*** Marriage.

[Dementia]

Federal support for *** marriages is not as much of a necessity as legality and protection.

 

[Pierrot le Fou]

Illegals drive down the price of goods too, which you said was key in the BSE/Japan thread. Just FYI. And no, we cannot figure out the impact of *** marriage on foreign adoption without doing it, but I certainly think that it would serve to offset the miniscule portion of the population which would 'go ***' just because they could.

 

[Bob_barker101]

omg

i hate all *** people, i have alot more to say, but i will get banned.

Barker,
You're right....you're riding the edge. I've seen similar circumsances where people like you turn around and become decent posters. I doubt you have the maturity do accomplish this though.

Feel free to prove me wrong. If you don't then I suggest you pack your toothbrush because your exit will be swift and un-ceremonious.

Freet

 

[Anakha1]

i hate all *** people, i have alot more to say, but i will get banned.

So in other words you're a total bloody idiot. I'd call you a redneck, but that puts rednecks down.

 

[th5418]

i hate all *** people, i have alot more to say, but i will get banned.

You hate *** people? Why? Just for the hell of it?

 

[IDupedInMyPants]

Illegals drive down the price of goods too, which you said was key in the BSE/Japan thread.

That is a benefit, but I don't think it outweighs the siphoning of money in a tax-free manner. But again I can't really prove that, I have no real way of accurately determining the extent of their damaging or constructive effects, let alone both for comparison.

 

[Akira]

Anakha, do not feed the trolls.

edit: th, you too.

 

[Stevinator]

Anakha, do not feed the trolls.

edit: th, you too.

what if i fed them posion?

yeah! i hate gays almost as much as i hate idiots...hate ahte hate hate hate...heehee, whoop whoop whoop, you're the king bob barker, you are the MAN!

anyway, that done, this argument concerning birthrates is nice in that it has lots of numbers in it...generally this is a good thing...but alas this is an exception to the rule. none of those numbers matter. if we had open borders immigrants would more than make up for any loss of new births.

not to mention most immigrants are young so they'd work and pay taxes

or that they would infuse innovations as they have diferent life experiences.

r the fact htat the low end immigrants are coming in anyway illegally, but the good immigrants...the law abiding tech savvy, white collar workers are stuck because of quota restrictions.

also since we have all this foriegn policy issues going on...we could show the world that the threats against us will not get us down...but it will strengthen our capitalistic ideals, and belief in freer markets and strength through empowerment. we would not be holing up and hiding from those that would combat us but letting them know on no uncertain terms that we are americans and we will not crumble. oddly, i think the idea that people could be freer aobut how they run their lives would send a similar message to the world.

privatizing marriage, be it *** or straight would tell the world that america is not a christian nation, but a nation full of christians...we accept all and we invite them to compete with us. the more regulation 9like constitutional amendments that take rights away instead of granting them, makes us look more like those we are at war with...we are in danger of becoming that which we hate. i'd rather we stood strong and proud. In business you analyze what you['ve done that worked and what you have done that hasn't. america gained it's strength by being the freest nation in the world and i constantly challenging the areas where we were not as free as other countries. idon'tlike to associate *** rights with civil rights...but i do believe in choice. choice is key to freedom.

i challenge you duped to come up with a much less convolluted reason for not privatizing all marriage, and ridding the tax system of a marriage benefit.

if my plan were to be implemented taxes would be lower and fairer(or I guess you could raise them and spend that money somewhere else...but I don't like that and that's another disscussion)so taxes would be fairer, simpler, and easier to understand. no one who doesn't want to would be forced to pay for something they thought would be immoral. and homosexuals would be free to live their lives just as they are now, but with the full benefits(and responsibilities) of any other married couple.

 

[Akira]

Feeding a troll poison = ignoring it.

 

[dantose]

i hate all *** people, i have alot more to say, but i will get banned.

By some strange magic, I find myself agreeing with anyee in this thread, you are and idjit.

 

[Painman]

IMNSHO, If this world's collective human intellect and emotional response were expressed in terms a single meta-human's, that meta-human would be about 6 years old. We are an infant race as far as sentients go, terrified of ourselves, each other, terrified of things that go "bump" in the night. (Har!)

That sums up my feelings on the very notion of this topic's controversy, along with countless other topics.

 

[IDupedInMyPants]

anyway, that done, this argument concerning birthrates is nice in that it has lots of numbers in it...generally this is a good thing...but alas this is an exception to the rule. none of those numbers matter. if we had open borders immigrants would more than make up for any loss of new births.

So homosexual marriage has no possible drawbacks because we can throw part of our foreign policy in the trash to make up for it?

i challenge you duped to come up with a much less convolluted reason for not privatizing all marriage, and ridding the tax system of a marriage benefit.

Ok then, because the people don't want it privatized. And where would it leave us? There'd be no licensing and no regulation, we really would start seeing people marrying their own infants and microwaves.

Or would there be licensing and regulation? Would there still be some authority who had the power to say this type of marriage is ok and this type isn't, these people have the power to marry a couple and these people don't? Would this authority tell you what rights a married couple has, such as rights to custody, next of kin, etc.? That pretty much leaves you right back at government control as far as I can tell.

So there are two less convoluted reasons against privatization of marriage. Not many people want it, and you can't do it anyway. If you can I'm all ears, but I've never heard of an actual plan for privatizing marriage other than "It will lower taxes."

if my plan were to be implemented taxes would be lower and fairer(or I guess you could raise them and spend that money somewhere else...but I don't like that and that's another disscussion)so taxes would be fairer, simpler, and easier to understand. no one who doesn't want to would be forced to pay for something they thought would be immoral. and homosexuals would be free to live their lives just as they are now, but with the full benefits(and responsibilities) of any other married couple.

Having one of several results being lower taxation doesn't really make a good argument for cutting something. Low tax rates alone aren't the sole indicator of quality of life or amount of freedom, or even an indicator. We'd have really low taxes if we didn't have a military, you know?

 

[Pierrot le Fou]

Actually, it's really easy. You eliminate any government support of marriage, any government regulation of marriage, and any benefit that marriage has in any tangible sense whatsoever. You want your dog to have visitation rights? Cool, put it in a contract/Living Will. You want to marry your microwave? Start a church of the almighty appliance and get a priest to marry you to it.

Who cares? These people will be in the minority, and nobody will care because they aren't draining any resources from this nation. Someone who is willing to seriously marry their microwave for no reason whatsoever likely isn't going to be producing that much for society.

You assume that the government must regulate these things -- it doesn't have to. In the past, before joint income tax returns and marriage benefits on income taxes, we seemed to have no shortage of births. We also didn't see many people marrying their horses, eh?

Why exactly would things have to be so different no?

 

[IDupedInMyPants]

Actually, it's really easy. You eliminate any government support of marriage, any government regulation of marriage, and any benefit that marriage has in any tangible sense whatsoever. You want your dog to have visitation rights? Cool, put it in a contract/Living Will. You want to marry your microwave? Start a church of the almighty appliance and get a priest to marry you to it.

So then what's the point of getting hitched in this system? There would be no real reason to do it unless you were just feeling sappy and old fashioned, and there would be no real obligation to the spouse anyway. I don't think many people would be down with this. It may as well just eliminate the concept of marriage outright.

You assume that the government must regulate these things -- it doesn't have to. In the past, before joint income tax returns and marriage benefits on income taxes, we seemed to have no shortage of births. We also didn't see many people marrying their horses, eh?

Why exactly would things have to be so different no?

I'm not sure how far in the past you're talking, but I'm getting the impression it's a time in history where people held more old style values, there was little means of contraception, and people had a lot less free time to do idiotic **** like marrying whatever they didn't get rid of in their last yard sale (or any of the idiotic **** people do these days).

 

[Yaboosh]

So then what's the point of getting hitched in this system? There would be no real reason to do it unless you were just feeling sappy and old fashioned, and there would be no real obligation to the spouse anyway. I don't think many people would be down with this. It may as well just eliminate the concept of marriage outright.

No.....it would purify marriage since it would take it back to its roots of religious motivations.

 

[Stevinator]

So homosexual marriage has no possible drawbacks because we can throw part of our foreign policy in the trash to make up for it?

that was a side benefit. I was adding other great things that would happen if we were to implement the policy I talk about everythime one of these great *** marriage threads pop up. i figured since i've mentioned it in every *** marriage thread i've seen thus far i figured you'd be farmiliar with my ideas...so i was just going to the next step. sorry, i'll get back to the main point, and the main benefits. if we got into foriegn policy here things would be sticky. go ahead and start a foriegn policy thread...i will be around tuesday late to post a bit in it i think.

Ok then, because the people don't want it privatized. And where would it leave us? There'd be no licensing and no regulation, we really would start seeing people marrying their own infants and microwaves.

Nice slippery slope. <gets toboggan> don't know what people think of it...no politican would ever mention anything so radical of a change, nor would they reduce the amount of power their office has without a fight...government is all about power. it difficult to be heard when oyu have that sor of opposition. the best solution is not always the most politically likely solution.

Or would there be licensing and regulation? Would there still be some authority who had the power to say this type of marriage is ok and this type isn't, these people have the power to marry a couple and these people don't? Would this authority tell you what rights a married couple has, such as rights to custody, next of kin, etc.? That pretty much leaves you right back at government control as far as I can tell.

the regulation would be controlled thorugh contract negotitation. the terms of the marriage would be spelled out in conttracts...in a relatively short time i'm sure most churches would put together standard forms much like apartment complexes have. those who opt to be married outside of the church would only need a lawyer. i can't imagine it would cost much to process a contract like that. if for whatever reason someone would wantto marry their toaster they would have no good reason. and most likely no one would do it for them. there would be no tax break in my system for marriage so it wouldn't matter. Also, I don't think the toaster could possibly sign the contract...so if it ever came to it the contract would be void.

i don't see why the governemtn needs to regulate more in my system...frankly I see much less. the governemtn would only be involved if there was a dispute over the contract. in the current system the same would happen so that's not really more regulation. that's less.

So there are two less convoluted reasons against privatization of marriage. Not many people want it, and you can't do it anyway. If you can I'm all ears, but I've never heard of an actual plan for privatizing marriage other than "It will lower taxes."

actual plan. simple...stop requiring a marriage license. just say, from here on out marriage is a contractual agreement between two people. release a standard form and let already married couples either agree to the standard form or go get a new one written up. we already have people who do this sort of thing...they write pre-nups. Let the churches decide who can be married through them and who has to go elsewhere.

*** couples will flock to *** friendly churches and ***-haters will flock to ***-hating churches and the groups will self seperate. no one will be forced to do anything...they can move or stay as they choose.

then we'd push through a tax bill that removes the tax benefits to married couples...you can either drop all taxes or raise them...so they're all the same. either way, you now have cured inequities in the tax system and simplified the tax code. (nice side benefit)

if population shrinkage is really that scary to you you increaseteh size of the quotas for immigrants...or better yet, you just open the borders...

why don't people like this? i don't know. i think any reasonable person would like to see my system (well maybe not the open borders--lots of people don't like that), because it makes their lives simpler, it strenghens religous sentiment, makes that stronger in the lives of those who want it stronger and allows those who would preferto avoid it to avoid it. it doesn't leave anyone's interests out. and to top it off it naturally seperatesthose who feel strongly about *** marriages being illegal from teh problem...which is what they really want..their morality is no longer supporting *** marriage as it will be if we proceed down the road we're going.

the constitutional amendment will not pass. if it does it will not rule out civil unions to be recognized and likely tax laws will eventually pay gays to get "united." once the amendment fails the *** rights activists will make an enormous scene. mark my words if you think this is nuts what we've seen thus far is only the radicals....wait till the masses decide to jump onto this...we'll never hear the end of it and frankly I think the entire issue is a waste of national energy. gays will be effectively marrying all over and anti-gays will strike backand things will get messy. why do that when we could just solve the issue peacefully simply and painlessly? The catholic institution of marriag is no longer able to be under attack...only the catholics can change it...same with every other church. this is empowering...if they want to ban all catholics from *** marriage they have the ability.

Having one of several results being lower taxation doesn't really make a good argument for cutting something. Low tax rates alone aren't the sole indicator of quality of life or amount of freedom, or even an indicator. We'd have really low taxes if we didn't have a military, you know?

fine say we agreed to accept the higher rates? would you be for the plan if everyone was taxed at the single rate? is lower taxation the only real issue oyu have against this...that and the fact that someone other than the governmentwould be controlling it? Are oyu against it because you think all gays should be burned at the stake? Are you against it because your church would allow *** marriage? Are you somehow against two consenting adults signing a contract to maintain their vows? would treating adultry as a contract violation--stricter than the current system which lets many adulterers off, strengthen or weaken the institution of marriage? if oyu married me and then oyu cheated on me i could take oyu to court and get you for whatever you agreed the penalty would be in our marriage contract.

you might think twice about your dirty infidelity. that's much worse than sleeping on the couch isn't it?

now that i've explained it a bit better do you like this more? am i somewhat rational, or completely off base? do oyu really think people would be against this? you don't think i could sell it as saving marriage? right now the divorce rate is over 50% maybe we can make marriage mean something again.

 

[IDupedInMyPants]

now that i've explained it a bit better do you like this more? am i somewhat rational, or completely off base? do oyu really think people would be against this? you don't think i could sell it as saving marriage? right now the divorce rate is over 50% maybe we can make marriage mean something again.

It may be somewhat rational, but marriage and love and **** isn't really about rationality. Polling indicates a lot of people already disapprove of just regular *** marriages and are split about 50-50 on civil unions, I really can't picture any sizable minority going for this radical of a plan.

I'm not sure how many *** friendly churches there would be, or whatever organization is chosen to wed people. Privatization means more right to discriminate in services, gays may well find themselves out of luck either way.

Little bone to pick about the divorce rate, it is 50% of something. But it's 50% of the marriage rate, which doesn't mean 50% of marriages end in divorce. There are already a ton of marriages out there in a given year that have to be accounted for.

Say for example's sake there are 1200 married couples. 600 couples get married and 300 get divorced that year. That 300 divorced is half of the newly married couples, but 1/6 of the total marriages. The next year you have 1500 marriages as a base (the first year's base plus the net gain in marriages of that year), 600 marriages and 300 divorces. That 300 is still half of the marriages, but is now 1/7 of the total marriages. I literally just made those numbers up, this isn't meant to be taken as any scale representation of the actual numbers, but you get the idea.

You may well have meant that the divorce rate is half of the marriage rate, I don't know. If that's the case then my bad. Anyee argued once that half of all marriages end in divorce, so I gotta cover the bases.

I do agree though that the divorce rate is higher than it should be and I'd like for solemn sworn vows to mean something just as much as you would. It just seems though to be a general misconception that there are more divorces happening than is actually the case.

I'm pretty worn out of this thread tonight, I'll get to the rest later. Sorry man.