• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

Non-separation of church and State.

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
63,949
Reaction score
36,683
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
All of those things were considered moral by various people across history. In some cases, they felt it moral to kill those not themselves, but not moral to kill among themselves. We can certainly measure how common any given moral is or how many variations exist of a given moral, but they are still subjective. Legal or illegal also makes no difference. That are some people who feel taxes are immoral, regardless of them being legal. Same sex marriage has been considered moral by many despite being illegal until relatively recently. Any reference to law, especially civil law, as a comparison to morals, is a red herring. The law can reflect the morals of some people, maybe even a majority of people, but that doesn't mean that morals are not subjective. It only means, at best, that more people hold to one moral, or a bunch of close enough morals, than subscribe to other moral of the same topic.
That appears to be the case for marriage (civil partnership?) contract law even after removing the opposite sex partner mandate - the state imposed limit is still one marriage partner while a business partnership contract can have multiple partners.
 

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
12,752
Reaction score
4,115
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That appears to be the case for marriage (civil partnership?) contract law even after removing the opposite sex partner mandate - the state imposed limit is still one marriage partner while a business partnership contract can have multiple partners.
Same could have been said of interracial marriage back in the day. However, logistics could be claimed instead of morals when it comes to the marriage issue, especially when children have been considered within that context. And right now logistics is the major factor in not getting the marriage limit laws changed. We have to both figure out how to word such laws as to be fair to all parties, and we have to change other existing laws to account for potential multiple partners. While one set of morals was the most likely origin of the law, it is not necessarily the basis for it remaining.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
63,949
Reaction score
36,683
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Same could have been said of interracial marriage back in the day. However, logistics could be claimed instead of morals when it comes to the marriage issue, especially when children have been considered within that context. And right now logistics is the major factor in not getting the marriage limit laws changed. We have to both figure out how to word such laws as to be fair to all parties, and we have to change other existing laws to account for potential multiple partners. While one set of morals was the most likely origin of the law, it is not necessarily the basis for it remaining.
Adoption and wills allow for those children considerations (issues?) to be handled. Interestingly, Social Security allows for multiple surviving spouses to be handled, providing benefits for (all of) them if they had not remarried.
 

Carleen

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2012
Messages
7,371
Reaction score
2,933
Location
New Jersey
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don’t think there should be a separation. Our country was founded on religion. It would help unite our country as well as restore morals and values.
The fact that there are so many different religions is why that is wrong.
 

weaver2

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 22, 2019
Messages
6,092
Reaction score
3,652
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I don’t think there should be a separation. Our country was founded on religion. It would help unite our country as well as restore morals and values.
Religion never unites. It spins off new sects with new interpretations of the old beliefs. There are 47,000 different denominations of Protestantism. Each one believes is the keeper of the real truth.
 

Luce

Weaponized Funk
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Messages
6,098
Reaction score
2,366
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I agree with the OP, just so long as I get to choose the religion.
 

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
12,752
Reaction score
4,115
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I agree with the OP, just so long as I get to choose the religion.
I already choose long ago. We're using Wicca
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
69,673
Reaction score
40,408
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
That appears to be the case for marriage (civil partnership?) contract law even after removing the opposite sex partner mandate - the state imposed limit is still one marriage partner while a business partnership contract can have multiple partners.
I have no problem with multiple partner marriages but IMO to be 'equal' under the law, that relationship should not get more benefits and tax incentives from the govt based on partners. A marriage should be "a marriage" no matter how many involved.
 

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
12,752
Reaction score
4,115
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I have no problem with multiple partner marriages but IMO to be 'equal' under the law, that relationship should not get more benefits and tax incentives from the govt based on partners. A marriage should be "a marriage" no matter how many involved.
What would you consider "more" benefits? Tax incentives? It obviously cannot be the personal exemption benefit, because similar to how the number of kids increases you get to claim more exemptions for them, likewise the number of spouses can have the same increase as well. So what else would there be that there shouldn't be more of?
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
69,673
Reaction score
40,408
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
What would you consider "more" benefits? Tax incentives? It obviously cannot be the personal exemption benefit, because similar to how the number of kids increases you get to claim more exemptions for them, likewise the number of spouses can have the same increase as well. So what else would there be that there shouldn't be more of?
Can they? For each person in the marriage?

And the benefits should not be cumulative. The kids should be deducted once for the marriage, not for each person. Just like it is for a couple now, the kids are counted once.
 

Luce

Weaponized Funk
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Messages
6,098
Reaction score
2,366
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I already choose long ago. We're using Wicca

*I* get to choose, or I'm not in.

And Wicca has just as much of the petty tyranny as most of the others. No, I'll be needing my choice.
 

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
12,752
Reaction score
4,115
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Can they? For each person in the marriage?

And the benefits should not be cumulative. The kids should be deducted once for the marriage, not for each person. Just like it is for a couple now, the kids are counted once.
I think you are not understanding. Each year that I have a dependent, I get to deduct a given amount for each one. If in year one I have 4 children, I get a total (assuming a two adult marriage) of 6 deductions. If the next year I've added a child then I get 7 deductions that year. So how would it be different to add another spouse and get 8 deductions, as opposed to another child to get 8 deductions?

Unless you are thinking that the children would be counted for each of, say three spouses. But currently, if the spouses do not file joint, then any other dependent can only be a deduction for one or the other. So I don't see where adding a third spouse would change that. Of the three spouses, assuming not filing joint, any dependent would go on only one's return.
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
69,673
Reaction score
40,408
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I think you are not understanding. Each year that I have a dependent, I get to deduct a given amount for each one. If in year one I have 4 children, I get a total (assuming a two adult marriage) of 6 deductions. If the next year I've added a child then I get 7 deductions that year. So how would it be different to add another spouse and get 8 deductions, as opposed to another child to get 8 deductions?

Unless you are thinking that the children would be counted for each of, say three spouses. But currently, if the spouses do not file joint, then any other dependent can only be a deduction for one or the other. So I don't see where adding a third spouse would change that. Of the three spouses, assuming not filing joint, any dependent would go on only one's return.
Like I said, as long as there are no additional, cumulative benefits, incentives, etc provided, I dont care. But for example, the joint filing could be based on the number partners. If so, it should still not get anything additional.

I'm not talking about kids but as you wrote, of course they shouldnt be counted as deductions for other adults not their parents but what do you do if they are adopted? Would they allow parents within a marriage to adopt the other kids and then ALL the parents are claiming those deductions? For example, bio mother and then also the secondary adoptive mother?
 

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
12,752
Reaction score
4,115
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Like I said, as long as there are no additional, cumulative benefits, incentives, etc provided, I dont care. But for example, the joint filing could be based on the number partners. If so, it should still not get anything additional.

I'm not talking about kids but as you wrote, of course they shouldnt be counted as deductions for other adults not their parents but what do you do if they are adopted? Would they allow parents within a marriage to adopt the other kids and then ALL the parents are claiming those deductions? For example, bio mother and then also the secondary adoptive mother?
It won't matter. Each child can only be claimed on one return. So either both mothers are getting the child along with the dads on a joint return, or only one of say 4 parents are getting the child on a single return. That is how it is currently with the limit of marriage at two, so why should it be any different at 3+?

I don't think there needs to be a different rate for different numbers of people in the marriage. We have a single rate, a married rate, and a head of household rate. Is there a married filing separate rate vs married joint rate? Personally that distinction should go, if so, even with only two in a marriage. I don't even see the need for the HoH rate for that matter.
 

Lursa

Tenacious
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2013
Messages
69,673
Reaction score
40,408
Location
Outside Seattle
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
It won't matter. Each child can only be claimed on one return. So either both mothers are getting the child along with the dads on a joint return, or only one of say 4 parents are getting the child on a single return. That is how it is currently with the limit of marriage at two, so why should it be any different at 3+?

I don't think there needs to be a different rate for different numbers of people in the marriage. We have a single rate, a married rate, and a head of household rate. Is there a married filing separate rate vs married joint rate? Personally that distinction should go, if so, even with only two in a marriage. I don't even see the need for the HoH rate for that matter.
That's the way it is now. I'm commenting that things like that shouldnt be changed due to multiple partners in a marriage.
 

axelthefox

Active member
Joined
Jul 6, 2020
Messages
310
Reaction score
98
Location
Honolulu,Hawaii
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I think Matthew 6:5 sums it up perfectly about praying in public.

“When you pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men. Most certainly, I tell you, they have received their reward.
 

maquiscat

Maquis Admiral
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
12,752
Reaction score
4,115
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
That's the way it is now. I'm commenting that things like that shouldnt be changed due to multiple partners in a marriage.
Ok. It seemed like you felt that something would have been increased over a monogamous marriage, and I was wondering what it was.
 
Top Bottom