• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republican Steve King wants an abolish civil marriage in the United States

should civil marriage be aboloshed in favor of holy matrimony only?

  • Yes, because it will stop gay marriage

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, because everybody in the US should be part of a religion

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, because most people in the US do not want there to be gay marriage

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't care, I am already married and I do not plan to re-marry

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I am unmarried and will never marry, I hate being shackled to some man/woman

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    35
At this rate, why not mention those things?

While it's fun to make fun of idiots that don't realize they are copying a trend that was started by prison bitches, it's far more fun to make fun of retarded hypocritical feminists.
 
Can you provide an example of a specific tax break that a married couple (the married couple being two people of course) gets that is not available to a single person?

For example the deduction per person for the 2015 taxable year was $6,300, for married filing jointly it's $12,600 (x2 for two people).


Deductions for dependent children of course don't matter because the same deduction is available whether you are single or married.


>>>>


How's that steady diet of government cheese working out for ya?

Singles should get the same tax treatment


The above was previously asked and you never did provide any examples.



>>>>
 
Nope I sure didn't, you're right


So let's have some specifics. What are these differences in tax treatment that are more than those reflecting that a married couple is two people and not one?


Annual deduction $6,300 single, $12,600 for married. Two people one deduction each.

Home Sale exemption $250,000 single, $500,000 for married. Two people getting $250,000 is $500,000. The same rate.

Estate taxes. The single person is dead. For a married couple the spouse gets to keep joint property. Ohhhh the horror of a family keeping it's own property. However once the spouse dies the estate is then subject to the same tax law so really it's just a deferral.




So come on, where are all these government taxes that a single person is hit with that a married person isn't that you keep complaining about. You know the ones directly related to being married and not contingent on (a) raising a child or (b) owning a home since you know the deductions are the same whether you are single or married.


>>>>
 
This is just political posturing, but those hyper partisan nut jobs that make meme's will be feeding from this for years.
 
Yes, angry over the defeat in the supreme court, some republican politicians have gone into crazy mode.

Representative Steve King says:

"So I'm calling upon the states, just abolish civil marriage, let's go back to holy matrimony the way it began, do that alone,". "In the next few days I'll be introducing legislation to do just that."


So what do we think? In a nation that is getting less religious, he wants to abolish the right of people to have a civil marriage purely because he wants to stop gays from marrying.

Here are a few problems with what he proposes (IMHO)

1. how is this going to play with the supreme court by discriminating against non-religious people who would be unable to marry anymore due to this fool's possible proposal

2. and this is a biggie some priests do marry gays and lesbians in a holy matrimony!!!!!!!!!!. So his big plan to make gay marriage impossible is in fact achieving nothing. He is just making a total ass of himself.

3. the republican party does at some time want another president from their party in the white house because attitudes like this will not go down well with the voters (who are largely in favor of gay marriage).

Steve King also said: "It's not the will of the people to have same sex marriage, now there's no point in having civil marriage in this country whatsoever,".

He does have internet right? He does know that the opinion polls show that a big majority of Americans support gay marriage? Or is he just totally out of touch with reality?

But here is the question, do you agree with republican Steve King, civil marriage has to be abolished in the US in favor of holy matrimony only?

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, that includes ANY religion, even if it acknowledges no Supreme Being. For Mr. King to have what he wants would require a constitutional convention. Then, perhaps, we might really discover what it is that the sovereign American people actually do want
 
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, that includes ANY religion, even if it acknowledges no Supreme Being. For Mr. King to have what he wants would require a constitutional convention. Then, perhaps, we might really discover what it is that the sovereign American people actually do want

I would assume that most people do not want what mister King wants to have happen.
 
Why? It was a CIVIL question.

I don't mind. It just took me a bit more time to think up the best way to ask it. I had to change it several times before I was happy.
 
There ya go.

Then what is the problem with those things? I'm really confused now. We have ways to set up relationships, via marriage licenses, adoption contracts/records, and birth certificates (and in some limited cases court paperwork), and other relationships stem from these papers. But I don't see what the issue is if you are saying we should have these but the government should stay out of these things. They are the ones that issue or approve these. You send the birth certificate information to the government (office of vital statistics) when your child is born. You go there to get a license, and either you or your officiant returns the license once it is signed and you get an official copy of either eventually (usually in the mail). That is it. The government then only uses the paperwork to check to ensure that you have the connections you claim to have via that official paperwork.
 
Tell me how a strong modern woman can sit here and say that women need men to pay them an allowance. If we're truly equal then a woman can work as easily as a man can. If she chooses not to or would rather stay home, then that's her choice, but have some pride and take ownership of that choice

Who said it had to be a woman who was the one to stay home, sacrificing good job experience so that someone was there to watch the children, take care of the house, while someone else worked to provide money for the family? Either spouse can get alimony. And either person would be sacrificing provable workforce experience, possibly an education in order to take care of the children, the household.
 
Who said it had to be a woman who was the one to stay home, sacrificing good job experience so that someone was there to watch the children, take care of the house, while someone else worked to provide money for the family? Either spouse can get alimony. And either person would be sacrificing provable workforce experience, possibly an education in order to take care of the children, the household.

The whole system was set up to baby women. Like child support laws it was only extended to shut men up. Of course, plenty of men are still opposed to both and want them to end.
 
The whole system was set up to baby women. Like child support laws it was only extended to shut men up. Of course, plenty of men are still opposed to both and want them to end.

It is still equal between men and women.

In the past, women could not hold most jobs and was expected to stay home and care for the children and her husband, so if a man left her, she was trapped working a limited number of professions, especially if she had no higher education or training. Women were getting screwed. Now that men are actually staying home as the homemakers and primarey caregivers of children as well, then alimony should apply in those situations too.
 
It is still equal between men and women.

In the past, women could not hold most jobs and was expected to stay home and care for the children and her husband, so if a man left her, she was trapped working a limited number of professions, especially if she had no higher education or training. Women were getting screwed. Now that men are actually staying home as the homemakers and primarey caregivers of children as well, then alimony should apply in those situations too.

Alimony should end. You should not be paid because you made a bad decision that you will pay for in the future. If men want to join "the don't work and screw my life over" club they can, but the system to support them needs to end.
 
well, as we've basically given up promoting nuclear families as benefiting society, the government might as well give up the whole marriage thing.
 
Alimony should end. You should not be paid because you made a bad decision that you will pay for in the future. If men want to join "the don't work and screw my life over" club they can, but the system to support them needs to end.

The decision is usually a joint decision, and not a "bad" decision at that time. It will likely become so scarce that it shouldn't matter, but it is stupid to claim that it is a bad decision on one person's side to stay home to take care of the kids, other spouse, but if the other spouse leaves and has to pay for that decision (that was likely jointly made) then they didn't also make a bad decision.
 
well, as we've basically given up promoting nuclear families as benefiting society, the government might as well give up the whole marriage thing.

Nuclear families have never been shown to be the only families that benefit society. It could easily be argued that extended families benefit society just as well, if not more, than nuclear families due to they usually involve multiple family members taking in other family members, who then don't cost society money to care for (or as much money to care for).
 
The decision is usually a joint decision, and not a "bad" decision at that time. It will likely become so scarce that it shouldn't matter, but it is stupid to claim that it is a bad decision on one person's side to stay home to take care of the kids, other spouse, but if the other spouse leaves and has to pay for that decision (that was likely jointly made) then they didn't also make a bad decision.

Prove it in court. It is a bad decision to stay at home and not work and it's proven by your own argument of women needing help because of the decision. If it was a wise decision they wouldn't have screwed their life over to the point where they need to pull the man along with them even after their marriage is over.
 
Prove it in court. It is a bad decision to stay at home and not work and it's proven by your own argument of women needing help because of the decision. If it was a wise decision they wouldn't have screwed their life over to the point where they need to pull the man along with them even after their marriage is over.

That is what is done. It is simply proven in court that they made the decision that one would stay home and care for the home and children, while the other worked for the money for the family. That decision then causes one to be at a disadvantage in the work market later if the marriage ends.

Alimony is not usually given today due to the fact that so few people are staying home now to care for their children without getting any life skills. I could almost certainly not get alimony, nor likely could my husband, because we both have job skills that can easily get either of us a job, despite both spending some time out of the work force to care for the children at different times in our relationship.
 
That is what is done. It is simply proven in court that they made the decision that one would stay home and care for the home and children, while the other worked for the money for the family. That decision then causes one to be at a disadvantage in the work market later if the marriage ends.

How do you prove that the man agreed to the woman staying at home? If the man says he did not, exactly what do you have to say he did? Her word? I can't see how you have anything else.
 
How do you prove that the man agreed to the woman staying at home? If the man says he did not, exactly what do you have to say he did? Her word? I can't see how you have anything else.

If he stayed with her, despite her not having a job, then he would have to show that he didn't agree to the decision, and that she wasn't making any sacrifices in doing what she did. Why stay with her if you don't think it is okay for her to stay home with the children, caring for the house?
 
If he stayed with her, despite her not having a job, then he would have to show that he didn't agree to the decision, and that she wasn't making any sacrifices in doing what she did. Why stay with her if you don't think it is okay for her to stay home with the children, caring for the house?

So the man is supposed to get a divorce or something when she decides to stay at home if he doesn't agree? That is a reasonable standard to you? I don't see how the woman staying at home is grounds to divorce her. lol.
 
So the man is supposed to get a divorce or something when she decides to stay at home if he doesn't agree? That is a reasonable standard to you? I don't see how the woman staying at home is grounds to divorce her. lol.

If he would rather she not stay home, then why would he stay with her if she was not going to agree to such a big decision? Did they not discuss this stuff prior to getting married?

Plus, it has to be a relatively significant difference in income to end up in alimony, as well as having little to no relevant job skills. It takes longer than a year or two to reach this point in marriage (unless they started out with a significant difference, which should always be taken into consideration by the person making a whole helluva lot more than the other. Plus, they take into consideration a lot of things, including past jobs that have been held (since those could be relevant job skills), education, and any potential connections available to them. If the person entitled to alimony gets remarried, they lose the alimony.
 
If he would rather she not stay home, then why would he stay with her if she was not going to agree to such a big decision? Did they not discuss this stuff prior to getting married?

I don't think this is something most people would consider grounds for divorce. It seems a bit fast to the trigger to call it grounds for divorce, imho.
 
I don't think this is something most people would consider grounds for divorce. It seems a bit fast to the trigger to call it grounds for divorce, imho.

Then why would they not take such things into consideration before they got married? If they didn't take considerations about their future spouse into mind then, before the marriage, such as what job skills, education, and whether they have a job or not before they got married, then isn't that a bad decision on their part?
 
Back
Top Bottom