or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by MJ1970

  I'll just stop there.
  Now you're begging the question. *sigh*       So let's continue to pile one bad idea on top of another?! Brilliant.       Fair enough. I agree with that.   (waits for the slow expansion of the definition of "using tax funds" to the point where a catch-22 is created in which no one is free.)        Good luck with that!       You're right, we disagree.       And this is where you have it completely backwards, upside down and inside out. The root problem is the government...
  Amen.
  Or you just simplify the tax code to eliminate the special cases. Or, better yet, eliminate the income tax. Problem solved.       That seems like an artificial and unnecessary legal construction. It can go away.       All of these things can be handled without the government. The immigration one is yet another constructed legal barrier.   You're also suggesting the imposition, by law, of certain values and rules on others (visitation rights) through the state. This is...
  The problem there is with the tax code.       Really? Like what? And, even if so, why do you assume that a standard, suitable definition cannot emerge without the government's meddling? This happens all the time and has for centuries.
  +1 this
  That will be fine, so long as there is no attempt to impose the new legal definitions on those who have a spiritual, moral definition that differs.   We'll see...but I suspect there will be.
  The issue we're going to run into now is whether or not those who disagree with the idea of same-gender marriage will be forced to accept it in one way or another. For example, will churches be forced to perform same-gender marriage ceremonies. Will companies be forced to provide benefits for such couples? Will businesses be forced (or sued) to accomodate a same-gender wedding ceremony even if they are morally opposed to it?   I have no problem with anyone "marrying"...
  What is a "significant number" and what source can you cite for this?
  So, ultimately, the government should stay out of marriage entirely. It has no business in it at all. Not defining what it is or saying who can do it (with the possible exclusion of someone exploiting a minor in some manner.)
New Posts  All Forums: