STOP Government Marriage!!!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-07-2013, 10:21 AM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(09-07-2013 10:16 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(09-07-2013 10:12 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The way I see it is this. A couple has a choice about their relationship in a financial sense. One way is to keep resources separate and behave in an official sense as 2 separate entities. Another is to pool their resources to aid in the benefit of each and behave financially as one entity.

They then have the choice of entering into a contract for the latter decision that would make that both legally binding, and have the government treat their pooled resources as a single entity.

The government isn't giving favor to one choice over the other. The individuals are choosing one choice over another based off of their assessment of their situation.

This is why I said it is unrealistic to think you could ever remove government from marriage. Even when the facts are laid out most people still prefer their benefits to a more fair system and since it's not granting benefits to a group but rather removing them it becomes an impossible task.

It is not an unfair system because it is entirely up to choice.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2013, 10:24 AM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(09-07-2013 10:16 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(09-07-2013 10:12 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  The way I see it is this. A couple has a choice about their relationship in a financial sense. One way is to keep resources separate and behave in an official sense as 2 separate entities. Another is to pool their resources to aid in the benefit of each and behave financially as one entity.

They then have the choice of entering into a contract for the latter decision that would make that both legally binding, and have the government treat their pooled resources as a single entity.

The government isn't giving favor to one choice over the other. The individuals are choosing one choice over another based off of their assessment of their situation.

This is why I said it is unrealistic to think you could ever remove government from marriage. Even when the facts are laid out most people still prefer their benefits to a more fair system and since it's not granting benefits to a group but rather removing them it becomes an impossible task.

I'm with Logica, I'm not sure how this is an unfair system. No one is forced into it and (with the exception of being gay in 37 states) no one is prevented from entering into it.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2013, 10:26 AM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(09-07-2013 10:21 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(09-07-2013 10:16 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  This is why I said it is unrealistic to think you could ever remove government from marriage. Even when the facts are laid out most people still prefer their benefits to a more fair system and since it's not granting benefits to a group but rather removing them it becomes an impossible task.

It is not an unfair system because it is entirely up to choice.

No it's unfair because the tax code is used to garner votes and so popular things at the time (like marriage church and children) are given favored status and seeming moral ills (consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and gambling for example) are taxed at a higher rate.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2013, 10:37 AM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(09-07-2013 10:26 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(09-07-2013 10:21 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  It is not an unfair system because it is entirely up to choice.

No it's unfair because the tax code is used to garner votes and so popular things at the time (like marriage church and children) are given favored status and seeming moral ills (consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and gambling for example) are taxed at a higher rate.

Then the issue you have is not government recognition, it is public perception. "The public treats you differently" is very different from "the government gives you preferred status over someone else."

And while things like alcohol, tobacco, and gambling are taxed highly, these seem more appropriatly labeled as a luxury tax. They are not necessary in order to survive or make ends meet. Marriage is a mutually beneficial legal status that enables 2 people to pool their resources so that they have more income and resources than they would alone.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2013, 11:05 AM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(09-07-2013 10:37 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(09-07-2013 10:26 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  No it's unfair because the tax code is used to garner votes and so popular things at the time (like marriage church and children) are given favored status and seeming moral ills (consumption of alcohol, tobacco, and gambling for example) are taxed at a higher rate.

Then the issue you have is not government recognition, it is public perception. "The public treats you differently" is very different from "the government gives you preferred status over someone else."

And while things like alcohol, tobacco, and gambling are taxed highly, these seem more appropriatly labeled as a luxury tax. They are not necessary in order to survive or make ends meet. Marriage is a mutually beneficial legal status that enables 2 people to pool their resources so that they have more income and resources than they would alone.

I've made pretty much all the points I intended and do not want to make this a circular argument. I'm ok for agreeing to disagree on this one since, like I have said numerous times, I doubt it will ever change because of the popularity.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2013, 11:16 AM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(09-07-2013 11:05 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(09-07-2013 10:37 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Then the issue you have is not government recognition, it is public perception. "The public treats you differently" is very different from "the government gives you preferred status over someone else."

And while things like alcohol, tobacco, and gambling are taxed highly, these seem more appropriatly labeled as a luxury tax. They are not necessary in order to survive or make ends meet. Marriage is a mutually beneficial legal status that enables 2 people to pool their resources so that they have more income and resources than they would alone.

I've made pretty much all the points I intended and do not want to make this a circular argument. I'm ok for agreeing to disagree on this one since, like I have said numerous times, I doubt it will ever change because of the popularity.

Regardless, you have failed to show how federally institutionalized marriage is unfair.

[Image: Untitled-2.png?_subject_uid=322943157&am...Y7Dzq4lJog]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2013, 11:20 AM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
Obviously we do disagree on it, but I still fail to see how marriage as a government-recognized contract is unfair. In that sense, any contract could be seen as unfair to people in a similar situation that don't have a contract.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2013, 11:27 AM
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(09-07-2013 11:20 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Obviously we do disagree on it, but I still fail to see how marriage as a government-recognized contract is unfair. In that sense, any contract could be seen as unfair to people in a similar situation that don't have a contract.

I agree with bearded dude.

I also think the analogy to two people renting a place paying each full price is a good one.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2013, 03:36 PM (This post was last modified: 09-07-2013 04:07 PM by Nemo.)
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(09-07-2013 07:45 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You don't understand the point of analogies, do you?

I understand what analogies are, and I was explaining how your analogy is WEAK. It poorly portrays your message. Stating that non-marriage is like paying for something twice is not true at all, it's like splitting the cost. Marriage is like splitting the cost of something - then getting taxed less.

The analogy failed to portray your point. (Learn strong vs. weak analogies).

Quote:The government is honoring a contract that 2 individuals enter into. It is not mandating that they enter into it.

The government is still giving preferential treatment to couples over other life styles. They aren't taking more from single and non-married couples, they're taking less from married couples.

Imagine if the government decided to tax people less if they accept Jesus as their Lord and savior. The government wouldn't be forcing you to accept Jesus Christ, so the government isn't mandating how people should behave. They're just giving people who want to believe in God an option to pay less taxes. No force is being used. At least, that's if we're to apply your logic to the situation.

Quote:It is not an unfair system because it is entirely up to choice.

If married couples payed taxes fairly, then taxes would drop for everyone else. If the government needs to collect 100 dollars in taxes, instead of collecting 50 from married couples and 50 from everyone else, they collect 40 from married couples and 60 from everyone else - loosely speaking.

But, even if the above wasn't true, it's still an unfair system as I already explained. As was mentioned by someone else, we're against tax cuts for married couples the same reason we're against tax cuts for churches.

Quote:I'm with Logica, I'm not sure how this is an unfair system. No one is forced into it and (with the exception of being gay in 37 states) no one is prevented from entering into it.

It has nothing to do with the marriage itself - it has to do with the government treating people special according to whether or not they are married. Why should married couples get special treatment and everyone else not get special treatment? Yes, everyone DOES have the option to get married - nobody is debating against that argument - the fact is that it has to do with equality.

There are plenty of people who marry for tax benefits, or they marry early. These decisions ARE influenced by the government. It is a way for the government to "bribe" people into marrying each other. Except, in this bribe, they're taking less instead of paying the married couple.

Quote:Then the issue you have is not government recognition, it is public perception. "The public treats you differently" is very different from "the government gives you preferred status over someone else."

That's the exact opposite of what he was suggesting.

The government taxes alcohol and cigarettes as a way of "pushing" people to quote those things. (It doesn't work, but that's the logic behind sin tax). Tax breaks for married couples is essentially the mirrored version.

Quote:And while things like alcohol, tobacco, and gambling are taxed highly, these seem more appropriatly labeled as a luxury tax. They are not necessary in order to survive or make ends meet. Marriage is a mutually beneficial legal status that enables 2 people to pool their resources so that they have more income and resources than they would alone.

But why married couples?! Why not non-married couples and single people?!

If 1 single who makes 100 is taxed 20%, they end up with 80.
If 2 non-married people make 100 are taxed 20%, they end up with 160 (80 per person).
If 2 married people make 100 and are taxed 10%, they end up with 180 (90 per person).

Yes, OBVIOUSLY married couples are saving money. You keep arguing that government marriage is a way to help married couples save money. AGAIN, nobody is denying this. The issue has to do with EQUALITY.

For example, let me create an argument as to why single individuals should have the largest tax break.

Single people are NOT pooling their resources together with anyone. They have less money than everyone else! When a couple pays for a house together, it's two people paying for a single home. When a single person pays for a house, he has to do it BY HIMSELF. Surely he deserves the tax break more than couples! (Of course there are flaws with this argument, but all flaws you find with this argument WILL be found in your own argument).

Quote:Regardless, you have failed to show how federally institutionalized marriage is unfair.

I, president Nemo, promise to offer a tax break to everyone who voted for me. Everyone who didn't vote for me will have to pay taxes in full. I'm not being unfair, because you still have a choice NOT to vote for me. I'm not taking more from those who don't vote for me, I'm taking less from those who do choose to vote for me.

I, the government, will offer tax breaks to married couples. Everyone else will pay taxes in full. It's fair because it's THEIR choice. And I'm not taking from those who don't get married, I'm taking less from those who do get married. So obviously, I'm not trying to "bribe" anyone to get married!

I, the government, will tax cigarettes/fatty foods/soda/alcohol more. Everyone who buys these things will pay more whereas everyone who buys other things will pay less. This IS a bribe! I, the government, am dictating what people should do with their own bodies. I will tax those with bad habits more and those with good habits less because I am the authority of morality.

When the government taxes some groups, but not other groups, then it's inequality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-07-2013, 04:10 PM (This post was last modified: 09-07-2013 04:17 PM by Nemo.)
RE: STOP Government Marriage!!!
(09-07-2013 11:27 AM)Dom Wrote:  
(09-07-2013 11:20 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Obviously we do disagree on it, but I still fail to see how marriage as a government-recognized contract is unfair. In that sense, any contract could be seen as unfair to people in a similar situation that don't have a contract.

I agree with bearded dude.

I also think the analogy to two people renting a place paying each full price is a good one.

2 people buying something worth 100. 50 per person.
2 MARRIED people buying something worth 100. 50 per person.

No, it's a shite analogy. Why? Because it lacks comparison and completely ignores non-married people, which is the entire point of the debate.

To argue that a lack of marriage would be like forcing a couple to pay twice for one thing would also require one to argue that a it would be like requiring a single person to pay FOUR TIMES as much for the same thing.

When a couple pays "twice" for the same thing, then you're ignoring the rest of the equation! Yes, married couples DO pay twice for the same thing, BUT they also pay HALF. Z x 2 / 2.

But, let's suppose there wasn't a mathematical failure of epic proportions, why do married couples deserve special treatment and everyone else is left to pay twice for everything... well except for single people who pay 4 times the amount.

(09-07-2013 11:20 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Obviously we do disagree on it, but I still fail to see how marriage as a government-recognized contract is unfair. In that sense, any contract could be seen as unfair to people in a similar situation that don't have a contract.

Marriage isn't "just" a contract between two people. It's a contract between two people and the government. It's okay for a failing corporation to borrow money from other people/companies. It's wrong for them to borrow money from the government (bailout). Again, it's been said so many times, but taxation and churches is another example.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: