- Joined
- Jan 12, 2010
- Messages
- 35,183
- Reaction score
- 44,146
- Location
- Somewhere in Babylon...
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Oh, I know you luuuuuvvvv you some government. LOL
I always thought we were north of Mexico.
Mexico shouldn't be an example of anything. It is a million-time loser of a country. They treat their people like animals.
So what? Even if we did start that way, nothing says we cant evolve beyond that point.Judao-Christian beliefs did, however, play a HUGE role in the writing of both the Declaration and the Constitution.
Mexico shouldn't be an example of anything. It is a million-time loser of a country. They treat their people like animals.
Oh, I know you luuuuuvvvv you some government. LOL
Appeal to populism doesn't count for valid argument. It wasn't Judao-Chirstian beliefs, only maybe 30% of the 10 Commandments made it into actual law. The fact remains that you cannot subject me to the rules of your god and use government force to enforce that subjugation. The Marriage License is a contract, plain and simple. The individual has right to contract. That's it.
Who would that be? The ones looking for the right to contract to be acknowledged or those looking to use government force to enforce their preconceived notions of what "marriage" is?
Marriage is a contract to you because you don't believe in a Christian God.
It is not a contract; in fact, it's anything but. It's a life-long commitment made before God, in a church, in front of the people that mean the most to you. Government wasn't and isn't any part of my marriage to my wife, and it never will be.
With religion, the concept of marriage never would have surfaced. We'd be running around screwing everybody and procreating at will. A man might have 10 kids on the way simulataneously with 10 different women, and that would be normal.
Christianity (and other religions) scoff at such a behavior, and if you believe in the Bible, it describes what and how procreation is supposed to occur, within the framework of marriage.
Without that, "marriage" would have never been invented in the first place. I mean, with no boundaries, what's the fun of marriage?
"Contract". Wow, how romantic.
I've never known anyone looking to enter a "contract of marriage" before.
Marriage is a contract to you because you don't believe in a Christian God.
It is not a contract; in fact, it's anything but. It's a life-long commitment made before God, in a church, in front of the people that mean the most to you. Government wasn't and isn't any part of my marriage to my wife, and it never will be.
With religion, the concept of marriage never would have surfaced. We'd be running around screwing everybody and procreating at will. A man might have 10 kids on the way simulataneously with 10 different women, and that would be normal.
Christianity (and other religions) scoff at such a behavior, and if you believe in the Bible, it describes what and how procreation is supposed to occur, within the framework of marriage.
Without that, "marriage" would have never been invented in the first place. I mean, with no boundaries, what's the fun of marriage?
"Contract". Wow, how romantic.
I've never known anyone looking to enter a "contract of marriage" before.
And yet almost every one who gets married in this country do enter into that contract.
Edit to add: and they happily accept the benefits that come from entering that contract.
Yeah, the marriage tax penalty is awesome!
We're not talking about how the church views it, get that through your dogmatic viewpoints head.
We're talking about how a secular government who is suppose to treat all people fairly should view marriage, and that, it is equal for all.
It's not a penalty to most.
It's not a penalty to most.
You mean the same government that taxes me at a higher rate than my neighbor. The same government that provides additional advantages to people of one color versus another? The same government that is going to tax me again on the same money they've already taxed me on when I die?
Liberals preach fairness, fairness, fairness......except when it's inconvenient.
Another straw man.
Taxes have nothing to do with civil rights. Try again.
Another straw man.
Taxes have nothing to do with civil rights. Try again.
Of course they don't. That's too inconvenient and hypocritical for the liberal platform to digest.
It's a penalty to everyone. My wife's first dollar she makes in January is taxed at 31 percent because her income is added to mine, not treated seperately for a seperate person like if we were single. If we'd just divorce, she get the benefit of the lower tax brackets on her early earnings like everyone else.
The marriage penalty still exists for some couples depending on their tax bracket.
Majority of the married couples prefer to file their tax returns jointly. This is because filing tax returns jointly creates a low tax liability if the income of both the husband and wife is unequal and carries a difference. There are also many credits that the married couple can avail if they file their tax returns jointly. Also filing jointly means filling in only once and not twice so it is in a way time saving method. So filing jointly has better tax implications on married couples.
Like who? Like many other countries, America is slowly losing its soul.
Who is freer than us exactly?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?