Started By
Message
0
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:01 pm to sorantable
I'll be devil's advocate here, and go far off on another tangent, too.
I am pretty libertarian in most ways. I don't give a shite if gays get married or not. I won't say I "support it" because I just don't see the point. I don't really see the point in any modern marriage, honestly. I think the benefits are mostly gone when I look at marriage realistically.
On the other hand, in my older age, I have begun to understand the value of a cohesive and even somewhat conformist society of decent people who have shared values and common interests. I don't actually think diversity in all areas is our strength, even though politicians like to make that claim from time to time. I think there are benefits to a society from having standards and mores that are at least loosely defined. That standard might be "equality for all in all ways". Which sounds good, but I don't know how good it is for the health of a larger society. Sometimes I feel like the only thing holding this country together anymore is the threat of Federal military action. I don't think that would have been true 25 years ago.
We have fewer shared values and social contracts in this society than probably any "voluntary" society ever has. It may turn out that the only way to keep such diversely valued people together is via ever increasing force.
I am pretty libertarian in most ways. I don't give a shite if gays get married or not. I won't say I "support it" because I just don't see the point. I don't really see the point in any modern marriage, honestly. I think the benefits are mostly gone when I look at marriage realistically.
On the other hand, in my older age, I have begun to understand the value of a cohesive and even somewhat conformist society of decent people who have shared values and common interests. I don't actually think diversity in all areas is our strength, even though politicians like to make that claim from time to time. I think there are benefits to a society from having standards and mores that are at least loosely defined. That standard might be "equality for all in all ways". Which sounds good, but I don't know how good it is for the health of a larger society. Sometimes I feel like the only thing holding this country together anymore is the threat of Federal military action. I don't think that would have been true 25 years ago.
We have fewer shared values and social contracts in this society than probably any "voluntary" society ever has. It may turn out that the only way to keep such diversely valued people together is via ever increasing force.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:01 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Same sex couples can't procreate, with one another.
They can adopt.
quote:
Being married shouldn't create a tax break, over those who aren't.
Why not? The statistics all bear out the advantages of marriage for society. A tax break is a useful tool to help promote marriage and help out families with their tax burden.
I do think singles need more tax breaks though. The EITC should be extended to those who meet the income requirements and have no kids. Tax policy is government's most useful tool in enacting useful positive changes. You know, if our government wasn't so beholden to writing the tax code for the special interests.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:02 pm to UMRealist
So can a single person.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:02 pm to Duke
How is an adopted kid any less welcome in a gay home than in a straight home?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:04 pm to auggie
quote:
if you think it is only Christians that have a problem with it, you better think again.
I think this charge against same-sex marriage would be a moot point if it wasn't for the conservative religious right.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:04 pm to Duke
quote:
The statistics all bear out the advantages of marriage for society
Those stats are based on traditional man/woman marriages. No?
Including same sex as part of that, is not accurate at this time. Perhaps it will prove out to be in time, as more states allow it. But until then, you can't include them in that stat.
quote:
Tax policy is government's most useful tool in enacting useful positive changes
It can also be the most regressive.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:04 pm to mrnegative
Who said it was?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:04 pm to mrnegative
quote:
How is an adopted kid any less welcome in a gay home than in a straight home?
They aren't?
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:05 pm to Alahunter
quote:What does that have to do with what Duke said?
So can a single person.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:05 pm to UMRealist
Straw men errwhere
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:05 pm to sorantable
quote:
I think this charge against same-sex marriage would be a moot point if it wasn't for the conservative religious right.
Or the fact that Gov't mandates against religious beliefs. If Gov't was left completely out of it, I don't think many would have a problem at all. May not agree with it personally, but to each their own.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:07 pm to UMRealist
quote:
A tax break is a useful tool to help promote marriage and help out families with their tax burden
It's welfare for people who wish to be labeled married. It's unfair to single individuals to tax them at a higher rate.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:07 pm to Alahunter
quote:
Perhaps it will prove out to be in time, as more states allow it. But until then, you can't include them in that stat.
Sure the stats aren't fully known, but the current information we have suggests it will play out for gay couples as well. It's a fairly logical conclusion too. Two incomes > one.
I wasn't even so much commenting on gays with my first post either, but the idea of government getting out of marriages.
quote:
It can also be the most regressive.
It can, but it doesn't have to be.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:08 pm to BluegrassBelle
quote:
BluegrassBelle
"Christians didn't invent marriage. Why do they think they can define it."
Government shouldn't be defining marriage period. If a church chooses to marry a couple, or not marry a couple, then that is their belief and should be respected as separate from the government.
Although I agree, the problem is the churches are not the only ones marrying people. The courts are too.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:08 pm to Duke
quote:
I don't.
It's hard to argue against the value of a two parent home. Those communities with higher marriage rates also tend to be more affluent and the children have more successful outcomes. The government promoting marriage through tax policy and message is for the good of society IMO.
If you're concerned about the fate of the nuclear family, that ship has sailed. The nuclear family is already broken.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:09 pm to Alahunter
quote:
It's welfare for people who wish to be labeled married. It's unfair to single individuals to tax them at a higher rate.
Life isn't fair.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:10 pm to Duke
quote:
Sure the stats aren't fully known, but the current information we have suggests it will play out for gay couples as well. It's a fairly logical conclusion too
Where is this current information suggesting it?
quote:
Two incomes > one
So why the break. Tax them at a higher rate and help the single income person out with lower rates.
quote:
the idea of government getting out of marriages
Needs to happen and would solve most issues.
quote:
It can, but it doesn't have to be.
One can always wish. But in the real world, it happens. Quite a bit, in all types of taxes.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:11 pm to sorantable
Unless you get on the Gov't teat.
Posted on 4/22/14 at 3:12 pm to Alahunter
quote:
So why the break. Tax them at a higher rate and help the single income person out with lower rates.
Left wing nut
Page 2 of 15
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News