• 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
Don't you think that you are projecting your own biases?
The question to me has to do with why does the government care what your personal living arrangements are, or what your sexual persuasions are, and why should the government give out special benefits on the bases of those living arrangements/sexualities?
What possible concern does government have in this and why?
Perhaps it is only coming up now because it is so clear now how biased these government benefits are. The LGBT community is right-it is discriminatory to give these special benefits to some but simply giving them to a few percent more people doesn't make it less discriminatory. Many people today are single for life, by choice, by lack of opportunity, or by discriminatory laws that don't allow one to marry a sibling or other relative (platonically or not). Where do they go for relief from discrimination?

He's not calling for the end of marriage just of civil unions. This is a temper tantrum to stop gay marriage.

As a married person I'm sure he didn't just start realizing the host of benefits conferred to married couples over people that co-habitats. If someone has a view that the government should have nothing to do with marriage at all I don't agree but it's a valid point. Pulling the benefits away solely because you don't like a Supreme Court decision is petty.
 
Your grasp of basic logic continues to astound me. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying: single people should pay higher taxes in order to encourage them to get married.

Try not to swallow your tongue while composing your reply.

wtf? Now it's the govt job and motivation to encourage people to marry? That is WAY out of scope of the Const and the govt.

Screw that.

It should be encouraging people that cant afford kids...married or not...NOT to reproduce.

Edit: Sorry Korimyr. I normally agree with you and find you a very reasonable poster. The statement just irritated me as I do not, obviously, see that as any role the govt should play.
 
Sorry, an adult human being doesn't need an allowance, allowances are for children.

Yes, someone who left the job market and gets a divorce should have to get a job to support themselves, of course.

Allowance? I don't think so. What this would be is compensation to one party by another for an economic harm done to one because a decision that was jointly made that benefitted both.
 
Cant all that just be recorded in the courts, by magistrates, etc anyway? Stamped by a notary...boom! So noted. And now your kid can inherit your stuff, visit you in the hospital, be recognized legitimately in custody hearings, etc?

Sure it could but that still involves the government. And really isn't a whole lot different from what happens now.
 
Marriage is the foundation of civilized society and government has a compelling interest in encouraging it.

Bull. Marriage has nothing to do with the foundation of civilized society.
 
Allowance? I don't think so. What this would be is compensation to one party by another for an economic harm done to one because a decision that was jointly made that benefitted both.

Oh geez. There is no reason to pay her for staying home. If however you agreed to pay her to stay at home I suppose you have an obligation to do so.
 
Sure it could but that still involves the government. And really isn't a whole lot different from what happens now.

I know. But then everyone could record those things, and implement them, equally. Married under whatever definition or religion they chose, whatever their committment...or no committment except to the kids, polygamists, single people, whatever.
 
Your grasp of basic logic continues to astound me. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying: single people should pay higher taxes in order to encourage them to get married.

Try not to swallow your tongue while composing your reply.

So the government gets to steal more of my money because I didn't enter into a contract with them? That seems a bit ****ed up.
 
Actually, I've been saying this for years. Civil marriage is ridiculous and should have no place in society.

My reasoning is different though..... I'm a single guy, and I pay taxes. If I were a married guy, I would pay less taxes. That, to me, isn't fair... and for that reason and that reason alone, I don't believe the government (especially the IRS) should be involved in marriage

The civil institution of marriage is not only "tax breaks."
 
Oh geez. There is no reason to pay her for staying home. If however you agreed to pay her to stay at home I suppose you have an obligation to do so.

Hey you moved an inch. Half inch anyway. I'll call it a good day and retire from this discussion :)
 
Cant all that just be recorded in the courts, by magistrates, etc anyway? Stamped by a notary...boom! So noted. And now your kid can inherit your stuff, visit you in the hospital, be recognized legitimately in custody hearings, etc?

It is, via the marriage license or the birth certificate or the adoption record.
 
I have long questioned the need for the government to be involved in marriage at all. I would not object one bit if government were to step back and cease all involvement.

However, having said that, doing for this particular reason is just silly pandering, considering all the other allegedly non-Holy scenarios that have come to be accepted.
 
Your grasp of basic logic continues to astound me. Yes, that is exactly what I am saying: single people should pay higher taxes in order to encourage them to get married.

Try not to swallow your tongue while composing your reply.

That hardly seems fair
 
Allowance? I don't think so. What this would be is compensation to one party by another for an economic harm done to one because a decision that was jointly made that benefitted both.

So a woman is compensated for not working....welcome to 2015 lol
 
I still believe in child support. I don't believe in alimony. And Martin Luther was alive hundreds of years ago, times have clearly changed.

Alimony harkens back to a day when women couldn't work or take care of themselves. A divorced woman would move back in with her father. Today.... a woman is capable of taking care of herself just as a man is, so there is no reason for archaic and ancient civil marriage contracts

Peter: There is no alimony here in the Lone Star State.🆗
 
So a woman is compensated for not working....welcome to 2015 lol

Why is this so damnably hard to understand?

The woman is compensated because of lost economic opportunity because she left the workforce and worked in the home. In the NYC market a woman technologist making $100,000/yr can expect that salary to go up by 50%, at least, in 20 years. She leaves the workforce to raise kids, kids grow up and she and her husband get divorced. She is not getting a 150K job. She may not even be employable in her field. Hell she may wind up as a cashier someplace. That's due to a decision that was, presumably, jointly made by her and her husband. You don't believe her former husband owes her anything to make up in part for the money she cannot earn because she was out of the market raising their kids?

And I'd point out anyone who suggests raising kids and taking care of home is not "working" is naive at best. I assume you don't have kids so you may not actually realize this.
 
Why is this so damnably hard to understand?

The woman is compensated because of lost economic opportunity because she left the workforce and worked in the home. In the NYC market a woman technologist making $100,000/yr can expect that salary to go up by 50%, at least, in 20 years. She leaves the workforce to raise kids, kids grow up and she and her husband get divorced. She is not getting a 150K job. She may not even be employable in her field. Hell she may wind up as a cashier someplace. That's due to a decision that was, presumably, jointly made by her and her husband. You don't believe her former husband owes her anything to make up in part for the money she cannot earn because she was out of the market raising their kids?

And I'd point out anyone who suggests raising kids and taking care of home is not "working" is naive at best. I assume you don't have kids so you may not actually realize this.

Who else can you name that is compensated because of lost economic opportunity because they decided to leave the workforce?
 
So a woman is compensated for not working....welcome to 2015 lol

Not working? Caring for the home, children, shopping (yeah, you take a kid or 2 with you while you run all your errands and grocery shot), etc. is not working?

It's working more and harder than alot of middle management desk jockeys.
 
Why is this so damnably hard to understand?

The woman is compensated because of lost economic opportunity because she left the workforce and worked in the home. In the NYC market a woman technologist making $100,000/yr can expect that salary to go up by 50%, at least, in 20 years. She leaves the workforce to raise kids, kids grow up and she and her husband get divorced. She is not getting a 150K job. She may not even be employable in her field. Hell she may wind up as a cashier someplace. That's due to a decision that was, presumably, jointly made by her and her husband. You don't believe her former husband owes her anything to make up in part for the money she cannot earn because she was out of the market raising their kids?

And I'd point out anyone who suggests raising kids and taking care of home is not "working" is naive at best. I assume you don't have kids so you may not actually realize this.

That's ridiculous. Nobody forced her not to work. Plenty of women work and have kids, my mother did it, for example. That's why maternity leave exists.

The choice not to work is a CHOICE some women make as adults, which is fine, but nobody else is responsible for the choices she makes

It's not right that she chooses to stay home and not work, bangs the pool boy, and then gets paid for all her years of not working
 
Back
Top Bottom