[scarecrowe]

hwacker hwacker:

Eisensapper Eisensapper:

Personally I see myself as pro equal rights, and you say it devalues tradition, singing Happy Birthday is tradition, excluding someone from a right that everyone else in the country enjoys is not a tradition.

It’s not a right, stop saying that, fuck you’re dumb as a bag of hammers.

If it’s such a right, why is it not in the charter?

Maybe we should dig up PET and ask why a big Liberal like him didn’t place marriage as a right in our great toilet paper charter.

Toilet Paper? "Don't squeeze the Charter!" Use it at your own risk...it may lead to a rash followed by smelly finger syndrome.

[scarecrowe]

lily lily:

True. I took Bi 102.

Not sure the relevance though. We're talking marriage after all, not procreation.

unless you want to go there.....?

You really are bending the meaning of what it is to be human. Procreation by worms may not make marriage a necessity but with a 300 trillion celled brain life form called a human, procreation is really meant to be more than a poke in the whiskers.

[roger-roger]

For some Catholics, yes. This can be countered by adopting or surrogate mothers/fathers could it not?

[roger-roger]

I wonder what westmanguy feels about this subject....

[scarecrowe]

lily lily:

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

lily lily:

Is procreation a requirement of marriage?

No. I am just pissed with all those married wankers without kids wanting the same benefits as those rearing children.

Tell me, what does a childless couple do to benefit society that entitles them to the benefits of marriage, specifically, spousal benefits?

[hurley_108]

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

Tell me, what does a childless couple do to benefit society that entitles them to the benefits of marriage, specifically, spousal benefits?

They work and pay taxes.

[scarecrowe]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

They work and pay taxes.

So do single people. Keep going.

[Regina]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

Tell me, what does a childless couple do to benefit society that entitles them to the benefits of marriage, specifically, spousal benefits?

They work and pay taxes.

...and don't spend all their money at Disneyland.

[scarecrowe]

lily lily:

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

lily lily:

No. I am just pissed with all those married wankers without kids wanting the same benefits as those rearing children.

Then why did you bring biology into the discussion?

$1:

Tell me, what does a childless couple do to benefit society that entitles them to the benefits of marriage, specifically, spousal benefits?

Who cares?

Because it takes food out of babes' mouths. Read all the posts from several pages back.

[scarecrowe]

LILLY:
Succinct explanation: Spousal benefits are a cost to the tax system through write offs from those providing the benefits (normally the employer) which removes potential funding from the government to help reduce "child poverty". Childless couples suck money out of the system and provide nothing in return (as in rearing the next generation). Greed is what is in part driving the desire to recognize all sorts of unions and I don't care if your spouse is your pet hamster but spousal benefits should be allotted only to those who have kids. DINKS be damned.

[ShepherdsDog]

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

LILLY:
Succinct explanation: Spousal benefits are a cost to the tax system through write offs from those providing the benefits (normally the employer) which removes potential funding from the government to help reduce "child poverty". Childless couples suck money out of the system and provide nothing in return (as in rearing the next generation). Greed is what is in part driving the desire to recognize all sorts of unions and I don't care if your spouse is your pet hamster but spousal benefits should be allotted only to those who have kids. DINKS be damned.

well strawman, what about those couples who are childless, but not by any choice of their own?

[scarecrowe]

lily lily:

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

LILLY:
Succinct explanation: Spousal benefits are a cost to the tax system through write offs from those providing the benefits (normally the employer) which removes potential funding from the government to help reduce "child poverty". Childless couples suck money out of the system and provide nothing in return (as in rearing the next generation). Greed is what is in part driving the desire to recognize all sorts of unions and I don't care if your spouse is your pet hamster but spousal benefits should be allotted only to those who have kids. DINKS be damned.

I claim one of my kids as "equivalent to married".

What the hell is your point here and what does this have to do with allowing SSMs?

In a previous post, and advocate of SSM's said that they wanted the right to receive spousal benefits just as in any heterosexual relationship. My point is that those benefits should be reserved for those bringing up kids since they are working to provide the next generation in our society. I pointed out that childless couples should not receive those benefits and that regardless of the nature of the marriage, any couple raising kids should be the only ones getting these benefits since historically, they were set up to help families raise children in the first place. Now all these DINKy couples are budding in and removing money from the system that could be better used to care for children as it was initially intended.

[scarecrowe]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

scarecrowe scarecrowe:

LILLY:
Succinct explanation: Spousal benefits are a cost to the tax system through write offs from those providing the benefits (normally the employer) which removes potential funding from the government to help reduce "child poverty". Childless couples suck money out of the system and provide nothing in return (as in rearing the next generation). Greed is what is in part driving the desire to recognize all sorts of unions and I don't care if your spouse is your pet hamster but spousal benefits should be allotted only to those who have kids. DINKS be damned.

well strawman, what about those couples who are childless, but not by any choice of their own?

ADOPT, then receive benefits and not before.

[scarecrowe]

lily lily:

Of all the people I know that have adopted, none of them did so for benefits.

...but benefits sure help out in such a noble cause. Also, read my first post in this thread from page 8.

[KyleEverett]

I fully plan on having children. Why should I be denied that joy in life. I would prefer using a surrogate mother, but adoption would be okay.

But even without spousal benefits which you say should be denied to all childrenless marriages, but what about the other legal protections marriage provides?