• 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
The funny thing is that the federal government is not going to abolish legal marriage any time in the near future. So it would have to be something done by the states. This would then lead likely to the federal government setting up a federal marriage license in order to recognize legal spouses as such (sort of like they did/proposed for the married same sex couples in the military). This then basically takes marriage away from the states, at least to a degree, putting more power in federal hands.
 
And those benefits are based on taking on a responsibility for someone else. The marriage itself just establishes a legal relationship. The legal relationship is what comes with the benefits, just as being someone's child, particularly of a certain age, comes with benefits.
So you would be in favor of abolishing those laws against blood relatives marrying? Should siblings be allowed to marry as well as a parent and an adult child who care for each other?
 
Tax brackets often result in marriage penalty, my wife and I normally pay higher taxes than either of us pay singly.

Head of Household is a tax filing status for - you got it - a single person resulting in lower taxes.


The rest recognize the family relationship and and allow people to keep more of their own property. Oh the horror that American's keep their own property.


>>>>
Well, everytime I computed my taxes as 2 singles, single and HoH, or married the total tax was lowest for filing married. If both people in the marriage have the same income, perhaps there is no marriage benefit. Hard to believe that there is a married penalty but, yeah, a complex tax code could result in such a case. Perhaps for big earners.
https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-too...-Advantages-of-Getting-Married-/INF17870.html
 
So you would be in favor of abolishing those laws against blood relatives marrying? Should siblings be allowed to marry as well as a parent and an adult child who care for each other?

Why would they need to? I actually don't agree with that. I think if they want something like what spouses get, they should simply petition the government for that in their legal relationships, to gain access to those types of things via their relationships.
 
Why would they need to? I actually don't agree with that. I think if they want something like what spouses get, they should simply petition the government for that in their legal relationships, to gain access to those types of things via their relationships.
Are you being consistent? Our dialogue seem to start when I wrote that marriage consists of giving special government benefits to people who follow the religious idea that sex and procreation is so sacred that it should only be done by two people in a long term loving relationship. And extending those benefits to SS couples doesn't solve the inequality of not giving government special marriage benefits to polygamists, polyandrists, asexuals, nonsexuals, people who are unable to find a partner, as well as people who believe that sex can be done on a short term revolving basis and who therefore see no reason to marry. And all these people are denied "marriage equality". You responded with:
You don't have to have sex to get married. Marriage is about establishing a legal kinship, not sex.

Those that aren't married yet are free to get married if they want the benefits of marriage, of the kinship established by marriage. Just like if you want the benefits established by any other contract with another person.

So, why force anyone who wants those marriage benefts related to legal kinship to jump through extra hoops that marriage provides much more easily? Or, why is it unequal to deny marriage benefits to same sex couples but not to those other people. Same sex people can also jump through extra hoops and get the legal kinship issues solved. Siblings are not allowed to marry each other.
 
Are you being consistent? Our dialogue seem to start when I wrote that marriage consists of giving special government benefits to people who follow the religious idea that sex and procreation is so sacred that it should only be done by two people in a long term loving relationship. And extending those benefits to SS couples doesn't solve the inequality of not giving government special marriage benefits to polygamists, polyandrists, asexuals, nonsexuals, people who are unable to find a partner, as well as people who believe that sex can be done on a short term revolving basis and who therefore see no reason to marry. And all these people are denied "marriage equality". You responded with:

So, why force anyone who wants those marriage benefts related to legal kinship to jump through extra hoops that marriage provides much more easily? Or, why is it unequal to deny marriage benefits to same sex couples but not to those other people. Same sex people can also jump through extra hoops and get the legal kinship issues solved. Siblings are not allowed to marry each other.

It is a specific type of legal kinship being established. Siblings already have a legal kinship. If they need a different relationship, that doesn't involve sex then it shouldn't be marriage because it still wouldn't be the type of relationship spouses have, something identified by several SCOTUS rulings as being a very specific (even if not well defined) type of relationship. It was never meant to just be something to bestow benefits on people (hence why we investigate marriage fraud).
 
Back
Top Bottom