Cohabitation and marriage...thoughts?

[Uncle Ted]

Taxes can be a big factor in marriage. Depending on your income, two working professionals may pay higher income tax after getting married than they would when single.

Not to mention the new ACA (formerly known as "Obamacare") "wedding tax"...

wedding-tax-ocare.jpg

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013...rried-couples/

Estate and gift tax favors marriage as you have an unlimited transfer exclusion to a spouse.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

I wonder if this also works for "unlimited" wives in the case of polygamy (assuming the courts recognize it as a valid form of marriage).

[Jeff Lebowski]

Not to mention the new ACA (formerly known as "Obamacare") "wedding tax"...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3568[/ATTACH]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013...rried-couples/




I wonder if this also works for "unlimited" wives in the case of polygamy (assuming the courts recognize it as a valid form of marriage).

One of several reasons why it won't happen.

[imanihonjin]

One of several reasons why it won't happen.

How do you draw the line at gay marriage? All of the same arguments apply.

[SCcoug]

Not to mention the new ACA (formerly known as "Obamacare") "wedding tax"...

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3568[/ATTACH]

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013...rried-couples/




I wonder if this also works for "unlimited" wives in the case of polygamy (assuming the courts recognize it as a valid form of marriage).

Burleigh County State’s Attorney Richard Riha said he requested the opinion after a man who still had a legal same-sex marriage in another state came to the county recorder’s office in September and applied for a marriage license to wed a woman.

“You don’t see those every day,” he said.

Riha asked Stenehjem for his opinion on whether a county recorder could issue a marriage license in such a case in which the person with the same-sex marriage hadn’t gotten a divorce.

Same-sex marriage isn’t recognized as legally valid under North Dakota’s Constitution and state law, which both explicitly define marriage as the legal union between a man and a woman.

State law also requires that a prior marriage be dissolved or annulled before a new marriage license can be issued.

In his opinion, Stenehjem wrote that a person’s previously valid same-sex marriage in another state isn’t recognized in North Dakota, so he or she may still obtain a valid marriage license here. The person also isn’t committing a crime by indicating on the marriage license application that he or she was single or never married, the opinion states.

...

Riha also asked if a person who obtained both a same-sex marriage license in another state and a marriage license in North Dakota would be violating the other state’s bigamy law if he or she moved back there. Stenehjem declined to opine on the interpretation of another state’s law, writing that he will “defer to state legislatures to resolve this unique issue.”

http://www.wdaz.com/event/article/id...roup/homepage/



I wonder how a state that recognizes same sex marriage would react if the happy trio moved there.

[Jeff Lebowski]

How do you draw the line at gay marriage? All of the same arguments apply.

No they don't.

Either way, I just don't see public opinion swaying in favor of polygamy. Too much child abuse and welfare fraud.

[Jacob]

What are your thoughts on cohabitation/marriage...are they perhaps slowly becoming interchangeable to our society at-large?

On the morality scale (or wheel of morality, if you ever watched Animaniacs), how "bad/wrong" (if at all) does cohabitation register to you?

And I guess, finally, how do you (again, if at all) see the movement towards cohabitation (or whatever you wanna call it really) affecting the LDS church?

As to the first question. My modest opinion is that if you are going to have kids, you need to get married. If you are not going to have kids (by choice), it doesn't matter (and I don't understand why you would get married in that case). Either way, the non-married co-cohabitants are likely to separate (more-so than those who were married). If they have kids, the kids are more likely to end up the products of a broken home.

As to the religious morality, I don't care in the slightest whether someone gets married or not. As to general morality, people should get married and stay married for the kids and for themselves. They will likely be happier and richer and their kids will likely be happier and richer. Those are good things. I encourage morality that leads to such positive results.

I don't think the so-called movement will affect the church in any significant way.

[imanihonjin]

No they don't.

Either way, I just don't see public opinion swaying in favor of polygamy. Too much child abuse and welfare fraud.

Sure they do. In fact your first argument against polygamy is the type of argument that many have and still use against gay marriage, the "what about the children" argument. Which argument presented by the gays couldn't be equally applied by a polygamist?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Sure they do. In fact your first argument against polygamy is the type of argument that many have and still use against gay marriage, the "what about the children" argument. Which argument presented by the gays couldn't be equally applied by a polygamist?

"We want the right to be married to one person."

[imanihonjin]

No they don't.

Either way, I just don't see public opinion swaying in favor of polygamy. Too much child abuse and welfare fraud.

Moreover, the welfare fraud begins with the fact that the state doesn't recognize any but the first marriage. If the second and any subsequent marriage was recognized then welfare fraud would be reduced. Please note, that I am not a polygamist, nor do I have any desire to be. I just believe a government has no role in determining what marriage is, or is not.

[imanihonjin]

"We want the right to be married to one person."

Yeah, that is the argument you saw from all those who support gay marriage. We want the right to be married to one person was branded right next to all those rainbow flags.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Moreover, the welfare fraud begins with the fact that the state doesn't recognize any but the first marriage. If the second and any subsequent marriage was recognized then welfare fraud would be reduced. Please note, that I am not a polygamist, nor do I have any desire to be. I just believe a government has no role in determining what marriage is, or is not.

Please reconcile the first and last parts of your post.

[Jacob]

"We want the right to be married to one person."

That's not an argument. Just to clarify.

[imanihonjin]

Please reconcile the first and last parts of your post.

Easy. The first part of my post deals with the laws as they are. The last part states what I wish the governmental approach to be.

[byu71]

"We want the right to be married to one person."

Other than tradition, why would the right to be married to one person be more relelvant? It is just another "traditional marriage" is what is best for the family argument.

Polygamy isn't what causes abuse of children, it is the wacky religious leaders associated with polygamy.

Honestly, back in the late 1800's when Utah was fighting to become a State and they were dissed for polygamy, do you think a State back then that was allowing gay marriage would have had an easy time getting in?

[snowcat]

As to the first question. My modest opinion is that if you are going to have kids, you need to get married. If you are not going to have kids (by choice), it doesn't matter (and I don't understand why you would get married in that case). Either way, the non-married co-cohabitants are likely to separate (more-so than those who were married). If they have kids, the kids are more likely to end up the products of a broken home.

As to the religious morality, I don't care in the slightest whether someone gets married or not. As to general morality, people should get married and stay married for the kids and for themselves. They will likely be happier and richer and their kids will likely be happier and richer. Those are good things. I encourage morality that leads to such positive results.

I don't think the so-called movement will affect the church in any significant way.

These are my thoughts as well.