OT: Gay Marriage

[Arraya]

[quote=Rich Toscano]Guys, “NewtGingrichToSanDiego” is not being serious. It’s the alter-ego of another poster who is just satirizing everyone’s favorite troll, NSD.

Regards,
Death From Above[/quote]

You never know. He could have been a flow over from here.

http://rr-bb.com/showthread.php?530-Rapture-Ready-Message-Board-Mission-Statement

Yes, they are serious…

[Fletch]

It sounds like everyone here draws a distinction between civil and religious marriage and allows that churches can define marriage however they choose (even if one finds their criteria repugnant.)

Further, most here seem to be of the opinion that civil marriage is a right and as such, the government should not preferentially grant this right to some groups over others.

The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.

So my question is: Is this incentivizing of child rearing unnecessary and/or immoral? If no such incentive exists, then should there even be a legal recognition of any marriage (what I’ll call the “tg option”.)

[Fletch]

It sounds like everyone here draws a distinction between civil and religious marriage and allows that churches can define marriage however they choose (even if one finds their criteria repugnant.)

Further, most here seem to be of the opinion that civil marriage is a right and as such, the government should not preferentially grant this right to some groups over others.

The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.

So my question is: Is this incentivizing of child rearing unnecessary and/or immoral? If no such incentive exists, then should there even be a legal recognition of any marriage (what I’ll call the “tg option”.)

[Fletch]

It sounds like everyone here draws a distinction between civil and religious marriage and allows that churches can define marriage however they choose (even if one finds their criteria repugnant.)

Further, most here seem to be of the opinion that civil marriage is a right and as such, the government should not preferentially grant this right to some groups over others.

The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.

So my question is: Is this incentivizing of child rearing unnecessary and/or immoral? If no such incentive exists, then should there even be a legal recognition of any marriage (what I’ll call the “tg option”.)

[Fletch]

It sounds like everyone here draws a distinction between civil and religious marriage and allows that churches can define marriage however they choose (even if one finds their criteria repugnant.)

Further, most here seem to be of the opinion that civil marriage is a right and as such, the government should not preferentially grant this right to some groups over others.

The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.

So my question is: Is this incentivizing of child rearing unnecessary and/or immoral? If no such incentive exists, then should there even be a legal recognition of any marriage (what I’ll call the “tg option”.)

[Fletch]

It sounds like everyone here draws a distinction between civil and religious marriage and allows that churches can define marriage however they choose (even if one finds their criteria repugnant.)

Further, most here seem to be of the opinion that civil marriage is a right and as such, the government should not preferentially grant this right to some groups over others.

The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.

So my question is: Is this incentivizing of child rearing unnecessary and/or immoral? If no such incentive exists, then should there even be a legal recognition of any marriage (what I’ll call the “tg option”.)

[briansd1]

[quote=Fletch]It sounds like everyone here draws a distinction between civil and religious marriage and allows that churches can define marriage however they choose (even if one finds their criteria repugnant.)[/quote]

I don’t.

I agree with UCGal, if you want to be legally married, go the city hall or the county recorder. In my opinion, the government should no vest any power of marriage unto the clergy.

The analogy to closing on a house and recording that purchase with the County is right on.

[briansd1]

[quote=Fletch]It sounds like everyone here draws a distinction between civil and religious marriage and allows that churches can define marriage however they choose (even if one finds their criteria repugnant.)[/quote]

I don’t.

I agree with UCGal, if you want to be legally married, go the city hall or the county recorder. In my opinion, the government should no vest any power of marriage unto the clergy.

The analogy to closing on a house and recording that purchase with the County is right on.

[briansd1]

[quote=Fletch]It sounds like everyone here draws a distinction between civil and religious marriage and allows that churches can define marriage however they choose (even if one finds their criteria repugnant.)[/quote]

I don’t.

I agree with UCGal, if you want to be legally married, go the city hall or the county recorder. In my opinion, the government should no vest any power of marriage unto the clergy.

The analogy to closing on a house and recording that purchase with the County is right on.

[briansd1]

[quote=Fletch]It sounds like everyone here draws a distinction between civil and religious marriage and allows that churches can define marriage however they choose (even if one finds their criteria repugnant.)[/quote]

I don’t.

I agree with UCGal, if you want to be legally married, go the city hall or the county recorder. In my opinion, the government should no vest any power of marriage unto the clergy.

The analogy to closing on a house and recording that purchase with the County is right on.

[briansd1]

[quote=Fletch]It sounds like everyone here draws a distinction between civil and religious marriage and allows that churches can define marriage however they choose (even if one finds their criteria repugnant.)[/quote]

I don’t.

I agree with UCGal, if you want to be legally married, go the city hall or the county recorder. In my opinion, the government should no vest any power of marriage unto the clergy.

The analogy to closing on a house and recording that purchase with the County is right on.

[briansd1]

[quote=Fletch]

The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.[/quote]

That is not true.

Marriage is a carry over from the past, as an estate planning tool.

People had many mistresses and many children. But under feudal laws, only the legitimate issue could inherit property.

In other societies, such a China, people had many wives and the father would choose whom of his children would inherit.

Marriage is now obsolete in a modern society, so I do support the “TG option”.

But still, if people want to get married, let them be.

[briansd1]

[quote=Fletch]

The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.[/quote]

That is not true.

Marriage is a carry over from the past, as an estate planning tool.

People had many mistresses and many children. But under feudal laws, only the legitimate issue could inherit property.

In other societies, such a China, people had many wives and the father would choose whom of his children would inherit.

Marriage is now obsolete in a modern society, so I do support the “TG option”.

But still, if people want to get married, let them be.

[briansd1]

[quote=Fletch]

The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.[/quote]

That is not true.

Marriage is a carry over from the past, as an estate planning tool.

People had many mistresses and many children. But under feudal laws, only the legitimate issue could inherit property.

In other societies, such a China, people had many wives and the father would choose whom of his children would inherit.

Marriage is now obsolete in a modern society, so I do support the “TG option”.

But still, if people want to get married, let them be.

[briansd1]

[quote=Fletch]

The government affords tax advantages to marriage for one reason: to incentivize the raising of children in stable homes. The idea being that these children will grow into consumers and workers, both of which are essential for a growing economy. It was an acknowledgment of what Piggs have said repeatedly: raising kids is difficult and costly.[/quote]

That is not true.

Marriage is a carry over from the past, as an estate planning tool.

People had many mistresses and many children. But under feudal laws, only the legitimate issue could inherit property.

In other societies, such a China, people had many wives and the father would choose whom of his children would inherit.

Marriage is now obsolete in a modern society, so I do support the “TG option”.

But still, if people want to get married, let them be.

[Author]

Posts