Maybe this highlights a good reason why government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all.
And that reason would be what?
likwidshoe - 01:08pm on 08/09/2005
In America, have male and females gotten married just for the tax benefits?
Dave - 01:08pm on 08/09/2005
Maybe this highlights a good reason why government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all.
Rob - 01:08pm on 08/09/2005
“There are significant tax implications that we don’t think the government has thought through,” Pinn said.
Duh! Gay marriage activists have only been shouting it from the rooftops . . .
moderninstances - 02:08pm on 08/09/2005
No, not a ::coughAnna Nicole Smithcough:: SINGLE marriage in Ameica ::coughAnna Nicole Smithcough:: has been done for finacial ::coughAnna Nicole Smithcough:: gain…
Sorry, you must excuse my summer cold…
Anyway, I don’t think this is the best arguement against Same sex marriage because of the obvious abuses taken place already.
Maybe this highlights a good reason why government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all.
If we moved to a tax system that got rid of deductions and other incentived, I would tend to agree with you. As long as we have a tax system that is set up to promote certain social behavior, no way.
Sphagnum - 02:08pm on 08/09/2005
Follow the money. It will lead you to the one true revelation( government should not be involved in your personal OR business life). Now, was that not painless???
2Hotel9 - 03:08pm on 08/09/2005
This does a good job of showing how the SSM debate never was about “equality”. Remember when Dan Savage (the gay sex columnist) married a lesbian, in a simiar act of protest? Thereby proving that marriage was equal—even for “gay people”—before SSM became law, just as these guys are showing that marriage is STILL equal, even after SSM.
It’s not about equality, it never was—it’s just a simple lowering of standards.
Marty - 03:08pm on 08/09/2005
If you need to actually think up an objection to gay marriage, maybe you should question whether your initial objection to it is rational.
If you’re referring to my comments, that’s not at all what i said. I was referring to which strategy is best at attacking the issue. In other words, which political strategy is best to win hearts and minds on my side.
And let me take this opportunity to point out that rewarding individuals for certain social behaviors is an inappropriate function of the government.
Everyone here knows that I agree with this statement, but I quote you to ask you if you agree with my sentiment that as long as we have this type of tax system (hopefully not TOO much longer), marriage should most certainly be “promoted” via deductions and the like?
Sphagnum - 03:08pm on 08/09/2005
If you need to actually think up an objection to gay marriage, maybe you should question whether your initial objection to it is rational.
The whole “people will abuse it” argument doesn’t fly. What is to prevent people of the opposite gender from “abusing” it? I actually know two opposite gender homosexuals who got married.
And let me take this opportunity to point out that rewarding individuals for certain social behaviors is an inappropriate function of the government. “Deductions” and, well, the entire idea of a progressive income tax that rewards low-earners by reducing their rates and punishes high-earners by raising their rate are both ways of giving the government control over people’s behavior. If you oppose this, it’s time to consider the FairTax.
Mark J - 03:08pm on 08/09/2005
And let me take this opportunity to point out that rewarding individuals for certain social behaviors is an inappropriate function of the government.
May i assume that you guys also oppose the G.I. Bill, Pell Grants, and time-off for good behavior, among many other government incentives designed to reward/encourage proper social behaviors?
Maybe this highlights a good reason why government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all.
And that reason would be what?
In America, have male and females gotten married just for the tax benefits?
Maybe this highlights a good reason why government shouldn’t be in the marriage business at all.
Duh! Gay marriage activists have only been shouting it from the rooftops . . .
No, not a ::coughAnna Nicole Smithcough:: SINGLE marriage in Ameica ::coughAnna Nicole Smithcough:: has been done for finacial ::coughAnna Nicole Smithcough:: gain…
Sorry, you must excuse my summer cold…
Anyway, I don’t think this is the best arguement against Same sex marriage because of the obvious abuses taken place already.
If we moved to a tax system that got rid of deductions and other incentived, I would tend to agree with you. As long as we have a tax system that is set up to promote certain social behavior, no way.
Follow the money. It will lead you to the one true revelation( government should not be involved in your personal OR business life). Now, was that not painless???
This does a good job of showing how the SSM debate never was about “equality”. Remember when Dan Savage (the gay sex columnist) married a lesbian, in a simiar act of protest? Thereby proving that marriage was equal—even for “gay people”—before SSM became law, just as these guys are showing that marriage is STILL equal, even after SSM.
It’s not about equality, it never was—it’s just a simple lowering of standards.
If you’re referring to my comments, that’s not at all what i said. I was referring to which strategy is best at attacking the issue. In other words, which political strategy is best to win hearts and minds on my side.
Everyone here knows that I agree with this statement, but I quote you to ask you if you agree with my sentiment that as long as we have this type of tax system (hopefully not TOO much longer), marriage should most certainly be “promoted” via deductions and the like?
If you need to actually think up an objection to gay marriage, maybe you should question whether your initial objection to it is rational.
The whole “people will abuse it” argument doesn’t fly. What is to prevent people of the opposite gender from “abusing” it? I actually know two opposite gender homosexuals who got married.
And let me take this opportunity to point out that rewarding individuals for certain social behaviors is an inappropriate function of the government. “Deductions” and, well, the entire idea of a progressive income tax that rewards low-earners by reducing their rates and punishes high-earners by raising their rate are both ways of giving the government control over people’s behavior. If you oppose this, it’s time to consider the FairTax.
And let me take this opportunity to point out that rewarding individuals for certain social behaviors is an inappropriate function of the government.
May i assume that you guys also oppose the G.I. Bill, Pell Grants, and time-off for good behavior, among many other government incentives designed to reward/encourage proper social behaviors?