and back to the subject (sorry for the thread jack), Blake, I feel that marriage between machines and humans will happen before the animals. Zappa referred to the machine love as "Appliantology" (in a reference to Scientology). There are already several companies making such robots. | ||
| Torquehd |
Why do they have to be married? If they want to be in a relationship, that's up to them, but two women just aren't Husband and Wife. If they want everyone to know that they love eachother, that's up to them, but why the need to recognize something that is not, as something that is? You know, I have an 1125r, but I'd really like for it to be recognized as an 1190RX. If you don't let me legally register it as an 1190RX, it's going to hurt my feelings and violate my personal liberty. Instead of all the smoke and mirrors, why not just say, "we're two women in an incestuous relationship?" How is that offensive if it is what it is? Edit: If you're really all about being progressive, why not abandon labels like "marriage"? Isn't this new morality (that's being crammed down our throats) all about indulging in humanist freedom and destroying the morality of our fathers, much like the Chinese cultural revolution? (Message edited by torquehd on December 07, 2016) | ||
| Aesquire |
.....and destroying the morality of our fathers, much like the Chinese cultural revolution? Ding ding ding. Besides the activist agenda, seriously, same sex couples I know just want to be on the same plane as everyone else. They've had same sex divorce lawyers for years. They just want to be like everyone else. Except different. Like us. I will say that my experience with a very limited sample is that I'd expect gay guys to break up more in serial monogamy that straight folk, and certainly more than the gals, based on my prejudice that guys are horndogs and flighty and gals want commitment and stability. I admit I don't have a big enough sample to draw a conclusion. Maybe even that the gals are crazier. ( but that's the problem with too small a sample. One gal that goes through a "deep committed relationship" on the average of every 1 1/2 years throws the numbers off. ) So take it all as anecdotal... except the desire to be normal... when many won't let you be. None of my damn business anyway. Marriage to sex bots? I think that's in court in multiple countries. I expect a decent sex bot to cost more than I can afford anyway.  I am intrigued by the wireless toys on the market now that take phone sex to a new level. A nice thing for couples with one away on business. Of course if you love "Demolition Man" you saw the warning that the toys could replace human contact... no germs or children. | ||
| Froggy |
How do I get a goat or a tree to consent to marriage? At least a bot can say "I do". BTW, if you haven't yet, watch the BBC show Humans, the second season recently started, they are a little indirectly tackling this bots rights and relationship issue in the second season. I need to catchup on WestWorld too. | ||
| Hootowl |
"I expect a decent sex bot to cost more than I can afford anyway" Cheaper than a real woman... | ||
| Crusty |
Yeah; but more expensive than your hand. (the original sex bot) | ||
| Sifo |
"do they just cease to recognize that people are married" They do what they did before they started issuing licenses. Or, simply do what we currently do for those who are not married. Probably pretty much the same thing. | ||
| Whisperstealth |
I'm just wanting to know when I can marry my dog. I want my health benefits to extend to her vet bills... | ||
| Pwnzor |
I would marry my dog if I wasn't already married...  |
