Thread: Getting Out Of The Marriage Biz.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 36 of 36
  1. #31  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    So because some normal families are dysfunctional we should dispose of them in favor of deviancy?
    If it doesn't - it's because of government interference and individual selfishness and irresponsibility.
    You only a few posts ago:
    Right. Domestic partnerships are not about sexuality - or at least shouldn't be about it.
    You really are a confused ol chap arent you? We have actually been on more or less the same side this whole thread till you started going on about atheists and pro-choice people being less capable parents. At this point its not even clear what you are arguing for.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,852
    Quote Originally Posted by Phillygirl View Post
    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?
    I'm pretty open to different possibilities here.

    What are the purposes behind the current laws? Are those same purposes properly served by providing them to non-married "couples"?
    Well there are several incentives... some of which only incentivize partnership and others which incentivize (or at least alleviate some of the burden of) having children. But I'm more or less with Ginger on this one.. these kinds of things are the song and dance we have to go through these days to justify keeping our own money out of the hands of the government.... which already takes more than its fair share.

    As for the philosophy behind the laws and incentives... they may have been solid at one time.. but I don't see how sex based justifications for child rearing can stand up in this day and age. With modern tools for analyzing demographics I am certain... absolutely certain... we could easily devise a list of criteria that would be far better indicators of whether a couple would be 'good child rearers', other than their sexual orientation, sexual relationship, or blood relation with their partner. So if the acknowledgement of, and incentivizing of relationships by the state is simply a tool for effective child rearing... than it should be our imperative to take that philosophy where it leads us and not simply stop half-way...

    Personally, I think its time to stop approaching marriage (or partnerships) in such a collectivist way. It should be a matter of personal liberties... maybe the tax breaks need to be taken out of it all together, including traditional marriages.. but such partnerships should of course come with the other benefits of marriage that make it advantageous legally.
    Last edited by wilbur; 03-12-2009 at 01:33 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    You only a few posts ago:


    You really are a confused ol chap arent you? We have actually been on more or less the same side this whole thread till you started going on about atheists and pro-choice people being less capable parents. At this point its not even clear what you are arguing for.
    Did you bother to read the conversation? I think domestic partnerships should be available to all regardless of sex or sexuality. That does NOT mean that I think for a moment that such a partnership would constitute a family.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #34  
    Senior Member MrsSmith's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    2,387
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    I'm pretty open to different possibilities here.



    Well there are several incentives... some of which only incentivize partnership and others which incentivize (or at least alleviate some of the burden of) having children. But I'm more or less with Ginger on this one.. these kinds of things are the song and dance we have to go through these days to justify keeping our own money out of the hands of the government.... which already takes more than its fair share.

    As for the philosophy behind the laws and incentives... they may have been solid at one time.. but I don't see how sex based justifications for child rearing can stand up in this day and age. With modern tools for analyzing demographics I am certain... absolutely certain... we could easily devise a list of criteria that would be far better indicators of whether a couple would be 'good child rearers', other than their sexual orientation, sexual relationship, or blood relation with their partner. So if the acknowledgement of, and incentivizing of relationships by the state is simply a tool for effective child rearing... than it should be our imperative to take that philosophy where it leads us and not simply stop half-way...

    Personally, I think its time to stop approaching marriage (or partnerships) in such a collectivist way. It should be a matter of personal liberties... maybe the tax breaks need to be taken out of it all together, including traditional marriages.. but such partnerships should of course come with the other benefits of marriage that make it advantageous legally.
    Tax breaks? Whatever. I paid a far lower percentage on my taxes as Head of Household than I do as Married. Even Mr Smith, filing as SINGLE, paid a somewhat smaller percentage. For TAXES, we'd be better off shacking up.

    As for "indicators of whether a couple would be 'good child rearers', other than their sexual orientation," I have to guess you've somehow missed the plethora of studies that prove children do best when raised with their biological mother and father. We already know the most important indicator of "good child rearing."
    -
    -
    -

    In actual dollars, President Obama’s $4.4 trillion in deficit spending in just three years is 37 percent higher than the previous record of $3.2 trillion (held by President George W. Bush) in deficit spending for an entire presidency. It’s no small feat to demolish an 8-year record in just 3 years.

    Under Obama’s own projections, interest payments on the debt are on course to triple from 2010 (his first budgetary year) to 2018, climbing from $196 billion to $685 billion annually.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida. The Cuban Part.
    Posts
    3,007
    If by nuclear family you mean mom, dad and two kids... I grew up in one of those... and... my parents are still together.

    ~QC
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    Did you bother to read the conversation? I think domestic partnerships should be available to all regardless of sex or sexuality. That does NOT mean that I think for a moment that such a partnership would constitute a family.
    Most of us are on the same side here. Those of us who are religious see marriage as a sacrament or state-of-life that can't be dictated by the State or enforced by law. Those of us who are secular see the advantage of promoting living arrangements (of most kinds) that keep people independent and out of the public trough.

    Domestic partnerships eliminate the sex angle of the debate. While they won't do more to promote traditional marriage or stable shack-ups, they won't degrade marriage by making it something it is not either.
    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
  •