Posted on 09/08/2012 9:03:55 AM PDT by Why So Serious
“And your point is what, here?”
People respond to ‘incentives’, regardless of what type they are. But that concept may not register with you.
You win, I have know idea what point you are trying to make.
I said there have always been families and marriage even before licensing and you are talking about bank robbers and incentives.
I love your byline
Here in Illinois Drew Peterson killed his THIRD wife and his FOURTH one went missing. If it was not for all the talk about gay marriage these last two marriages would have ended in a more civilized manner. See once the talk started moving toward gay marriage the world become uncivilized.
Why so weird, or so dishonest? Homosexuals and heterosexuals are not taxed differently.
It is legislating same-sex "marriage" by lowest common denominator. Forget it.
It’s one thing to debate the righteousness of our taxation policies—whether you’re single, married, raising children, a (co)property owner, disabled, a veteran, caring for sick parents, making millions a year or just scraping by, every US citizen has a right to demand fairness in this realm. Wasn’t unfair taxation reason enough for the American colonies to revolt?
It is one thing to lament the poor state of marriage and parenthood in our modern society and to how to address those issues in an unobtrusive manner. For example, we can stop benefiting poor behavior on the taxpayers’ dime. We can argue the unfairness of governmental fees and contract laws, the inequities in divorce court and child-support laws. Here there is plenty of room for debate.
It is a completely different matter to endorse a radical societal change under the guise of less government and more freedom and equality, then blatantly ignore the fact that those policies will require changes in government-mandated education, crime legislation, property rights, religious freedom, health care costs and tax policies.
To then turn around and play “Aw shucks, ya got me” and mock people who hold thousands-of-years-old values dear, is just over the top.
Anyone who thinks this is about the money and benefits is pathetically blind, or is being deceitful.
It is all right there in history, Sir or Madam, insane as it seems. If we do not learn from history, we are bound to repeat it. I simply pointed out that when we, as a people allow government to regulate those things that are in the purview of religion, we stand to lose our freedoms-government is already trying to force church-sponsored entities to pay for abortion and birth control, and that is just one example. Government is not here to help you-ever-unless it is protecting our shores from an enemy, as in war.
You do not know me, so do not insult me. I enjoy lively debate and hearing the opinions of others expressed in a civil manner, and I will reciprocate with equal civility.
My opinions are no more ramblings than yours or anyone else’s participating in this discussion. I am a heterosexual woman, never involved in polygamy, and I am not, nor have I ever been a “leftist” if any sort. But I DO believe in government being limited to what is in the original constitution, not what we have now.
I do not believe that homosexuals can really even be married, since the Bible says their having sex is a sin, never mind subscribing to a “homosexual agenda”-and polygamy is a disgusting exploitation of women, and sometimes, children.
I did not insult you, nor anyone else, so I ask that you stop attributing false opinions and beliefs to myself and others-it is not pleasant here in what should be a civilized exchange of ideas and opinions.
“You win...”
Thanks, glad to have this settled.
Most likely. The way I figure it, there would be a general consensus of those churches of whatever kind that respected traditional marriage and wanted to re-sanctify it as sacred and a sacrament apart from government involvement.
But add to this, particular requirements unique to given churches, which vary, but would not undermine the core ideas shared by them all.
It is legislating same-sex "marriage" by lowest common denominator. Forget it.
Dude, there was a time that blacks were owned and women could not vote. That stuff was legislated away. Do you realize that for thousands of years there were slaves and women were not allowed to vote. With the exception of those two facts, were we more civilized? You do not have to recognize anything.
“...and mock people who hold thousands-of-years-old values dear, is just over the top.”
Yea, that’s what it has become. We are the IDIOTS, simply because we don’t, essentially, want a ‘cultural’ revolution in the United States. Well, if the clowns here want to call me an idiot, or a reactionary, because I love the country I grew up and I am not interested in their cultural experiments, then I guess I’m an idiot - and I’m just fine with that.
(although I do with that JR would get these dingbats off of this site)
I am happy that you are happy, that you won a prize for incoherent statements.
You are welcome.
“I am happy that you are happy...You are welcome.”
No prob. That’s the point of this site. Thanks.
Hey Bobl, these radical Muslims have thousands of years of values that they hold dear. Are we going to accept those without arguing, discussing, changing, or mocking? Or would that be over the top?
Hey Two, these radical Muslims have thousands of years of values that they hold dear. Are we going to accept those without arguing, discussing, changing, or mocking? Or would that be over the top?
----------------------------------------
You pay $4K more than who? I presume that you are comparing what your taxes would be if you were married and your spouse had no earnings vs. what you pay now.
If you and your spouse had equal earnings, you would pay the same or more in federal taxes if you were married filing jointly vs. if you were both filing as single. There is still a marriage penalty in the Internal Revenue Code.
The premise of your claim is incorrect.
Bobl, post 137 was not to you, I wrote your name in there in error. It was to Two. This post was meant as a discussion. I would say that the most activity came from you, Two, and me. I would say that if I gave each of you a piece of paper and I said write down the ten individual things that most threaten us [the Unites Sates] as a society, and I did the same. I would say that it would scare me if any of the three of us had civil unions in the top ten. I am sure that we would all have the democratic party as number one, which would encompass the civil union thing. But there are more important things that are bring us down. I am sure that we agree on more than we disagree on. That said, it was a nice way to blast through a beautiful afternoon. Enjoy the rest of your weekend.
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.