Posted on 09/08/2012 9:03:55 AM PDT by Why So Serious
Here is a better way to look at this ... the government should not be in the marriage business, and marriage is not a political issue. Gay people, for the most part, express a desire to get married for the benefits that are extended to married couple [rights like Social Security benefits, child care tax credits, Family and Medical Leave to take care of loved ones, and COBRA healthcare for spouses and children]. Government should allow people to engage in civil unions [this includes men and women], only. Marriage should be left to the churches. Then, any one can have a civil union [man/lady, lady/lady, man/man, mom/son, dad/daughter, brother/sister, person/multiple people] which extends to that civil union the governmental rights that married couple now enjoy which include the marriage tax credit, right to pass assets without taxation upon death, the right to make life ending decisions [pulling the plug]. The whole issue dies in a blink. This should not have to be a political thing. Moving the line in the sand never works ... better just to erase it. I believe that my wife and I are married in GOD's eyes and believe that we have a civil union in the eyes of government. It should not be anything different then a partnership, LLC, or LP.
Yeah, I’m a student of history also, and no, I don’t “care to research’ for “anecdotal evidence” to try to prove YOUR nonsense.
Your route to getting homosexual marriage and polygamy legalized is by destroying marriage, by removing the definition of it.
If you think fag marriage is not important, why did you write a moronic vanity about it? if fag marriage is nothing, but the trillions of $ of debt is, why aren’t you posting about that on financial threads?
Hmm?
Homos only want civil unions as a step towards “marriage”. Any legal benefits that could be derived from civil unions other than partner benefits can be created via contracts.
As soon as a state creates the civil union thing for homos, they scream that it’s not enough, they want “real” marriage.
Oh, good grief-I can’t even imagine that you would think that someone at FR would be an advocate of homosexuality, polygamy, or any of that, but whatever...
We haven’t debated anything, and freerepublic is not a debate society.
There should be no government “benefits” to marriage except the right to be left alone to raise your kids.
Exactly, with the basic traditional marriage as it has existed for millenia, civilization would not exist
Except that we are on a vanity about doing just that, a vanity that you are supporting.
Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
If the government came out and said that marriage is forever and there can be no divorce there are a couple of people here in this post who would argue that government does not have the right define marriage. Theme: I want government to define marriage my way, or they have no business defining marriage. I am saying it is not governments business. If they would just follow the US Constitution and provide me with freedom and defense.
I didn’t see anyone supporting it-the gist of discussion/debate was about how to keep it from being accepted on an equal footing with heterosexual marriage, and that is where the different opinions came in-get rid of civil marriage licenses, restrict them, make them different, get churches involved, etc. I was debating the method, not the substance (which I agree wholeheartedly with).
“...but in our society, marriage is a solemn affair which is a fusion of both church and state, altar and government.”
The homosexualists wouldn’t have it any other way, in my opinion. They can’t use someone’s faith to punish them for rejecting ‘gay marriage’ when the faith in question also rejects it (as it always will in many faiths). They can easily use the state, and have. They can also use the fact many have been conditioned to think that marriage comes from the state, and that any group with the proper paper from the state are married.
Freegards
Do you think people should be taxed based on marital status? I kind of think that everyone should be taxed at one rate, and that should be a % of what you make. My tax return could be done on n index card with three lines ... how much did you make? ____ What is [blank %] ___________ send it in!
Maybe not, but there has always been always good debate here-the first discussion I entered into on FR nearly 12 years ago was a debate-I was so delighted at the ability of people to discuss and debate in a civil manner that I became a member. My opinion hasn’t changed, even though the civil attitude wears a little thin at times.
How does getting homosexual churches and polygamous Islamic churches, and cults of every flavor, defining marriage, help keep the definition of marriage as one man, one woman?
Oops! Not necessary to repeat “always”...
"Homos, lesbos cannot get married. The should pay more in taxes. We heterosexuals should get tax breaks."
Ansel, this DOES NOT say that homosexuals pay a different tax rate than heterosexuals. I said "should" not "do". Let me help you understand the difference between "should" and "do"
should: Indicating a desirable or expected state: "by now students should be able to read".
do: Perform, a current action.
On my way to watch TV, but I think any fusion of church and state is a devil’s pact at the very least...
So you want to raise taxes on someone who is a homosexual, and lower taxes for someone who is normal?
This means that he wants to determine who creates the definition. It was like Al Gore and his sill azz recounts in Florida. How many recounts did he want? Only as many as it took for him to win. Ansel wants the entity of his choice to define marriage and every one should live with that definition.
Good one Lil’ Jeremiah. Marriage has an age limit, as could a civil union. In fact I believe that in most states you have to 18 to enter into a contract. Besides, mentally ill perverts already have access to our children. It is called the public school system.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.