Posted on 03/29/2013 5:43:13 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
While I support entirely the concept of simplifying the tax code and removing all tax credits and tax penalties in favor of a uniform tax I do not believe there is any onus to remove the recognition of REAL marriage. The best reason not to recognize SSM is that it will promote the normalizing of homosexuality and will be used to abridge religious and person freedom which is entirely unnecessary. Gays can and do have marriage ceremonies as do some heterosexual couples without ever filing for a marriage license. The approval of the state is not necessary to be in a committed relationship. I had a Muslim friend who was married and never filed to get a marriage license. The real deal is about control and forcing homosexuality and those other letters in the LGBTQ in the wings on polite society.
It doesn’t matter that homosexuality especially male homosexuality is a crucible for disease, promiscuity, alcohol/drug abuse, and yes higher rates of sexual abuse. Does it mean all gays fall into those categories? No but the question is not for the exception but for the rule. Is homosexuality a positive thing to be promoted and lifted up in society? We no for certain that though there may be genetic and hormonal propensity for some homosexuals that the environment is the biggest contributor homosexuality. The homosexual contention that they are “born that way” is just a big lie. People are born with all kinds of propensities that they overcome. Some have higher sex drives and yet they manage to remain committed to a single women. The idea that because one has desires that they must be fulfilled even though the behavior is obviously inappropriate is dangerous. The SSM contention is based on a denial of freewill and a denial that homosexuality is not correct behavior. Simply put the parts don’t fit. Marriage has always been essentially connected with the goal of procreation and whether from a religious or a Darwinian secular position this would be considered a good thing increasing the odds of progeny reaching adult hood, etc.
Gay marriage does not stand on its own. It is something that must be propped up by the state and encouraged by the state while conventional biologically correct views will have to be suppressed by the state. So the idea of the state just getting out of marriage is a pipe dream since it is already involved and we have already seen that in nearly every state that has implemented SSM that religious and personal liberty is immediately under attack. Already students are excluded from college programs because of disagreeing with homosexuality/ssm. The mental health professions have been largely cleansed of those who disagree through politically correct litmus tests. The future with SSM marriage is to have all children who go to public schools indoctrinated in the normalcy and the desire to experiment with alternative sexuality and if it was just that it would be one thing but they will also have pride events and gay pride week all the while teachers are forbidden to display a picture of Jesus, cross, or even a secular Christmas tree while condoms on dildos and drag queens will be all the norm. Already schools have started norming towards homosexuality by calling children’s drawings of family “offensive” when it doesn’t include Same Sex families or single mommy families.
SSM marriage is a grave threat to liberty and to normalcy. Those that do not understand this are just in denial or too young and stupid. And why are we having to even deal with this issue? Its because of a bunch of deviants who wont keep their private disgusting behavior in the bedroom. All the rest is just distraction.
A government big enough to define marriage is big enough to redefine marriage.
I am still torn between advocating for 1. federal government withdrawing from marriage, and 2. fighting to defend marriage at the federal level.
The marriage and child tax deductions should have been just for (opposite sex) married couples with children dependents rather than just any married couples anyway, to encourage those types of intact families.
GWB to lure single wimmin votes got a special tax credit (income limited ‘Child tax credit’ doubled) for single Mom's and now with same sex couples posed to get the marriage tax cuts too its just stupid.
Conservatives are not allowed to propose tax cuts to encourage desired behaviour as its called 'helping those who dont need it' , only libs are allowed to do that like Green energy and conservation per Dem rules.
Let's say I live in MA with one husband and one wife. Three people, 2 male, 1 female. We have a child. The wife takes the child and goes to Oklahoma. She won't come back.
How will custody be decided? Is Oklahoma going to extradite the mother and child back to live with 2 homosexual men? I doubt it. As a MA resident, if I want my child back, what recourse do I have?
Notice that I have not used the word "marriage". Who cares if that word is used? We're talking about legal rights (of some sort) that must be defined and protected by some government body. Who will decide where the child will reside?
It's a federal issue. The feds are in the picture no matter what. Deciding that the feds are "out of the marriage business" is just a non-starter. Humans have relationships and humans have rights, and the federal government will be involved in the decision-making.
Doesn't matter what you call it.
Well shoot John, why don’t we just retreat and give them what they want, normalization of their sick and perverted behavior.
You’re welcome. This continuing proposal that either government-mandated homosexual “marriage” or utter chaos will have good results for the country reminds me of the continuing increases in the minimum wage and in tax rates. We know what the outcomes will be, because they are the outcomes we are presently seeing and have observed in the past: fewer jobs, especially for those who most need to work; lower tax revenue; a general economic decline.
In the same way we know from experience in the United States and in other countries what outcomes government imposition of homosexual “marriage” will produce, but many “conservatives” just say, “La la la la can’t hear you!!!” and continue insisting that the same actions will produce different results because ... well, I don’t know why.
“Cultural war can be avoided by getting gov’t out of marriage.”
More fiscon RINO bull#@*! There is no point in living in an open sewer with a balanced checkbook. Traditional marriage= civilization. All other forms, are barbarism. So simple, even a cave man could figure it out. For my part, those who wish to flee from this issue are no better than the ones who want to redefine it.
Here’s an analogy. The Mob used to have the “Rackets”. One of them was the Numbers. The state created the Lottery. No more numbers racket. Now the state wants the Sacraments. See where this is going?
Actually it is about the government getting out offend marriage business. Every couple, gay or straight gets a civil union license. If you want to get married, find a church that’ll marry you. I cede the right of adults to contract with each other for mutual assistance, health decisions etc. Marriage goes back to the churches for sanctification. If you want to find a UU church or a JP to hire to perform a “marriage” fine.
See my response #49
...which is not going to happen. The government is already inextricably involved in marriage. Falling back to the position that it should not be concedes the field to the homosexualists.
Because there are serious civil issues that the state has an interest in, such as inheritance, custody, even benefits although I don’t support them, but some that are earned like social security, adoption, rights regarding testifying and visitation, de facto power of attorney, etc.
Plus the state has an interest in protecting the youngest of its citizens by taking reasonable measures to insure they are not raised in an orgy pit. Children have no choice in the matter, and if mom and dad are swingin’ and no fault divorcin’ and bringin’ over the current sex toy person and the kid doesn’t know who his actual or in fact parent is at any given time - STUDIES SHOW conclusively what we all know experientially - kids need their one dad and their one mom, and if they don’t have them, damage follows.
Way too much of our tax and inheritance laws are built around the concept of legal marriage to get the government out of that. Might be able to change the language so it’s no longer tied to religious marriage, but the government will always need formalized relationships.
See my #46. Homosexuals will never abide by “find a church that will marry you,” any more than they are willing to find a photographer, bakery, event venue, adoption agency or youth organization that will voluntarily serve them.
Everyone must be forced to comply. There can be no private decisions to not affirm homosexuality.
Why are we having this discussion as if in a vacuum? Look at what’s going on around the United States. Look at what has happened in Canada and Europe. The facts exist and will not go away. This is not a “live and let live” situation: it is a conquest of society.
If the government is not involved in the marriage end of the contract they can’t force a church to marry them anymore than they can force a church to ordain them or confirm them or give them a Bar Mitzva.
John Roberts openly considered getting the government out if the marriage business. Don’t say it won’t happen, it might.
I don’t know why you’re saying our government “can’t.” Does that mean you think they won’t try, or that they’ll meet armed resistance and it will be CW2?
I'm distressed at how many conservatives here on FreeRepublic reflexively act as if none of these institutions ever existed before governments began regulating them.
Can you cite an instance where the government forced a church to ordain someone or forced them to confirm someone or forced a synagogue to hold a bar mitzvah for someone? Let me know, thanks.
The latest thing in The Netherlands is that all churches must perform homosexual or multiple marriages. Think it won’t happen here?
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.