I guess you're having trouble reading so I will write it again for you just as I have before. I said marry. I didn't say have kids. We're not talking about children here. You can marry and not have kids as many do. Additionally, we don't play a game of eugenics in America where we prevent people from getting married based on certain genetic markers so not sure what you're getting at there.
I am talking about moral reasons that people are asking to remove from the equation. I could shoot a whole in your tax argument but then again I'd like to stick to morality.
So please read the words this time and then respond. It's an awesome tactic...I promise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
If you procreate with your sister, you're going to likely have kids which will burden the system due to their birth defects.
Not really. If my wife and I were to divorce and then marry our cats, we'd pay about half the taxes we do right now. When one spouse produces income and the other, Toonces, does not, there's a significant marriage bonus.
As for polygamy, assuming we can work out the tax stuff and not allow for some polygamy "superbonus," then I'm really okay with polygamy so long as we're still talking about consenting, non-related adults.
You asked for a rational, non-moralistic reason, so there it is.
In your furry-love world, if my cat decides it lives at another house, does that mean my cat gets half my stuff?
|