Boston Mayor to Outlaw Chick-Fil-A

why not just stop registering marriages? Taxes and social security were not designed for married people, so why wait on that?

Exactly. No more marriage licenses, that's all I really care about. No more government marriages. Take government out of the equation and I don't care. Those who say the government should give gays benefits BEFORE they get rid of government marriages are full of shit. Just get rid of government marriages and we achieve exactly the same thing. If you agree with this, Nickels, then I have no quarrel with you.
 
Exactly. No more marriage licenses, that's all I really care about. No more government marriages. Take government out of the equation and I don't care. Those who say the government should give gays benefits BEFORE they get rid of government marriages are full of shit. Just get rid of government marriages and we achieve exactly the same thing. If you agree with this, Nickels, then I have no quarrel with you.

No, they are not full of shit (they might not fit well here though), they may just be liberals who care more about benefits and equaltiy, than reducing government. And that's basically why I give people who say "get the government out of marriage" but not "out of MY marriage" a harder time.
 
even if the actual measureable tangible monetary benefits didn't exist, people still, to jmdrake's admission, register to marry, they seem to have no problem getting state recognition. so why shouldn't this superficial and harmless benefit be extended to any 2 adults, if monetary benefits were completely gone?

Because it's not superficial. It's a government control mechanism and it gives the government authority it shouldn't have. We can argue back and forth about the cost and benefits of getting the government out of it, but at the end of the day, the point is that we don't NEED the government to get married. If don't need the government, then it's best to keep them out of it because if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. The one thing that would make me happier than anything in this whole debate would be for the general public to realize that you don't need a license to get married.

Instead of focusing on giving gays and straight people the same piece of paper, let's just focus on getting rid of the need for a piece of paper. I honestly don't care if Jim and Jill can have a piece of paper and Jim and John can't. It doesn't make the least bit of difference and it doesn't achieve anything to let them both have it. Let's just get rid of government marriages and stop acting like we need a piece of paper to get married.

Am I insensitive for not caring who gets the piece of paper? So sue me. The whole debate over who gets the paper is trivial. Let's just cut to the chase and try to get rid of government involvement. To be honest, it doesn't even matter how important or unimportant the piece of paper is. Our top priority should be to keep government out of it. That is IT.
 
So now is your chance to get it straight. Is it or is it not pointless?

If it's pointless, why do you have a problem with polygamists, incestors, beastialitors getting it? (I don't).
If it's not pointless, tell me what the point is.
Is there a middle ground? Third option? You obviously know a lot about this, is it a fair question?

False dichotomy is false.

It doesn't matter whether it's pointless or not. It's still just a piece of paper that we really don't need in order to get married. Get rid of the government involvement and all of a sudden it doesn't matter what the piece of paper is or isn't. No need to get it straight.

His point, I believe, was exactly that. It doesn't matter whether it's pointless or not. It doesn't belong there, so let's get rid of it.
 
No...not science and equality! Tell me it isn't so!

shocked_meme1.png

"Equality" is the most hyped up BS over-used word in politics. Just saying.
 
Instead of focusing on giving gays and straight people the same piece of paper, let's just focus on getting rid of the need for a piece of paper.

Trying to get people to focus on what you want is likely a waste of time. Especially if you do so by telling them that their focus is wrong - without a lick of evidence no less. I welcome you to focus exactly as stated ("getting the government out of it").

I honestly don't care if Jim and Jill can have a piece of paper and Jim and John can't. It doesn't make the least bit of difference and it doesn't achieve anything to let them both have it.

It mattered to "Jim and Jill" and it matters to some "Jim and John". That you don't care might* be a fact. But it is a fact that it matters to some people ("52 percent of Americans support the legalization of same-sex marriage").

In other words, you are factually incorrect. Now I am focusing not on your goal - "getting the government out of it" - but your lie - "It doesn't make the least bit of difference and it doesn't achieve anything to let them both have it".

For the record, I don't think anybody should willingly submit themselves to the family law or divorce court system without damn good reason. Why? Because it matters - big time! Divorce and separation costs are huge. Alimony and child support can cripple you financially.

Let's just get rid of government marriages and stop acting like we need a piece of paper to get married.

Great plan.

Am I insensitive for not caring who gets the piece of paper? So sue me. The whole debate over who gets the paper is trivial.

You are insensitive for lying - the issue matters to some people. Divorce court is real, not imaginary. Just as you can't avoid the estate tax as effectively without marriage, you can't replicate divorce court with civil contracts.

I - like Ron Paul - believe our health care spending should be with pre-tax dollars ("tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses"). Marriage helps accomplish that as more people get under the umbrella of employee-provided tax benefits.

I - like Ron Paul - believe there should be NO estate tax ("abolish the income and death taxes"). Marriage helps accomplish that by allowing estate transfer without tax to your significant other.

Should we focus on getting as much of our spending with pre-tax dollars (thus reducing our tax burden)? HELL YES!

Should we eliminate the perverse incentive that ties health care to our employers? HELL YES!
["Make all Americans eligible for Health Savings Accounts"]

Should we focus on eliminating the estate tax? HELL YES!

Should we focus on telling people to change their focus and thus reveal our bigotry as we implicitly accept the status quo to tilt at a larger windmill (recall the focus can only be on getting government out of marriage specifically in the PaulConventionWV way not anybody else's way)?

Should we cockblock people trying to avoid estate and income taxes via marriage? No. MAXIMUM FREEDOM!!! If you don't stand up for others, others are less likely to stand up for you.

One step in getting government out of marriage, is keeping government from determining who we marry. Is this a first step or a necessary step? Maybe - I don't know. But it is a step in the direction of "getting the government out of it" w.r.t. the decision making process. If you believe the institution of government marriage is so evil - and it is - that you wish to save as many people from it is possible, then that would be a valid perspective. Pretending it doesn't matter? Not so much as the Kafkaesque evil of divorce/family court does not gel with "doesn't make the least bit of difference".

Ask a tax attorney and they will tell you, married versus non-married makes a difference. Pretending otherwise is a lie. Everybody here ought to know better.

I am OK if somebody is intolerant of a position whether due to bigotry, homophobia, electoral strategy, or a well justified hatred of government marriage. What I would like, is arguments that are worthy and will not detract from the liberty movement.

I hope you or someone else knocks that windmill of government marriage down. I'll take a tilt myself! In the meantime, I will be on the correct side of history:

attachment.php


Whatever. I'm just the guy with facts and graphs.

View attachment 1502

*If you didn't care, I suspect but cannot prove, you would have no objection to the same-sex marriages.
 
Last edited:
Polygamy is the most biblical form of marriage.

Yeah, I'd mostly agree with that. Not to mention, polygamy is more or less the norm in nature. Even in humans. How many people can claim to have had one sexual partner?
 
Polygamy is the most biblical form of marriage.

No its not.



1 Corinthians 7:2 ESV

But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.



Deuteronomy 17:17 ESV

And he shall not acquire many wives for himself, lest his heart turn away, nor shall he acquire for himself excessive silver and gold.



1 Corinthians 7:1-40 ESV

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. ...



1 Timothy 3:2 ESV

Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,



Mark 10:8 ESV

And the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh.



1 Timothy 3:1-16 ESV

The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God's church?...



Mark 10:7 ESV

‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife,



Leviticus 18:18 ESV

And you shall not take a woman as a rival wife to her sister, uncovering her nakedness while her sister is still alive.



Matthew 19:9 ESV

And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”



Matthew 5:32 ESV

But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.



Exodus 21:10 ESV

If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.



Genesis 2:24 ESV

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.



Genesis 30:1-43 ESV

When Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, she envied her sister. She said to Jacob, “Give me children, or I shall die!” Jacob's anger was kindled against Rachel, and he said, “Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?” Then she said, “Here is my servant Bilhah; go in to her, so that she may give birth on my behalf, that even I may have children through her.” So she gave him her servant Bilhah as a wife, and Jacob went in to her. And Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son. ...



Matthew 19:3-6 ESV

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”



1 Corinthians 6:16 ESV

Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her?For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”



Romans 7:2 ESV

For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage.



Mark 10:11-12 ESV

And he said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her, and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”
 
You seriously can't understand the difference between these two statements:

A. People with different lifestyles should be free to pursue how they want to live

and

B. Every lifestyle is equally preferable


We are not talking about government here, we are talking about the philosophical view of an atheist egalitarian. Do you not see the difference between the two statements above?
What are you talking about? Preference is subjective. If I'm a polygamist, then having multiple wives would be preferable to me, and monogamy is not preferable. If I'm a monogamist, then having one wife would be preferable. If I'm a religious individual, leading my life in accordance to God's word would be preferable. If I'm an atheist, leading my life on my own terms would be preferable.

The other question about science needing a sufficient foundation for morality else it becomes oppressive and evil is so utterly self-evident from the past 100 years of history that I don't even need to cite examples.
Nonsense. Past 100 years (and especially more recently) have been tame compared to previous eras as we become more and more secular. Steven Pinker wrote a fantastic book called "The Better Angels of our Nature" that indisputably proves through statistical analysis that we're living in the least violent time in human history. The emergence of the Enlightenment philosophy has vastly increased respect for individuals and we've gone through a bit of a golden era for humanitarianism.

The notion that morality cannot exist without a God is ridiculous. Morality certainly has a place in a secular society. Religions are the simplest of moral codes. They justify their rights and wrongs through the introduction of patriarchal deities whose powers are such that moral and immoral behavior is dictated through his whims. Secularists take a different approach. They don't believe that without the fear of divine total supervision everybody would do exactly as they wished, or that we would all be wolves to each other. They believe solidarity is part of our self-interest in society.

The argument that suggest morality cannot exist without a written code governed by a divine being could easily be turned on its head and argued to the contrary. Often times good people will do evil things in the name of their religion. How many Muslims have killed themselves and others in suicide bombings because the Koran told them it's the moral thing to do? Steven Weinberg puts it quite well: “Left to themselves, evil people will do evil things and good people will try to do good things, but if you want a good person to do a wicked thing, that takes religion.”
 
Last edited:
Wow. Liberty under assault. What an idiot. So you can basically shut down people you don' agree with according to Menino? Wow.
 
False dichotomy is false.

It doesn't matter whether it's pointless or not. It's still just a piece of paper that we really don't need in order to get married.

So it IS pointless according to you. If it's a false dichotomy, you must be able to tell me what the 3rd option is.

Get rid of the government involvement and all of a sudden it doesn't matter what the piece of paper is or isn't.\

Let's see every person who says this unregister their marriage if they have one.

No need to get it straight.

His point, I believe, was exactly that. It doesn't matter whether it's pointless or not. It doesn't belong there, so let's get rid of it.

Except he doesn't want to get rid of his own.
 
Trying to get people to focus on what you want is likely a waste of time. Especially if you do so by telling them that their focus is wrong - without a lick of evidence no less. I welcome you to focus exactly as stated ("getting the government out of it").

I agree. Now if those who believe we should focus on expanding the definition of marriage as opposed to focusing on eliminating the government footprint on marriage would leave the rest of us alone we'd all be happy. ;) Seriously though. The "You must be a bigot unless you want gay marriage" rhetoric has gotten old and tired. And IMO it's gotten in the way of positive discussions on how to reduce the government footprint on marriage. Some people don't even want to consider how certain things can be accomplished without a state recognized marriage lest you take their "trump" card away.

It mattered to "Jim and Jill" and it matters to some "Jim and John". That you don't care might* be a fact. But it is a fact that it matters to some people ("52 percent of Americans support the legalization of same-sex marriage").

In other words, you are factually incorrect. Now I am focusing not on your goal - "getting the government out of it" - but your lie - "It doesn't make the least bit of difference and it doesn't achieve anything to let them both have it".

For the record, I don't think anybody should willingly submit themselves to the family law or divorce court system without damn good reason. Why? Because it matters - big time! Divorce and separation costs are huge. Alimony and child support can cripple you financially.

Yep. There are downsides to state recognized marriages. And taxes can be worse as well just by getting married. But the media is selling the idea that there are only "benefits".

Great plan.

We can all agree! Focus Danielsan! ;)

You are insensitive for lying - the issue matters to some people. Divorce court is real, not imaginary. Just as you can't avoid the estate tax as effectively without marriage, you can't replicate divorce court with civil contracts.

A) You can avoid estate taxes without marriage. http://money.cnn.com/2009/06/03/pf/Death_tax_morrissey.fortune/index.htm
B) Why would anyone want to replicate divorce court? :confused:

I - like Ron Paul - believe our health care spending should be with pre-tax dollars ("tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses"). Marriage helps accomplish that as more people get under the umbrella of employee-provided tax benefits.

I - like Ron Paul - believe there should be NO estate tax ("abolish the income and death taxes"). Marriage helps accomplish that by allowing estate transfer without tax to your significant other.

Through trusts people who aren't married can avoid estate taxes. And most people don't have an estate worth more the 5.12 million anyway so the tax doesn't kick in.

Should we focus on getting as much of our spending with pre-tax dollars (thus reducing our tax burden)? HELL YES!

Should we eliminate the perverse incentive that ties health care to our employers? HELL YES!
["Make all Americans eligible for Health Savings Accounts"]

Should we focus on eliminating the estate tax? HELL YES!

Should we focus on telling people to change their focus and thus reveal our bigotry as we implicitly accept the status quo to tilt at a larger windmill (recall the focus can only be on getting government out of marriage specifically in the PaulConventionWV way not anybody else's way)?

Should we quit falsely claiming that those with a different focus than ourselves are bigots? HELL YES! :rolleyes:

Should we cockblock people trying to avoid estate and income taxes via marriage? No. MAXIMUM FREEDOM!!! If you don't stand up for others, others are less likely to stand up for you.

For most gays income taxes will go up. And most people fall under the 5.12 million personal estate exemption anyway. And with trusts, joint tenancy with right of survivorship and joint bank accounts estate taxes can be largely avoided without marriage.

One step in getting government out of marriage, is keeping government from determining who we marry. Is this a first step or a necessary step? Maybe - I don't know. But it is a step in the direction of "getting the government out of it" w.r.t. the decision making process. If you believe the institution of government marriage is so evil - and it is - that you wish to save as many people from it is possible, then that would be a valid perspective. Pretending it doesn't matter? Not so much as the Kafkaesque evil of divorce/family court does not gel with "doesn't make the least bit of difference".

Except gay marriage doesn't accomplish that step. Gay marriage isn't a criminal offence like polygamy. So technically gays can already get married. And granting gays the privileges of government recognition of marriage doesn't extend any legal rights to those who's marriage choices are criminalized. Further having more people invested in government marriage means more people to lobby for more marriage benefits. So if your goal is to reduce the government footprint on marriage, I don't see how your focus accomplishes that.

Ask a tax attorney and they will tell you, married versus non-married makes a difference. Pretending otherwise is a lie. Everybody here ought to know better.

Sure it makes a difference. For some people (most gay couples) it makes your income tax bill higher. Yes. Everybody ought to know better indeed.

I am OK if somebody is intolerant of a position whether due to bigotry, homophobia, electoral strategy, or a well justified hatred of government marriage. What I would like, is arguments that are worthy and will not detract from the liberty movement.

Let's talk electoral strategy. I can see getting cultural conservatives on board with the idea of reducing the government footprint on marriage based on the "You're losing the cultural war anyway." argument. But if it becomes impossible to advocate simply reducing the government footprint on marriage lest you are labelled a "bigot" by your own allies...well there goes that strategy down the drain. Did you see Gunny's speech opposing a marriage definition bill in NC? Great speech! And it's something sensible cultural conservatives could rally around.
 
jmdrake is a lawyer, the ones who will benefit from more clients with increasing marriage licensure. Listen to what he has to say, it is spot on.
 
so any of y'all heard about chik-fil-a removing the muppet toys from their children's meal due to possible safety issues? i read it on reddit, but people are making comments that its not really about a safety issue but something else...but I don't know what...
 
Back
Top