The Thomas Paul Murphy Music Player

"You might think that I am off base, but I am published by the Securities and Exchange Commission."

Thomas Paul Murphy

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Gay Marriage and Taxes 07 09 2013

Gay Marriage and Taxes 07 09 2013

Who are we trying to fool?  People don't stay married because it is tax advantageous for them to do so!  If that were true 50% of marriages would not end in divorce.  Equality means that the tax code does not play favorites with regard to what is termed Personal Status! 

So the way to address the whole gay marriage issue is to remove the personal status from the tax code altogether!

The whole concept of marriage is of the honor system!!!! So well more than half of us have no honor!!!!!  Not a good sign is it!  That could be the topic of a whole "nother" article.  Why don't some of you aspiring philosophers take a crack at that one.

What about those single mothers that had to leave their low life abusing husbands?  Should they have been financially rewarded by staying married to a criminal?  Should they be financially penalized by comparison for leaving that husband and seeking renewed pursuit of happiness in their lives?  In this case we touch back on the Constitution don't we?  The incentive would prevent their Constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness! 

I don't believe that Gay's who marry should get the benefit of pro survival of the species heterosexual marriages.  In other words we need to make the concept of marriage one that is a matter of love and honor by eliminating legal considerations with regard to it altogether so that the wrong people that won't stay married don't get married in the first place.  Does that mean taking all of the issues with regard to money out of the issue of marriage?  With 50% of marriages ending in divorce it would seem that our culture has breed what can be considered invalid candidates for marriage?  I am not going to get into what has been proven to be the invalid candidate other than to say a study should have been undertaken to put the nail in the post it note on this one a long time ago.  I like the sound of my phrase very much, "Putting the nail in the post it note!"  or "Putting the nail through the post it note!"

If you want Gay's to marry it can't be considered a normal marriage.  It would be far too confusing for a Governance of people to be able to deal with.  Those marriages need to be given a designation.  Why?  So if we are to try to legitimize the issue then we might like to see how "successful" those marriages are over the years?  Butch he cheated on Ron and got aides and died five years later.  Their adopted son also got aides etc.  Sam and John got a divorce after 5 years. etc. etc.  The mean household income of gay marriages is so and so much percent higher than that of straight miscarriages?  (Can you see Joan of Arc drawing her sword?)  So and so married his adopted son after he nambla loved him for his entire life. 

I don't mind two men living together. (Maybe I should?)  I do mind it when their actions compromise my Constitutional rights!  I have no problem with them being able to live together because I view the pair as Victims!  Victims of the Lilith beast from the Bible.  No I am not taking my commentary out of context and it is not without accurate reference, their is no delusion of invalid reference with me!

And with regards to equality if we find out that Gay men make more money than straight men are they going to advocate that we tell our sons in order to become successful you need to be Gay or Lesbian?  There is a shade of truth to that already, isn't there?

Congress shall make no law with regard to religion.  And can I indeed prove that Gay's and Lesbians are a product of religion? OH YES I CAN!  And I can prove a lot more than that! But I do not write this to make people riled.

And the personal status or concept of marriage in itself is a religious concept.  So the first amendment applies here to.

Don't get me wrong I am not trying to break up marriages.  To the contrary I believe a man loves a woman and they should stay together for the rest of their natural lives.  I find it an extreme insult of the California Magog culture that a dating show is one that ends in the vow or marriage or not?  These children that money could buy have no concept of what marriage means.  It is the personal culture of Magog beliefs being superimposed on the framework of American Society, bending our backs to the will of the Magog's ill formed beliefs.

Oh sure they might say lessened the concept of marriage on television but they don't really delve into the depth of meaning to it do they; again for fear of self incrimination.  Great concept used on television quite a bit isn't it.  Not speaking your mind for fear of self incrimination!

Copyright 2013 Thomas Paul Murphy
Originally published on 07 09 2013 at:

No comments:

Post a Comment