LGBT movement is in violation of seperation of church and state

[KeymasterKeymaster]

Ask any dog owner (or trainer) and he will tell you….. a bitch can get very uncomfortable when she doesn’t feel the end of her leash.

If you keep doing what you've always done... you're gonna keep getting what you always got.

[Big Viking Chef BVCParticipant 1286]

In terms of tax savings, two men can form a corporation, both contribute capital to the corporation and earn income for the corporation, and own equal shares in the corporation.  To the extent that income is retained within the corporation, the income is only taxed after the corporate expenses have been deducted, and at the small corporation tax rate (which is low in order to promote small business growth).  Income that is then distributed to the owners to live on is then taxed as dividends at a preferential personal tax rate.  Income that is retained in the corporation is not taxed further until paid out to the owners as dividends (tax shelter).  An accountant and a lawyer would have to set it up for you.  But two or more business partners could and do use this structure to their advantage every day.  Regardless of what is going on in the bedroom or at the altar.  Bringing marriage into it is not necessary to save on taxes, but carries with it all of the risks of Family Law.

BVC

 

Swallow this RED PILL ===> Men will lay down their lives for their brothers, their women and their children. This makes Men useful as slaves. Women will lay down their lives for ONLY their children. To expect more from women is just a FANTASY created by society and reinforced by the unconditional love that we experienced from our Mothers. The key to freedom is the understanding that the woman you meet is not going to fantastically love you like your Mother did. If you buy into the fantasy, then she is your new master. If you do not buy into the fantasy, then she is nothing, and you retain your freedom.

[Big Viking Chef BVCParticipant 1286]

That’s quite the shorthand, Keymaster.  WANDS.  Did you just get out of the pool?  LOL

Dick & s~~~ jokes always…lol

See Scrotimere?  We’re all men here.  Welcome to the club!

BVC

 

Swallow this RED PILL ===> Men will lay down their lives for their brothers, their women and their children. This makes Men useful as slaves. Women will lay down their lives for ONLY their children. To expect more from women is just a FANTASY created by society and reinforced by the unconditional love that we experienced from our Mothers. The key to freedom is the understanding that the woman you meet is not going to fantastically love you like your Mother did. If you buy into the fantasy, then she is your new master. If you do not buy into the fantasy, then she is nothing, and you retain your freedom.

[experiencedParticipant]

@BVC,   great avatar you got there. Atlas MGTOW shrugged, earth broken behind him.  [earlier, I’d kept thinkin, “why the guy leaving an egg?”]

"It seems like there's times a body gets struck down so low, there ain't a power on earth that can ever bring him up again. Seems like something inside dies so he don't even want to get up again. But he does."

[Big Viking Chef BVCParticipant 1286]

LOL thanks experienced.  I know, looks like broken egg!  Oh well.  Took me a while to get through the book, which was a bit of a love story <gag> but the ideas were there.

Cheers

BVC

Swallow this RED PILL ===> Men will lay down their lives for their brothers, their women and their children. This makes Men useful as slaves. Women will lay down their lives for ONLY their children. To expect more from women is just a FANTASY created by society and reinforced by the unconditional love that we experienced from our Mothers. The key to freedom is the understanding that the woman you meet is not going to fantastically love you like your Mother did. If you buy into the fantasy, then she is your new master. If you do not buy into the fantasy, then she is nothing, and you retain your freedom.

[ScrotimereParticipant 14]

Gender equality is unobtainable.  The very word gender implies a difference.  This is no doubt the reason for so much confusion and animosity around the subject of marriage and “equal” rights.  Once we admit the futility of obtaining equality we resolve the befuddlement and the solution becomes self evident: symbiosis.  All parents should be held responsible for one half of the time and one half of the money needed to raise and educate a child.  This can be achieved by altering existing family law to allow for the starting a family unit regardless of gender or marital status.

This would be done by establishing a Committed Relationship Contract (CRC).  This would, as stated above, hold all parents accountable for providing equal shares of the child care regardless of gender, marital or sexual status.  If money is an issue the state could help pay however, the party/parties that receive disbursements from the state must reimburse the tax payers either with a lump sum or community service @ prevailing minimum wage for unskilled labor until the debt is paid.

Currently you must obtain a state issued license to verify that you have entered in to a mutual agreement with another party and, presumably, wish to start a family.  This contract is legally binding under IRC 501 regarding non-profit religious organizations.  This is a gross violation of separation of church and state while providing little to naught in the way of legal protection or guidance  There are usually no words written down and agreed upon (prenuptials not withstanding) in which case the contract defaults back to unfair state and federal family law.

To solve this the CRC could also provide for the formation and dissolution of a Family Relationship Contract (FRC).  This contract is only if two or more people living together wish to combine assets and file taxes as a single family corporation (similar to religious incorporation under IRC 501) with the intention of starting a family and raising children where good parenting is rewarded with tax breaks and write offs regardless of gender, marital or sexual status.  This FRC allows for the formation of a bank account specifically for family expenses and savings.  When you commit monies to the family corporation you are buying “stock” in the company.  Stay at home parents would “earn” as if they were being paid by the family corporation at the prevailing wages for professional child care services.  These “earnings” would be used to “buyback” stock in the family.

At this point if the FRC is dissolved all assets and capitol of the Family Corporation (not the individuals who pay into the corporation) are disbursed back to the share holders according to their percentage of owned stock.  This leads to a more fair and balanced distribution of family assets and capitol as well as the possibility to save large sums of money and time by avoiding family court.  Upon dissolution of an FRC the parties involved will revert back to the CRC standard and be held responsible for equal amounts of time and money for the children.

Once the ludicrous idea of being equal is set aside and the entanglement of church and state undone the idea of taking equal shares of responsibility arises.  Marriage is a construct of religious institutions and should have no bearing on the legal structure surrounding two or more people wishing to combine their personal and fiduciary powers to adopt/raise children.

And not to bring up old s~~~ but @Tower, you called me a girl/white knight after my first post.  Your double standards are laughable.

[Vector VikingParticipant 413]

Every now and then I see something that makes me second guess my decision to stop drinking and doing drugs.

This thread would make far more sense if there were liquid rainbow iguanas dripping off of my monitor.

[ScrotimereParticipant 14]

@VectorViking Lol guilty as charged, it’s legal where I live and I’m high most of the time.  I really am not too concerned about this subject as I stated in the previous post it’s all so convoluted and entwined with religious dogma I could crap a better smelling rose.  That was my smelly rosebud you just read xP oh and thanks to BigVikingChef also who actually gave several intelligent responses not just some flames.

[Vector VikingParticipant 413]

I feel ya, man. I just don’t understand how specifically the LGBT movement is in violation of the establishment clause of the 1st amendment.

I think it would stand to reason to say that all marriages in the US are in violation, being regulated by government at all. If the US government went completely laissez-faire on the subject of any and all marriages, and left them in the hands of religious or non-religious organizations, both men and women would probably be much more responsible with who they marry and how they behave within said partnerships and the dissolutions of them should the need arise. As it stands there are practical incentives like tax rates and exemptions to get married, and incentives like alimony and child support for divorces, and governments cash in on both ends.

S~~~-deal for the people affected, especially men in divorce court. Moot point for me though, played that game once and learned my lesson. No marriage, domestic partnerships, long-term relationships, monogamous anything for this guy. Just a whole lot of doing whatever the f~~~ I want with my own time and the money I earn. S~~~’s called Freedom, son! Welcome aboard The Nebuchadnezzar. Grab a grey sweatshirt and a bunk, we’re gonna go f~~~ up some robots today.

[ScrotimereParticipant 14]

Vector Viking wrote:

I think it would stand to reason to say that all marriages in the US are in violation, being regulated by government at all.

  This is absolutely right.  Here is a history lesson on marriage.

@vector Viking, as the church’s power grew through the Middle Ages, so did its influence over marriage. In 1215, marriage was declared one of the church’s seven sacraments, alongside rites like baptism and penance. But it was only in the 16th century that the church decreed that weddings be performed in public, by a priest, and before witnesses.
What role did love play?
For most of human history, almost none at all. Marriage was considered too serious a matter to be based on such a fragile emotion. “If love could grow out of it, that was wonderful,” said Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage, a History. “But that was gravy.” In fact, love and marriage were once widely regarded as incompatible with one another.

So here we can see that the church is claims marriage as a sacred part of their organization.  It has been written “the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion.”  Making a law respecting marriage in a court of law.  Red flag thrown, whistle blown.  “Persons may also assert constitutional rights offensively, bringing a civil suit against the government or government officials for a variety of relief: declarative, injunctive and monetary.”  http://home.ubalt.edu/shapiro/rights_course/Chapter7text.htm  This is what I’m on about, this is why you should still be concerned about the issue.  All the men who have been wronged are owed back some due compensation for being subjected to unconstitutional laws.

[Schaefe89Participant 163]

I’m getting so sick of hearing about the gays. Gay people are mentally sick and need to be treated as such. Whether gay people are nice or not is irrelevant. It is disturbing what society sees as normal these days

[Author]

Posts