Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

Any adult who reaches the age of consent can enter a marriage contract regardless of the contracting parties gender.

Says you.

[Dirty Name]

Your best answer is that infertility is "not always final," which is ridiculous. So in your eyes, the state is best served by giving a tax break to a couple in the hopes that, somewhere down the road, there may be a potential scientific discovery that will reverse their infertility?

No. In the hopes that the couple stays together for life. Nothing more, nothing less. You would do well to keep in mind that the state doesn't KNOW who is infertile and who is not because it never asks. It never asks because nothing is gained by doing so.

[Dirty Name]

As for the government's expense in checking a couple's fertility, if it would save the government the tax breaks it has to pay out to married couples, it would save thousands and thousands of dollars if the government would just test for fertility. How many years will I be gaining a tax break? Forty? Fifty? If the tax break is $1,000, would the testing cost more than $50,000? No, and you know it

Maybe you forget the government would have to test EVERY couple, not just the infertile ones. My God you are off your rocker.

[italiangm]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint And to help that couple reach that happy day, the government legislated the married filing jointly tax break -- when, twenty years ago? Fifty? When infertility was irreversible? That makes sense to you?

For the record, the Revenue Act of 1916 taxed the “entire net income received by every individual.”

Some states had community property laws allowing some married couples to lower their taxes by “splitting” assets which decreased joint tax liability. So Congress was pressured to establish joint taxation allowing for “income splitting” and creating one of our nation’s first tax shelters.

Single folk got upset and pressured Congress to lessen the benefits of income splitting in 1969.

It's interesting to note that 13 countries changed from joint or family taxation to individual taxation since 1970. None have changed in the opposite direction.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name You would do well to keep in mind that the state doesn't KNOW who is infertile and who is not because it never asks. It never asks because nothing is gained by doing so.

The government doesn't have to ask, because fertility is a moot point.

The government should be giving benefits only to those who acquire kids. The gold standard for determiing who has kids is already reported once a year on every 1040 in the form of dependent exemptions.

You want the exemption? You fill out the form. No invasion of privacy, No additional cost. Period. End of issue.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Says you.

Indeed.

[Dirty Name]

Major causes of female infertility:

* Ovulation factors
* Cervical/uterine factors
* Tubal & peritoneal factors
* Immunology factors
* Endometriosis
* Pelvic Inflammatory Disease
* Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome
* Premature Ovarian Failure
* Fibroid Tumors

Now, this is JUST the female, and many of these causes are fixable. Are you proposing to screen for all these causes, or do you just think that I should screen out permanent cases, like hysterectomies (which happen to less than 6 out of 1000 women)?

http://www.acog.org/from_home/public...01-31-02-3.cfm

[Dirty Name]

The government should be giving benefits only to those who acquire kids. The gold standard for determiing who has kids is already reported once a year on every 1040 in the form of dependent exemptions.

The government already does that. It's called the child tax credit. And it ignores those folks who make sacrifices in an effort to raise a family, yet experience hardships that prevent them from having kids.

You people are focused on a problem that affects less than 0.6% of the population, and even that number is high considering the majority of hysterectomies occur at age 44. Thanks to CoffeeSaint, I'm now quite informed on this medical issue. The fact is, the state doesn't CARE about fertility rates because we all know a perfect solution is unachievable. So instead, we shoot for the solution that gets us the best bang for our buck.

No other possible solution is as efficient as the one I am advocating.

[Dirty Name]

It's interesting to note that 13 countries changed from joint or family taxation to individual taxation since 1970. None have changed in the opposite direction.

I'm curious, which countries?

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name The government already does that. It's called the child tax credit. And it ignores those folks who make sacrifices in an effort to raise a family, yet experience hardships that prevent them from having kids.

Increase the credit to compensate for hardships, including the year an attempt is made but the fetus doesn't make it.

Quote by: Dirty Name So instead, we shoot for the solution that gets us the best bang for our buck. No other possible solution is as efficient as the one I am advocating.

Hogwash. I just presented a perfectly viable -- and fair -- alternative.

[Dirty Name]

Increase the credit to compensate for hardships, including the year an attempt is made but the fetus doesn't make it.

You are still ignoring the one thing the state is shooting for...a stable relationship. Again, the benefit isn't for having children. It's for strengthening the relationship, which in turn reduces the chances that any offspring will become wards of the state. The benefits are NOT "rewards" for having children. They are incentives for forming the basis for a strong nuclear family...

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name I'm curious, which countries?

Didn't list 'em. The info comes from an article appearing in the Family Research Council's "Family Policy Review".

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Dirty Name The government already does that. It's called the child tax credit. And it ignores those folks who make sacrifices in an effort to raise a family, yet experience hardships that prevent them from having kids. You people are focused on a problem that affects less than 0.6% of the population, and even that number is high considering the majority of hysterectomies occur at age 44. Thanks to CoffeeSaint, I'm now quite informed on this medical issue. The fact is, the state doesn't CARE about fertility rates because we all know a perfect solution is unachievable. So instead, we shoot for the solution that gets us the best bang for our buck. No other possible solution is as efficient as the one I am advocating.

Since you looked up some numbers, I'll respond to this. These still aren't the right numbers, though; I want a percentage of marriages that are recognized by the U.S. government that do not produce offspring. that will show how "efficient" your scheme is.

But none of that matters, and here's why:
You are assuming the government's motives, without any evidence that you know what those motives are; your solution only fixes the problems you see, not the problems society actually faces. Your views on this issue do not reflect reality.
Reality is: the government is not in the business of encouraging nuclear families through tax breaks, however advantageous nuclear families might be for the government. The government collects taxes, as much as they can; when the people protest, the government tries to appease them. The government caved in to pressure from the states to provide tax shelters for married couples. You think you know why, because the idea you have makes sense to you. But you have no proof. You are not right. You are also assuming that nuclear families are advantageous for the government, again because it makes sense to you, again without proof. You are still not right. You think the number of infertile couples is too small to matter, and therefore the government does not care: again, because it makes sense to you, again with no proof. Again, you are not right. Even if your arguments made sense to anyone but yourself, and clearly, from this thread, they do not,
YOU STILL ARE NOT RIGHT.
You have invented reasons for why the government has done what they have done. The government does not have motivations; it does what the people demand of it, and when they don't demand something, it tries to gain more power for itself; that is what government does, and why. Any other motivation is something you have made up. I'm glad you like your ideas; they sound like fun.

But you are not right.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name You are still ignoring the one thing the state is shooting for...a stable relationship. Again, the benefit isn't for having children. It's for strengthening the relationship, which in turn reduces the chances that any offspring will become wards of the state. The benefits are NOT "rewards" for having children. They are incentives for forming the basis for a strong nuclear family...

My alternative balances the need for supporting stable relationships with the need for efficiency and fairness to all taxpayers. It also balances government involvement with the desire for privacy.

[underbear1]

"They are incentives for forming the basis for a strong nuclear family..."
The government has NO SUCH INTEREST! If it did it wouldn't take two incomes to afford just the basic needs of housing, transportation, utilities, (leaving no one home to watch out for children.) Even then 45 million can't afford healthcare.
So get over the idea the government gives a damn about your stable nuclear family, it doesn't now, and it never has.

[Old Blue Light]

I consider the new law passing to be a victory for society. It is time that we stand for morality and tradition. If homosexuals were allowed to marry it would undermine the sanctity of marriage between man and woman, making marriage as an institute less important to society. This is highly destructive and very irresponsible for respectable citizens. Remember, rights are not demanded on this world. They are handed down by our past and must be protected as they are. All should see the bigger picture. Certainly, if homosexuals are to practice their habits, it is their right to do with themselves as they wish. However, if you don't accept God's rule, why should you expect him to accept yours.

[Jack]

if you don't accept God's rule, why should you expect him to accept yours.

Totally irrelevant in a topic about social issues. American society is not subject to christian standards.

[Old Blue Light]

True enough. And may it remain outside of all religious rule. Still, marriage as an institute is regulated by Christian standards and is a religious idea to promote family values that are important for the well-being of our children. My meaning is that if marriage is a religious and moral institute, why would any person not recognizing that ideal, want to join the club so diligently and disruptively.

[Jack]

I have no interest in marriage and have asked publicly why gays are making such an issue over the concept of marriage when it's the benefits and privileges that married people enjoy that we're actually after. I have yet to read a reasonable response.

[Son of Belial]

Are you actually saying it's only Christians that have traditionally had marriages?