Enjoy :)
Is this some sort of satire? I’m a little tired of all the satire posts.
I think the better approach would be to flatten the tax code, stop trying to manipulate people with it, and get government out of the business of marriage regulation. It makes a mess out of everything else it touches, and so seems like the more fitting thing to have marriage be the very personal and spiritual thing it was intended to be instead of the very public thing to be mocked by social deviants that it has become.
Regardless of these other two humorless posters on here, I thought it was funny, and yes even I could tell it was satire.
Marriage is an institution designed to foster the type of environment found to produce the best possible outcome for the children. The societal mores and strictures of traditional marriage are and have always been about the children.
Stopped reading the garbage after reading the first two sentences... =.=
Good satire!
Time to remember that marriage is about reproduction: it takes two of different kinds, one cannot viably/reliable do a good job of it alone, society should persuade the two to raise their offspring (not dumping them upon society at large), and that society at large should facilitate/encourage/enforce that union that the species may continue well.
People are free to pursue happiness as they see fit.
Quality procreation, being vital to society’s continuation, needs some legislative incentives.
hell its prolly in the bambamcare bill, we just havent 'read it' far enuff yet...
I’m not sure at all why the government has to have any say in two people relationship. But the again, I fail to see the need for them to rummage through our pay stubs and bank accounts every year.
It would be literally impossible to outlaw marriage.
As those of us on the right, continue to let the wordsmiths on the left destroy the meaning of everything, I have begun to use the terms Real Marriage, or Traditional Real Marriage in my conversations to delineate them from the bastardization the left has accomplished to the term Marriage.
The SSAD activists can call a turd gold bullion all they want but it does not change the turd into something of worth.
They can go to the states where deviancy has been declared normal all they want, and have their little fake union ceremonies but that does not make it a Real Traditional Marriage and all the wordsmiths in the world cannot change it.
Stop letting the leftwing wordsmiths define our language.
Choice is killing babies not choice.
Gay is perversion and serves no useful purpose. They are SSAD (same sex attraction disorder).
Same Sex Marriage is cohabitation to falsely obtain benefits reserved for Real Traditional Marriage.
If equal means equal then there is no need for diversity as we are all equal.
Government is generally not the best solution.
In this case, the best alternative would be to start with an ecumenical agreement among conservative and orthodox churches and synagogues to “take back” marriage as a religious activity, outside of the realm of government involvement or control.
This agreement would be very clear as to who could be married, and how. Individual faiths could “add” requirements, but the agreement would be for the minimum.
Likewise, the agreement would also be clear when marriages end, as that would also be under religious control, as would any division of assets or child care agreements.
If individuals rejected this agreement, they would be seen as in variance to the beliefs of their faith, to face whatever sanction that faith permitted.
This would involve some discipline on their part, as they would not only recognize “sacred” marriage done by any of them, but they would have to *not* recognize secular marriage. That is, people married outside of these conservative or orthodox faiths would be considered as “living together” with no religious blessing.
If people with a secular marriage wished to join one of these faiths, they would have to be remarried under its rules, at least administratively.
Importantly, people with a “sacred” marriage could choose to have a secular marriage license as well, or not. Many would choose not if just to avoid the marriage penalty in taxation.
Government would not appreciate having this ability taken from them, and would probably try dirty tricks to force people back into secular marriage by the government’s rules. But far fewer would fall for this, seeing the perfidy of the Obama administration in its treatment of religious beliefs.
But these religions would now have a powerful tool at their disposal:
Under the Federal Fair Housing Acts, marital status is not one of the protected categories under federal law. Thus if they did not recognize secular marriage as marriage, religions, and the people who belong to those religions, could legally discriminate against those they deemed as “unmarried”.
It wouldn’t matter if they were straight or gay, as long as they saw them as “unmarried”, they could be scorned for that reason. The majority of states don’t have any legal provisions protecting people from discrimination based on marital status, either.
The concept of “marriage” is largely a religious one; it only became government’s business when they started creating tax rules around it. Though the tax rules probably created an incentive to marriage, they will now use those same rules to say, “sorry, we can’t be in the marriage business unless ALL can be married.”
Eliminate governmental recognition of marriage. Allow churches to perform marriages however they see fit. They’re meaningful in the eyes of whoever cares. I’m sick of this whole fight, and the bastardisation of a beloved institution. Get it over with already.
Gold Medal winner Aly Raisman is not responding to my marriage proposals. It’s like she can’t hear me through the TV.
I’m sorry but your proposal doesn’t address the thorny issue of the woman not consenting or even knowing of the existence of the man that wants her. How is that any fairer than traditional marriage?
And it’s super discriminatory by still being limited to 2 people. I’ve also proposed to several women’s volleyball teams.