Posted on 11/13/2009 10:10:22 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
No, whether I get married, divorced, how many children I do or don’t have is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. I’m not asking you to support me so butt out of my personal life.
“That’s a good idea. Unfortunately, we have to give breaks to single (read:divorced) mothers because they are “victims”. “
What the...?
I married a divorced man. His first wife left him and his boys and didn’t know where she was for four years. She could have never showed back up for all he knew. But by your logic, he should have remained married and not have the companionship and help of a wife and his boys not have the benefit of a mother in the home.
That being said, my husband, having custody of his kids, got tax breaks as a single FATHER. It’s not always single mothers who file taxes on their kids.
The author is trying to expose us as “hypocrites” to compensate for his inability to defend his own position. How cute.
One little problem with his premise—the traditional Judeo-Christian idea of marriage DOES allow for divorce under special circumstances. An opponent of gay marriage would be hypocritical to support a ban on all divorce, not to oppose one.
I have a question for the author: is it not hypocritical to change the definition of marriage to allow for same-sex marriage without making such allowances for other kinds of non-traditional sexuality (i.e. polygamy, pedophilia, bestiality)?
Your comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired.
Stay focused here:
“If mom and dad get a $5000 tax credit for each child - SO LONG AS MOM AND DAD ARE MARRIED - and divorced/non married couples get squat....”
Are you in favor of tax benefits to married couples? Or should they be penalized?
That’s all I want to know. Answer that.
Matthew 19:3-9
I’m not asking you to support me so butt out of my personal life.
______________________________
Sorry, but you DON’T GET TO ASK.
You (people like you) are a burden on society and I get to support you and your kids.
What *I* think of it has nothing to do with YOUR skills of logic. You said that without tax benefits to married couples with children, there would be a reduction of birth outside of marraige and divorce. My response was a big ole hardy har har.
And NO, I do not agree with you. Still doesn’t change your living in a dream world if you think removing the tax benefits for single or divorced people would reduce divorces or illegitimate children. Last I checked on Maury, tax benefits were the last thing on these people’s minds when testing four guys to see if they were the baby daddy within a limited window of time to conceive.
*End no-fault divorces*
This would be a good step in the right direction.
I remember when the no-fault divorce was being debated here in California. I was young, but I remember that the issue was that, if people really wanted to get divorced, both parties would ‘fake’ what was necessary to be granted a divorce. THAT was not OK. People should not have to ‘lie’ to get a divorce, they said. Even my mom was in an uproar over this. But we went form, someone had to be caught in adultery to get a divorce, to; Hey, man, no excuse needed.
Needless to say, my dad divorced my mom years later. He got the house and his pension plan wasn’t cut. And she put him though college. Sad.
“the government has no more business in peoples marriages than they do their healthcare”
Yup. But there’s lots of Freepers who think that gubberment involvement in marriage has been good for the institution.
Freegards
Divorce isn’t the problem, its only a symptom.
Not a big fan of liberty are you? Who are you to tell a non-religious couple that they aren't allowed to take vows?
That was so succinct and brilliant that it bears repeating.
Most of us have lived enough to learn that governing by ideal is never good. The best thing that ever happened to me is a divorce. Twenty years later I stumbled upon my ex-wife’s myspace page. She’s a lesbian living in the South. It made everything crystal clear, and I knew why our union was so painful.
who is this kook?
another pro-homo activist who is making a point?
I can not speak for the roman catholic church, but the other christian mainstream faiths allow for divorce. Even the Orthodox church.
Utter nonsense. The demographics where out of wedlock births are the most common are populated with those who fall below the poverty line and pay no income taxes. For those who pay taxes like myself, we’re smart enough to know that $10,000 in tax credits (I have two kids at home) amounts to virtually nothing in savings. It’s $10k of income that you don’t pay taxes on, not $10k in your pocket. It’s trivial.
You forgot the sarc tag.
See my post 56
A totally ridiculous statement if ever I heard one.
Bears repeating.
A totally ridiculous statement if ever I heard one.
>>Who are you to tell a non-religious couple that they aren’t allowed to take vows?<<
Nobody. I don’t think people should smoke dope either, but I think it should be legal.
But I consider the idea of “non-religious vows” to be a bit of an oxymoron.
My wife and I tell the kids they don’t have to worry about us - divorce is not an option. Usually told after mom and dad get in an argument over something! But they see over half the kids in their class with divorced parents and they worry.
Some other parents just got divorced at school. My 12-year old daughter asked my wife. “So you know how you always say ‘divorce is not an option’? Do you pick that option when the minister marries you or when?” LOL!!!
(And yes honey - you do!)
At our rehearsal dinner my brother was giving his toast and said “Marriage is a fine institution. But who the heck wants to live in an institution!?”
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.