Posted on 04/04/2013 5:55:16 AM PDT by magellan
If same-sex marriage becomes legal, heterosexuals will be permitted to marry persons of same gender. And then what becomes of marriage as an institution? Just a tax shelter. And then, any children of the tax shelter become primarily children of the taxing authority, not the tax avoidance association. Because the state puts the children first, you selfish grasping peons!
“The Inheritance tax is an immoral tax to begin with.”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I agree totally but I have a question. What taxes are NOT immoral taxes? I would suggest that a per gallon tax on gasoline for instance is NOT an immoral tax if the revenue is used for roads and bridges. If the revenue is diverted to pay for something unconnected to what the gasoline is used for then I would say that it IS an immoral tax.
I consider property taxes totally immoral, a person should not have to pay rent to the county for something he supposedly owns, there are other ways to raise revenue. the property tax means that no one can really own real estate, he can only rent it from the county, the price paid to the seller is only the purchase of a lease agreement with the county. Renters actually DO pay property taxes as part of their rent payment even though they never see the tax bill.
Thanks for posting this... Never heard it before; now I’ve googled and read about it...very interesting.
And the only disease with specific civil rights, entitlements attached.
I wonder if the incest laws have references to opposite-sex relationships, such that they would not apply to a father-son pairing.
I’ve said this elsewhere, if your purpose of marriage isn’t pro-creation, there’s no reason not to let brothers get married, or sisters get married.
I don’t know how two lesbians, or two gays, “prove” they are in a real relationship by having intercourse.
It annoys me that most of the arguments about the unfairness of marriage laws is really because the government decided that so many issues of government interaction with wealth were going to be determined by marriage.
So, there’s a lesbian couple, and the one is in the military, under “don’t ask, don’t tell”. She dies, and the other member of the couple isn’t even invited to a ceremony. Isn’t allowed to get the effects. Doesn’t get the death benefit.
Maybe we just need to allow a person to assign their “custodial rights” to any other individual, without regard to marriage. That would solve most of the problems, without ruining marriage.
Of course you don't. It takes a gubmint to decide these things!
Thanks magellan.
What about increasing medical costs and medical insurance premiums as "married" gay males avail themselves of their partners' medical coverages? Homosexual males consume much more medical care on average compared to heterosexual males with otherwise the same demographic characteristics. Gay activists and many in the MSM would never say it, but the male homosexuals in Western countries are statistically about on par with overall Third World populations in terms of general health status, with much higher incidences of many infectious diseases (AIDS among them) than their heterosexual male Western counterparts
These days anything is possible. I can see this happening in San Fransisco.
When it comes to the real homosexuals versus the tax treatment gays, the difference in lifespan probably makes up for the additional cost.
Thanks for the ping!
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.