Quote:
Originally Posted by Navy Pride  OK lets go there one more time................We have a constitution with the 14th amendment and a clause called the equal protection clause which the left cites to favor gay marriage..............Ok if gays can marry then sounder he same amendment so can Polygamists and other groups identified by their sexual preference..........
If they can marry then so can family members, strictly for platonic reasons (No Sex Involved) for the benefits Marriage provides...........I want to marry my sister, my aunt, etc.........Do you have any idea the cost involved in taxes if you allowed anyone to marry anyone...........
You see by allowing gays to marry you open up Pandora's box........
This does not even take in consideration the religious objections against gay marriage............
Its easy to sit back and say let gays marry but when you actually look at what is involved it is no that simple.............. |
I personally don't have a problem with any of this and would fight for anyone who wanted to get married. I consider marriage between two people in love that intend to have sex with only each other and spend the rest of their lives together but others have a different view of marriage.
Do you not think that there are couples out there now who have only gotten married because they want the marriage benefits and either don't have sex or consider sex a bonus?
How about couples who don't consider sex to be a part of the intimacy of marriage so they make agreements that either or both of them can have sex with other people outside of the marriage? (Hint: think swingers)
These things may not be what you, I, or many others consider a part of a healthy marriage but it might very well work for some people. There are couples who don't plan on having children but still want to get married.
There are a couple of problems with your examples however. I've mentioned some before in other threads but here they are again. As far as polygamy goes, I'm totally for it as long as all parties agree to be married to the group and paperwork is drawn up to designate certain legal aspects that might lead to a dispute in the case of a death or if one person wanted to divorce from the others. This could get really complicated and would probably require more than just a marriage license that would be required for just two people getting married.
As far as the family marriage, as long as no sex was involved I don't have a problem with it, but it really wouldn't be necessary sense most family members have many of the rights already that are bestowed to a spouse and one of the biggest tax benefits from marriage is given to you by being able to claim head of household which comes from just being able to claim someone else as your dependent. There may be a few benefits for family members to marry each other without having sex but I doubt they would really be worth giving up marrying someone you actually want to have an intimate relationship with even if just until you could get a divorce, which would cost money. Not to mention many people look forward to freedom from their families with marriage. And it is already generally accepted that a person loves their family, so there is no need for an intra-family marriage to show that.
If the major reason people got married was for the tax benefits and other benefits, then many more people would be married anyway. I would say the vast majority of people who are married or want to get married do so because they are in love and consider marriage a ceremony they want to perform to show others their love. The legal part is done mostly because that is what you are supposed to do and why not take the offered benefits.
One way to look at is if you were getting a job you absolutely wanted to do and they offered you more money and/or benefits than you had planned on accepting the job for, would you not still take those extras even if you were willing to work there for less? I know I would.
And I wonder, just how many other groups of people that can't get legally married to who they want are going to bring their cases up when gays are allowed to marry? And do you really believe that it is these other groups that will cause the tax burden on all of us or is it the gay couples that will cause it? So maybe if the tax incentive is meant to encourage couples to procreate and/or raise children, we shouldn't base it on marriage but rather on intent and ability to procreate and/or raise children.
Re: Counties to Supreme Court on "Gay" Marriage: Drop Dead 
Linear Mode
Main
Extras
