• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Malthus

Law of unintended consequences

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

There was one about ten years' ago where two elderly sisters wanted to do the same so that the survivor would not have a tax problem when the other died.  They were refused.

Fair play to the two guys in the OP.

I don't see why people shouldn't be able to marry members of their own family. The same goes for marrying sports teams, themselves, inanimate objects or domestic animals. 

We need to break down these anachronistic social barriers. It's 2017 after all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, whitevanman said:

I don't see why people shouldn't be able to marry members of their own family. The same goes for marrying sports teams, themselves, inanimate objects or domestic animals. 

We need to break down these anachronistic social barriers. It's 2017 after all. 

I think the whole thing needs a review.

Start point: man and woman marry, raise a family. This is good for the present and future of society so is given various legal and financial benefits for making the formal and legal commitment.

But where is the benefit to wider society of same sex couples marrying? It's great that they have a committed relationship but why give it the same tax breaks?

The OP is good on highlighting that the law has now dragged it too far from the original intentions and absolutely why should a couple only get tax breaks if they're shagging each other?  The carer / caree relationship is an important one, I think we all know people who've lost vast amounts of earnings through caring for their parents so why not extend to them the same tax break? 

Just call it a commitment, provide evidence of such and of dependency and register it.  Love isn't just the physical kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frank Hovis said:

There was one about ten years' ago where two elderly sisters wanted to do the same so that the survivor would not have a tax problem when the other died.  They were refused.

Fair play to the two guys in the OP.

Yes I remember that case. My guess is they didn't allow it because it could have been seen as a tacit approval of incest if a precedent was set allowing siblings to marry. 

But well done to the two gentlemen in the OP for using SJW laws for their own ends. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Austin Allegro said:

Yes I remember that case. My guess is they didn't allow it because it could have been seen as a tacit approval of incest if a precedent was set allowing siblings to marry. 

But well done to the two gentlemen in the OP for using SJW laws for their own ends. 

I must admit I love the fact that the two people are WHITE ...  I can feel the SJW anger starting ... MALE .... anger turning to fury ...  OLDISH .... well OK  ....  ish, CATHOLIC .... full on RAGE .... and STRAIGHT .... SJWs  in total outrage and disbelief as the people are not gender non-binary immigrants and are not even followers of the prophet.

Siblings can marry ... in Pakistan and Arkansas, as the song goes  .... my mother is my sister and my brother is my dad, we are so inbred that's why we look so f.... bad

Edited by satch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.