Thread: Getting Out Of The Marriage Biz.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36
  1. #21  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillygirl View Post
    I happen to agree, which is why I don't agree with domestic partnerships from a legal perspective.
    So - should we take away the benefits that those without children have? What about those who have long since raised their children?
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    So - should we take away the benefits that those without children have? What about those who have long since raised their children?
    Nope. The purpose of the marriage benefits (encouraging and protecting the nuclear family) still remains, even if every member doesn't actually reproduce. That doesn't mean that we dismantle the the philosophy because a minority don't have children. Nor do we apply it to other groups simply because a minority of them do reproduce.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillygirl View Post
    Nope. The purpose of the marriage benefits (encouraging and protecting the nuclear family) still remains, even if every member doesn't actually reproduce. That doesn't mean that we dismantle the the philosophy because a minority don't have children. Nor do we apply it to other groups simply because a minority of them do reproduce.
    Two people, regardless if they have sex or not, who agree to partner through life can provide all the same benefits as the nuclear family.... even raising kids (even if they couldn't conceive them together).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillygirl View Post
    Nope. The purpose of the marriage benefits (encouraging and protecting the nuclear family) still remains, even if every member doesn't actually reproduce. That doesn't mean that we dismantle the the philosophy because a minority don't have children. Nor do we apply it to other groups simply because a minority of them do reproduce.
    I'm all for protecting marriage. I'm also all for giving everyone possible a way of getting around and away from the confiscatory taxes the government uses.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Two people, regardless if they have sex or not, who agree to partner through life can provide all the same benefits as the nuclear family.... even raising kids (even if they couldn't conceive them together).
    bullshit. Gheys like leftists and pro-abortion pseudo-conservative atheists can give an approximation but they cannot provide the real thing.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    bullshit. Gheys like leftists and pro-abortion pseudo-conservative atheists can give an approximation but they cannot provide the real thing.
    An approximation of what? Some ethereal concept of the ideal family that doesnt actually exist?

    Many many people from any of those groups you mention ( I can't believe you starting throwing political stances and religious belief in there ) would create much better families than millions of the dysfunctional 'traditional' families out there.

    The nuclear family is a concept like a pure free market... it doesnt actually exist in its true ideal form.
    Last edited by wilbur; 03-12-2009 at 09:11 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,421
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Two people, regardless if they have sex or not, who agree to partner through life can provide all the same benefits as the nuclear family.... even raising kids (even if they couldn't conceive them together).
    They can provide similar benefits. But what does that have to do with anything?

    Should the federal government continue to provide SS benefits to married couples? How about protection on pensions and pension beneficiaries? The same favorable tax rate on transfers of property between spouses?

    What are the purposes behind the current laws? Are those same purposes properly served by providing them to non-married "couples"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Power CUer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    11,243
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    So - should we take away the benefits that those without children have?
    Like what - sanity, beautiful and neat homes, and discretionary income? :p
    "Today, [the American voter] chooses his rulers as he buys bootleg whiskey, never knowing precisely what he is getting, only certain that it is not what it pretends to be." - H.L. Mencken
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillygirl View Post
    Nope. The purpose of the marriage benefits (encouraging and protecting the nuclear family) still remains, even if every member doesn't actually reproduce. That doesn't mean that we dismantle the the philosophy because a minority don't have children. Nor do we apply it to other groups simply because a minority of them do reproduce.
    I disagree. The original purpose of the marriage benefit was to facilitate the union of two heterosexuals who were more than likely to reproduce, raise a family, and function as grandparents at some point in time. That family provided social identity and stability and relieved the State of the burdensome job of housing, feeding, clothing, and instructing current and future citizens. That's all over now.

    The State now has a vested interest in reducing its obligations to individuals while still sucking them dry for as long as possible. The "family" structure is no longer of any interest to the State since people are in increasingly unstable relationships and since the burden of caring for children is now juggled between the State and a virtually random group of parental sexual partners, former spouses, and biological parents.

    While the State no longer has any interest in promoting family stability, it still does have a huge interest in not paying for any services, if possible. It's in the best interest of the State to promote any financial arrangement in which people (related or not, sexual or not) meet each other's needs in terms of care and finances. This frees up more money for taxes, fees, permits, and the like.

    We left Oz quite a while ago, Philly. Try to keep up. :p
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    much better families than millions of the dysfunctional 'traditional' families out there.
    So because some normal families are dysfunctional we should dispose of them in favor of deviancy?
    The nuclear family is a concept like a pure free market... it doesnt actually exist in its true ideal form.
    If it doesn't - it's because of government interference and individual selfishness and irresponsibility.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •