Religon and the World Around It

Many good points

Especially about the tax break for marriage, there really isn’t one exactly, however when your married with only one person working AND have kids, that’s where the tax breaks are. And even then its still “cheaper” to NOT have kids! But society assumes that for society to keep functioning, it needs a steady supply of humans, therefore relationships that promote raising kids (not just breading them) are given a higher civic value than other relationships. (this is simplification of course, but it is still true)

You may have missed my earlier point about there being many wonderful relationships that are worthy of recognition, however society places a greater civic value on those relationships that are of greater value to the society as a whole. Other great and important relationships, such as best life long friends, a teacher and a student, are also hampered by the same civic limitations that you prescribe to gay couples. A properly structured “will” SHOULD be air tight. If it isn’t, than that issue can be addressed through modifying laws around estates, there really is no connection between estate law and civil marriage law, OTHER than society currently recognizes that a spouse has a greater claim on that estate than others, however this too is subject to law and can be completely negated. So there is no real need for gay marriage to solve the perceived gay estate issue.

Again, I restate the simple proposition that it is BETTER for society to promote stable marriage between a man and a woman. This does not mean it should legislate AGAINST other relationships; rather we simply accord the status of civil marriage, along with its few privileges to those relationships that, in general, will help the society to survive and thrive. Marriage between a male and female is the GREATEST force driving our society, economy, technology, political system, etc. You may not see it from you current point of view, however, a dispassionate approach will surely lead you to a similar conclusion.

Thanks
Wheatgrinder

While I can see where you're going on some of your points I disagree here. I'm talking family units and not these relationships. The two do not equate.

Also as far as marriage being a special right I'm not so sure I agree there either. Speaking in Religous terms maybe but to gain equal civil rights I dont think so... or if so its true for all, not some.




So then are you saying you are for gay persons adopting? Thats not "legal" some places too, not to mention couples where one gives birth and the second parent wants to adopt.. what about that?

If you are a man and woman and "oops!" you have a kid the kid is automatically protected by laws. In a same sex (Im talking females here obviously) couple makes a baby (there are many methods to make it happen) then the parents have to pay thousands, hire an atty.. go to therapy sessions, get TB tests, have in home child protection meetings and go to court for the kid to legally have two parents. All this and the current administation wants to overturn these second parent adoptions. Who does that serve?

A lot of the things I mentioned in my prior post and this stuff get me feeling prety unhappy. I think the current state of double standards is nuts and doesnt serve community. Community isnt just people raising kids and more people doesnt serve society. There's only so much food and land to go around.

There was a time when it was good to populate and having 10 kids meant half may grow to adulthood but those days are over. I respectfully submit that its time for some fresh thinking.

Same here! *I* thought this thread had died a month ago when I made the mistake of commenting on all the bad grammar and spelling I was seeing. I've gone back and tried to read everything that has happened since until my eyes glazed over, and now that I feel like I have spent an hour with a tax attorney who is explaining to me how I really *DO* owe the government $80,000, I'll add the following 2 cents which will no doubt be taken as an insult to someone, if not everyone:

This is a debate that would be great to have in-world, where we can all let our hair down and (promising not to launch script attacks at one another) air our differences of opinion etc. While I have *NO* hesitation at arguing at length any subject in forums such as this, it seems a terrible waste to be doing it in this stodgy forum where I am likely to not only criticize other people typos and misspellings, but, even worse, commit them myself. Much better to have an in-world debate where we can say "hey doodz" and stuff like that don't ya think?

Until that happens though, I have to stand up for a group not so far represented here, and that is the non-gay, non-married people who say a pox on both your houses. I don't believe in special treatment for *ANYONE*, be they gay, straight, young, old, invalid, fat, ugly, or dyslecix.

If all such special treatment were ended tomorrow would we still need to have this debate? If the concept of marriage were ONLY a religious ceremony and involved no tax, ownership, inheritance, power of attorney, or other special significance, would it still be a topic of such heated debate? On the other hand if we all agree that such special treatment were a good thing, then should such special treatment be extended to left handed people? The terminally freckled? B&D enthusiasts? golfers? Has not the civil rights movement, the feminist movement, the changes in our treatment of immigrants taught us anything? Namely that individuals should be treated as such an NOT as a part of some group whether they associate with that group voluntarily or not?

Do married people get a tax break or a marriage penalty? I've long ago lost track and failed to care a whole lot. Not one person who has posted here (according to my glassy eyed reading) has suggested that we all be treated the same. At each point of departure is yet another plea for special treatment by this group or that. What kind of card game guarantees that each player will get four aces? And what would be the point of playing?

Why have a debate about whether a gay couple can have one partners work-provided medical insurance cover the other when the real debate should be if work-provided medical coverage makes sense at all?! Can we agree that it is *EVERYONES* responsibility to have a will in place at all times? And if they don't, the money should all go to ME!! That makes as much sense as anything else I've heard. How about it goes to the state, or charity? Tough luck for those that don't plan for the most inevitable event in life.

Every time I see these debates it's always the same, lets do what's best for ME, or whatever group of people I associate myself with. I hope we don't ever evolve to a system where one group of people shut everyone else off from the money tree that we all seem to think we are living under. As an alternative I'd like to suggest that everyone start thinking outside the box of "freebies" and start dealing with each other as individuals, and realize that none of the "benefits" we all take for granted come at zero cost.

As usual my 2 cents turned into $2.

Well, Mac, you make a lot of good comments. There are a lot of straights, gays and gay couples even who loathe the idea of being legally married. I've always felt that the tax benefits of being married are just wrong unless you are raising children. People with kids tend to need need help no matter how high their income is. After the third one, though I'd make it financially unrewarding to have any more.

Hey thanks for the comments.

Great posts and many coherent ideas! Of course Iv something to add

My premise is simple, but I suppose should have established a few basic concepts.

1.) Government operates INSIDE a society, its laws and functions are designed to uphold that society.

2.) Government uses various means to “encourage” behaviors that are beneficial to the society in which the government operates. Among these are “tax” breaks, probate law, estate access, legal protection, etc.

3.) Government uses various means to “discourage” behaviors that are not beneficial to that society. Among these are: Jail, tax “penalties” etc…

4.) And finally; common sense tells us that: If government encourages a behavior there will be an increase in that behavior.

See: fatherless families and welfare as an example:


It is a simplification to say that society needs more people, for example American society is NOT improved by the addition of 300,000 third world refugees who are not able to provide any “utility” to the society, and simply consume resources. (There may be other benefits, however one must consider if these benefits are worth the cost.) Society benefits most from people who are trying to achieve some moderate standard of living. To see this truth you only need to ask your self: “why” do “most” people go to work everyday?
People work so they can achieve. People who are married and have kids “generally” are driven to achieve higher as it takes more resources to raise several people to a specific standard of living than it takes to raise one person. Simply look at all the major industries, automobile, construction, clothing retail. All of these derive “most” of there momentum from the need for families to acquire goods to reach a specific standard of living. Who is marketed more during Christmas time? Singles, committed couples, teacher/students? The answer is none of those, but rather families with kids. Which is used as a major economic indicator: is it “unmarried couples renting apartments”, or is it the “construction of new single family homes?” You are not paying attention if you do not see that the “raising” of children, in families is the SINGEL largest motivating factor in our society. This is why society must “encourage” this behavior. It is not necessary to “discourage” other modes of living to do so.

People keep hanging this on “sex” by saying “gay” marriage. Is a gay relationship any nobler than two widows who chose to live the last 10 years of their lives together? Or a best friends who simply chose to be room mates? Of course not, these relationships are as special as any other. Gay relationships are no nobler than any other relationship INCLUDING heterosexual marriage, however as I have stated previously, of all the “special” relationships that humans have, the relationship that has had the greatest positive impact on society is that of married (male / female) couples. To state otherwise is illogical. Thusly, it is government’s responsibility to encourage male \ female marriage (contractually speaking) for the good of ALL. All people benefit from a thriving society. If probate laws are broken, then they must be fixed. Other laws must be repaired to assure equality to ALL.

I agree that the specifics of “marriage” tax situation is not correct, matter of fact THE entire tax system is busted…

Anyone want the last word?

Thanks
Wheatgrinder

I,m nut sure how it is in all the other states, But in Wisconsin, if you are single and in a hetero-relationship, and have a child. The state makes it obvious that that is frowned upon. The father is treated like garbage. He has no rights in reality. He has to go to court, file papers, fight the legal system. And oh gosh if that relationship fails and the child is born, the father is treated even worse.

In Wisconsin, the father has no rights to the child as far as placement, and visitation. They(the state) say "yes they do" but, you have so much red tape and legal action to go through. The way the laws here are written is in a nut shell this:

The mother has this "god givin" right to be the sole provider and custody of the child. The father has none. For the father to have anything in so far as rights of any kind, he must go to court and maybe if he is lucky gets visitation set in legal form after oh say 6 months. I'm sorry but babies grow alot in 6 months, and yet they (the state) complains that there isn't enough father involvement. WTH its their damn laws that start the garbage they are complaining about.

But I forget, they got to make something bad happen so they can get their federal grants to fund all these programs so they can filter this "program" money to other things that the feds won't pay for. But that is another topic all in itself.

Long story short I tend to agree that at least this state tends to favor married couples. I don't know of any bi/gay couples in this state that have had legal issues or at least that were made well known. So I can't accuratly say they only favor hetero-marriages. But I havn't seen or heard of Gay marriages here so go figure.

Btw, This post is based on first hand experience by me. A dedicated and willing father who has tons of road bloacks in front of him. At least I am somewhat lucky and his mother doesn't stop me from seeing him at her home but no where else.

As individuals we are but dust apon the universe,a s a species we are not much better. To what end do we work. None, there is no end but death that we can comprehend. Perhaps there is no end, just continuation, but even that is an end of sorts. If there is a purpose (which I do not believe) then it must be beyond our comprehension, so we make our own purposes. We convince ourselves that our petty quests are important, and to us they are, but not to the universe.

The universe doesn't care whether or not we live or die, whether the Isrealites or Palestinians win. Or perhaps it does. perhaps an individual can change the universe, but I don't think we are that important. We believe in our own importance to protect us from the uncaring universe. Even I in saying this think that maybe I am wrong and there is something special about me. But I don't think so. I am just another individual.

"I am but a speck, apon the face of a God, in which I don't even believe."