In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Government caused it.

bpostbpost Member Posts: 32,669 ✭✭✭✭
edited July 2015 in General Discussion
All the turmoil about marriage was caused by the government to begin with.

Marriage licenses were designed by government as a control, mostly to prevent interracial marriage and procreation.
http://macquirelatory.com/Marriage License Truth.htm

The biggest federal government disaster involving marriage is IRS code on inheritance. IRS code spelled out who could receive your property after death and how much was going to be taxed or confiscated if they did not like your choices.

All the turmoil over marriage, from deeply felt religious feelings to belligerent same sex radicals clashing, was the result of state governments sticking its nose into areas it did not belong trying to codify control over you and whom you love.

The Supreme Court had to step in and do what it did, there was no other choice. When divergent position clashes are fueled by bad law the people are sure to get a smack down from the feds. One side will lose big the other gain something government should have never had a say in to begin with. Government will gain another power over you and yours.

Comments

  • Ray BRay B Member Posts: 11,822
    edited November -1
    My perspective of the situation and the reasons prompting governmental involvement differ greatly.
  • chiefrchiefr Member Posts: 14,115 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Marriage was contract between the parties and a religious institution. Marriage was never intended to be a contract between the parties and the church and government.

    IMHO marriage lost all sanctity when government was first involved and started issuing licenses. Marriage has been deteriorating ever since.
  • thunderboltthunderbolt Member Posts: 6,041 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    There is no no cure for AIDS. Happy sex supports the spread of AIDS.
  • bpostbpost Member Posts: 32,669 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by thunderbolt
    There is no no cure for AIDS. Happy sex supports the spread of AIDS.

    So does IV drug use and just because someone is happy does not mean they practice unsafe sex.
  • Dads3040Dads3040 Member Posts: 13,552 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    And as is so often the case, the actions of government will have unintended consequences.

    If there is no legal justification for a requirement concerning genders in marriage, what would be the justification for a requirement concerning numbers?

    Pandora's Box has been opened, and the lawyers will be able to buy another vacation house.
  • hobo9650hobo9650 Member Posts: 2,759 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Question:

    If a mudchannel lover start a same sex relationship with a youngster, at what age of the youngster did the relationship change where the adult is no longer in a pedophile status?

    or How young can a person be and the mudchannel lover have a "relationship" with them and the mudchannel lover not be considered a pedophile?

    Remember, a few days ago the SCOTUS ruled that a 15 year old can have a sex change operation without the consent of his parents.
  • burpfireburpfire Member Posts: 1,158 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    like ive said many times , the only problem with aids is that it takes too long!
  • 47studebaker47studebaker Member Posts: 2,251 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by burpfire
    like ive said many times , the only problem with aids is that it takes too long!


    and WE end up with the medical bills
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 23,690 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    100% agree, bpost.

    IMO, the tax code should be revised to two categories:

    1. Single

    2. Head of Household

    Head of Household would include the income from all members of the household that are not filing as single.

    Then, the Federal Government can get out of the business of defining marriage, and it goes back to the individual states should they care to exercise control.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • nmyersnmyers Member Posts: 16,892 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Actually, it's the other way around, Bruce.

    The Constitution & Bill of Rights define the only power of the federal government; all other rights belong to the states.

    Marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution, so the federal government has no business meddling in it. If any states wants to legalize marriage between a man or woman & consenting domestic livestock, then that should be legal.

    happys won the grand prize a year ago: the Big Liar, by declaration, ordered federal agencies to give same sex spouses all 100 federal benefits previous restricted to legal M-F spouses. Everything since then has been symbolic. It's over; they won.

    Neal
Sign In or Register to comment.