Homosexual Marriage

[fushigi]

Quote by: Dirty Name So there we have it. Fushigi says NO to "any two people," while Isherwood says YES.

Well, perhaps there are more than two sides to the debate. I'm for gay marriage but against polygamy and incest. End of story. Some gays might not be against P&I. Some straights might be for P&I. Some Mormons are for polygamy and against homosexuality. And I'm sure most married brothers and sisters wouldn't want their spouse to marry again outside their marriage.

The only thing we can be sure permitting gay marriage would lead to is gay people getting married. Dirty disagrees. Neither of us has a crystal ball where we can look into the future and see if it would. So debate on the topic becomes moot, at least as far as I'm concerned.

Quote by: Dirty If any two people can declare themselves "married" then what are we offering incentives for? It's like offering free money to people. Everyone would be "married" all the time. Divorce your wife? OK. But make sure your best friend agrees to "marry" you so you don't lose your benefits! It's absurd, and that's exactly where we would be heading under the "any two people" argument.

Men and women get married in ways that mock the institution every day. Vegas has drive-thru chapels. Friends marry friends for citizenship. Some people get divorced and remarried five or six times in a lifetime.

None of that has caused the earth to spin backwards and the sky to turn purple. Marriage is still a beautiful thing. It still will be after gay marriage is legalized.

I have yet to see a compelling argument force me to agree that gays marrying would really be harmful for society. I have seen you, Dirty, claim that gay marriages wouldn't have the same impact on society, but I'm still puzzled as to how that would somehow harm society.

[Dirty Name]

The only thing we can be sure permitting gay marriage would lead to is gay people getting married. Dirty disagrees. Neither of us has a crystal ball where we can look into the future and see if it would. So debate on the topic becomes moot, at least as far as I'm concerned.

If I have at least convinced you there is a legitimate argument against same-sex marriage, whether you agree with it or not, I've done my job. I'm just sick of the folks who say the only objection is based on moral values and religious intolerance. That's crap. There is a logical argument against it and I have made it here.

Men and women get married in ways that mock the institution every day. Vegas has drive-thru chapels. Friends marry friends for citizenship. Some people get divorced and remarried five or six times in a lifetime. None of that has caused the earth to spin backwards and the sky to turn purple. Marriage is still a beautiful thing. It still will be after gay marriage is legalized.

That is the ultimate strawman and one virtually all of your peers and you are guilty of.

I have never claimed that the sky will turn purple, that dogs and cats will be living together or any of the other hysterical claims about the end of the earth just because gay marriage is legalized.

Nope. Instead, I have made the claim that gay marriage is not equal to traditional marriage in terms of the effects (both positive and negative) on society and on the couples themselves. And that's the only justification required for denying benefits.

Our government denies benefits to people all the time because they don't meet certain qualifications, and same-sex marriage should be no different. It doesn't represent the same compelling interest to society that traditional marriage does. Therefore, they don't get the same benefits. Period.

Further, I have presented a case that demonstrates potential harm to the institution of marriage. That case is based on two potential points of harm: first, to the attitudes of future generations towards the institution, and second, to the resources allocated for married couples.

Again, you don't have to agree with any of those premises, so long as you admit the argument is based on logic and not based on bigotry and/or homophobia.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Dirty Name If I have at least convinced you there is a legitimate argument against same-sex marriage, whether you agree with it or not, I've done my job. I'm just sick of the folks who say the only objection is based on moral values and religious intolerance. That's crap. There is a logical argument against it and I have made it here.

When it comes to gay marriage, I'm more of the Hippocratic oath opinion: do no harm. I haven't seen any compelling evidence that shows gay marriage would do harm (I see yours below, I'll address it separately); I have seen evidence that its absence can do harm. For instance, as you point out, married people get tax breaks (and, I'll add, hospital visitation rights); I don't see any problem with gays getting these. Why? Because I see marriage not as a pretext for reproduction, but rather a monogamous commitment to another person.

Obviously the monogamy doesn't always happen, but inasmuch as a marriage can produce that much more incentive not to have random sex with many partners, I think it's a good thing. I also think having people committed in pairs makes society stronger; anyway, pairing off of mates is a hallmark of humanity that I think produces benefits (most of all, there is a personal commitment to one's mate that hopefully is honored when that mate faces situations where they can't care for themselves and have no one to turn to but those they are romantically committed to.)

Quote by: Dirty That is the ultimate strawman and one virtually all of your peers and you are guilty of. I have never claimed that the sky will turn purple, that dogs and cats will be living together or any of the other hysterical claims about the end of the earth just because gay marriage is legalized.

Guilty as charged. I'm just trying to emphasize that I haven't seen any overwhelmingly great arguments about how gay marriage would produce a significant amount of harm to our society.

Quote by: Dirty Nope. Instead, I have made the claim that gay marriage is not equal to traditional marriage in terms of the effects (both positive and negative) on society and on the couples themselves. And that's the only justification required for denying benefits.

A very reasonable approach. But I read your argument about gay marriage not being equal, and all I found was again the reproduction argument. You must have something better than this - I've seen too many convincing arguments from the other side pointing out that many marriages have no hope of reproduction and we can't argue that those don't produce benefits for society.

Quote by: Dirty Our government denies benefits to people all the time because they don't meet certain qualifications, and same-sex marriage should be no different. It doesn't represent the same compelling interest to society that traditional marriage does. Therefore, they don't get the same benefits. Period.

Again, what are the benefits heterosexual marriages produce beyond reproduction? I'm sure you'll find that all these benefits would be present in a homosexual marriage as well.

Quote by: Dirty Further, I have presented a case that demonstrates potential harm to the institution of marriage. That case is based on two potential points of harm: first, to the attitudes of future generations towards the institution, and second, to the resources allocated for married couples.

Here we come to the crux. On the first point, I'm not against people revising their attitude towards marriage, as that attitude currently shows a discouraging ambivalence towards divorce. For my part, I believe this - divorce - is the greatest threat to the institution of marriage today, not gays. Divorce is a horrid blight on marriage. It causes turmoil in the family (especially with remarriage, when children from different marriages are thrust together into confusing situations) and drives families into financial hardship as their hard-earned money is spent on lawyers and the fees associated with splitting up and living separately. Children develop emotional confusion and a fear of abandonment, often a sense of personal shame and guilt at believing they had something to do with the insolvency of the marriage.

For all we know, gays could actually strengthen the institution of marriage if they managed to stay together with more success than straight couples. It's only a possibility, but perhaps if homosexuals showed they could remain in stable marriages, it could show heterosexuals a thing or two about commitment. As it is, without marriage homosexuals don't have the social pressure to stay together, which helps explain why gays are more promiscuous than straights.

On the second point, as I mentioned above I believe gays ought to have access to the resources allocated to married couples, as it would give them an incentive to stay together in a (hopefully) monogamous relationship. After all, as I said long-term relationships also produce benefits for society and are just as deserving of these benefits.

If your argument is simply that those benefits are intended for couples who are planning to have children, again, I have two questions: one, should we give those benefits to non-reproductive straight couples?; and two, why do we also give a specific tax benefit for having a child? That's double-dipping.

Quote by: Dirty Again, you don't have to agree with any of those premises, so long as you admit the argument is based on logic and not based on bigotry and/or homophobia.

Obviously your argument is too eloquent to make any such claims.

[Marilyn Monroe]

I think this argument has gone about as far as it can. Both sides have been explained, and at this point it's all getting redundant.

What I think has happened is that gays have become sympatheic characters because society is always looking for the downtrodden, someone to help. Every generation thinks they are smarter than the one before, so this is where gays have come into the equation. They have taken that human characteristic and spun it into their defense.

Religion isn't as powerful of an influence anymore. People still believe, but it's all cafeteria-style. They pick and choose what they believe. There are no definites.

Marriage just isn't what it used to be, either. You have birth control, abortion, no-fault divorce, prenuptual agreements, marrying for convenience, it all adds up to this institution has no meaning. It still does for some of the older folks, like Grandma and Grandpa, but mostly even they have been divorced at least one time.

My end conclusion is that no matter how hard we try to keep marriage what it may have been, it has evolved into different things for different people, and no longer is about committment and raising a family. It's really more about benefits, and combining incomes.

Marriage is being redefined.

[Dirty Name]

Again, what are the benefits heterosexual marriages produce beyond reproduction?

First of all, I don't think "reproduction" should be so easily dismissed. Sure, there are lots of married couples who can't or won't do so. But that misses the point that in the eyes of the government, they have the potential to do so, and it's a compelling interest of our society to ensure that reproduction occurs in a stable environment - hence, legal marriage recognition.

Second, benefits to society at large are only part of the equation. There are also potential burdens that need to be factored in. Even in ideal circumstances, pregnancy and childbirth exacts a price on the parents (a price many parents are happy to pay), but it's a price nonetheless - there are burdens on finances, on health, on social interaction, and particularly on career goals for pregnant women, etc. and these are burdens that are simply not experienced to the same degree within a gay relationship.

Sure, you want to dismiss this major point with a wave of your hand, as though it's only a fraction of the population that engages in this "odd" behavior. But it can't be done so easily. I've laid out my case, I've demonstrated that in the eyes of the state all heterosexual couples have the potential to become pregnant, I've demonstrated that it's not cost effective to screen infertile couples, I've demonstrated that there is significantly less compelling interest to promote and encourage non-traditional unions, and I've demonstrated that doing so dilutes the institution of marriage as it exists today.

I guess I don't know what else to tell you except that the cause of "celebrating diversity" is not compelling enough to alter the foundation of the institution of marriage. When it comes down to it, that's really your only argument FOR legalizing gay marriage - the celebration of diversity. You can't make a case for equality because gay couples don't represent an equal compelling interest, and without a real reason, why should we change the definition? Hell, you can't even agree with your peers on what the definition should be.

[Dirty Name]

If your argument is simply that those benefits are intended for couples who are planning to have children, again, I have two questions: one, should we give those benefits to non-reproductive straight couples?; and two, why do we also give a specific tax benefit for having a child? That's double-dipping.

1) How do you identify "non-reproductive straight couples" in a cost-effective manner?

2) We give those tax-specific benefits to anyone, regardless of whether they are married, gay, etc. The state recognizes that children are born into all sorts of circumstances, and the tax break is given because children need to be viewed as a benefit to society, not a burden. The tax break offsets the financial burden that parents experience.

Note that my argument for the marriage benefit doesn't seek to promote procreation, which happens anyway - it seeks to promote a stable environment where procreation should occur.

[Nikkums]

Quote by: Dirty Name First of all, I don't think "reproduction" should be so easily dismissed. Sure, there are lots of married couples who can't or won't do so. But that misses the point that in the eyes of the government, they have the potential to do so, and it's a compelling interest of our society to ensure that reproduction occurs in a stable environment - hence, legal marriage recognition.

Could you please provide links to a government or historical website that states your claims to be true? I have read my own marriage certificate and all documents pertaining to it, and I have found no mention of children, or offspring, or even family. It is a legal bonding of myself to my spouse. A legal contract stating that we have devoted ourselves to eachother, for better or worse, in sickness or in health.. not in procreation.

Quote by: Dirty Name Second, benefits to society at large are only part of the equation. There are also potential burdens that need to be factored in. Even in ideal circumstances, pregnancy and childbirth exacts a price on the parents (a price many parents are happy to pay), but it's a price nonetheless - there are burdens on finances, on health, on social interaction, and particularly on career goals for pregnant women, etc. and these are burdens that are simply not experienced to the same degree within a gay relationship.

".. exacts a price on the parents". These are YOUR words and you, for once, are absolutely correct. It's the PARENTS' responsibility or "burden" as you put it, not yours. It is none of your business and in no way is your task to decide what someone else is able to handle.

Sure, you want to dismiss this major point with a wave of your hand, as though it's only a fraction of the population that engages in this "odd" behavior. But it can't be done so easily. I've laid out my case, I've demonstrated that in the eyes of the state all heterosexual couples have the potential to become pregnant, I've demonstrated that it's not cost effective to screen infertile couples, I've demonstrated that there is significantly less compelling interest to promote and encourage non-traditional unions, and I've demonstrated that doing so dilutes the institution of marriage as it exists today.

I am sorry, but I fail to see how poorly attempting to justify your prejudice is "proof" of anything. Again, I ask you, where is proof that the state/governing body sees that the purpose of marriage is to procreate. Not only is it not 'cost effective' to screen infertile couples, it is morally WRONG and infringes on the lives of the gereral public, that is why it is not done. If this were actually the case, that marriage was a meathod to screen for infertility, options such as IVF, IUI and other such meathods of fertility assistance would not be availible at all, nevermind to the general public.
I would also like to see some proof that homosexual marriage would infact "dilute" the institution of marriage. I would like to see your crystal ball, or whatever it is you are using, to see into the future and come to this conclusion. HOW DO YOU KNOW? Honestly? This is your PRESUMPTION, not fact.

I guess I don't know what else to tell you except that the cause of "celebrating diversity" is not compelling enough to alter the foundation of the institution of marriage. When it comes down to it, that's really your only argument FOR legalizing gay marriage - the celebration of diversity. You can't make a case for equality because gay couples don't represent an equal compelling interest, and without a real reason, why should we change the definition? Hell, you can't even agree with your peers on what the definition should be.

My argument for homosexual marriage to be legal in all places is to demand equal rights for all, and therefore bettering their quality of life. I DARE you to go out and get to know a homosexual couple on a personal level. To ask them how your prejudice, at the expense of their happiness, is effecting them in a positive way. Tell them how you feel your opinion is more important than their rights as a human being, and how because of your pre-concieved notions about their "kind" in general has led you put them on a lower class than you socially and legally.

I would also like to add, since it was brought up in another post, that the legal benifits for married couples in regards to raising children are no where near the amount of legal benifits and tax breaks single parents recieve. If you are to look at the legal benifits that come with raising children, one could say with more certainty, the governement favors single parent families. Then again, one should not make assumptions as to who is and who isnt fit to raise children.

[Elminister]

Quote by: Chris the Chees I take it by this you mean act upon attraction?

I mean this: 4. to prove; put beyond doubt or question: The evidence manifests the guilt of the defendant.
adj. Clearly apparent to the sight or understanding; obvious.
To display or present a manifest of
clearly revealed," from L. manifestus "caught in the act, plainly apprehensible, clear, evident,"
clearly revealed to the mind or the senses or judgment; "the effects of the drought are apparent to anyone who sees the parched fields
provide evidence for; stand as proof of; show by one's behavior, attitude, or external attributes; "His high fever attested to his illness";
manifest - Definitions from Dictionary.com

Quote by: Chris the Chees Or alternatively the modern day statistics are warped by the stigma which still exists in society; a result of a continuing prevailant homophobic attitude espouced by certain members of the community?

You're saying the level of "homophobic attitude" is the same today as it was some 50 odd years ago? 50 years being the span of years between the data bases I speak of. You're saying that homosexuals don't appear,today, in Super Bowl commercials; on TV, home decor/talk/sitcom/drama/comedy shows. You're saying that homosexuality with its own line of jewelry, as it appears on this very web page, and clothing lines and its own childrens bedtime story books along with the global recognition homosexuality is receiving in legislative systems across the globe that it is as surppressed today as it was 50 years ago?!

Quote by: Wikipedia The then controversial Kinsey Reports of 1948 found that 37% of males had had some sexual experience with other men, and that 4% had always been exclusively homosexual. Among women, Kinsey found between 2% and 6% had "more or less exclusively" homosexual experience. In the United States during the 2004 elections, exit polls indicated 4% of all voters self-identified as gay or lesbian. However, due to societal pressures, many who are homosexual may not be willing to identify as such.

Homosexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mr. Cheese, the above as well as what you have said supports my claim of choice in of action.

Quote by: Chris the Chees By me, no; but attraction as already stated is naturally dictated not chosen. In other words, the girls I happen to be attracted to all tend to share certain physical characteristics, which debunks the theory that there is anything random about attraction, from a biological point of view.

From a biological point of view show me this predisposed attraction/preference as it exists in the DNA chain or any other part of a Genome...... I won't be holding my breath.

Quote by: Chris the Chees On the contrary, preference is naturally dictated, it has nothing to do with what one personally wants.

Show me........

Quote by: Chris the Chees Why would homosexuals choose to be attracted to men, a choice which will lead them to being alienated and stigmatised, have their rights limited and generally be discriminated against? Why would anyone choose that?

Actually I could care less as to why they choose this route. All I care about is that they assume the responsibilites of this choice and not spearhead a knee-jerk sympathy campaign using expressions like, "equal civil rights" or "we are victims" or "because black people can vote we deserve marriage licenses" because none of these relate or are correct.

Quote by: Chris the Chees So you are arguing that non-sentient beings, with a highly limited capacity for intellegent thoughts and near completely dictated by instinct make conscious decisions? What a truly laughable theory.

.......?
So your saying that animals are non-sentient beings? sentient - Definitions from Dictionary.com ........are you sure animals don't decide to do the things they do?

Quote by: Chris the Chees That makes no sense, try again.

If a decision affects only me I can rationalize the said decision in whatever manner I see fit, just like homosexuals do.

Quote by: Chris the Chees And just how do your propose to argue that the homosexul lifestyle which is inherently a private affair, hurts anybody?

Keep in mind it's still a 'work in progress' I shall include you too if you wish to engage.
Homosexual Marriage

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: RULE 1 THE BIBLE IS THE TRUTH THOUGH WE HAVE DOUBTS ABOUT WHAT IS SAID. BUT IT IS OKAY TO FEEL THAT WAY I AM NOT GOING TO PUT YOU DOWN FOR THE WAY YOU FEEL

The Bible is what the author's of its books believed to be true. I see no reason to take it beyond that.

I am happy to debate that in a one-on-one debate, if you wish.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Nikkums Could you please provide links to a government or historical website that states your claims to be true? I have read my own marriage certificate and all documents pertaining to it, and I have found no mention of children, or offspring, or even family. It is a legal bonding of myself to my spouse. A legal contract stating that we have devoted ourselves to eachother, for better or worse, in sickness or in health.. not in procreation.

You aren't getting it. Legal marriage isn't intended to promote procreation, and I've NEVER claimed it was.

Try to follow along here: The state knows that procreation occurs, with or without marriage. The state also knows that the best procreative outcomes occur in a stable environment. Thus, the state offers you and your spouse incentives to formalize your intimate, potentially procreative relationship.

It's pretty simple really. The state has a compelling interest in positive procreative outcomes. Relationships with ZERO potential for such outcomes don't qualify for legal recognition, as the state has no compelling interest to recognize such outcomes.

Further, the state recognizes potential harm to the institution through the dilution of benefits paid to non-traditional, non-procreative relationships, and through the erosion of legal defenses against polygamy and incest and more harmful relationships.

Quote by: Nikkums ".. exacts a price on the parents". These are YOUR words and you, for once, are absolutely correct. It's the PARENTS' responsibility or "burden" as you put it, not yours. It is none of your business and in no way is your task to decide what someone else is able to handle.

How do you account for welfare and other social programs paid for by the government?

Quote by: Nikkums Again, I ask you, where is proof that the state/governing body sees that the purpose of marriage is to procreate.

And AGAIN, I tell you, that I have NOT made that argument. See my first response to you, above.

Quote by: Nikkums Not only is it not 'cost effective' to screen infertile couples, it is morally WRONG and infringes on the lives of the gereral public, that is why it is not done. If this were actually the case, that marriage was a meathod to screen for infertility, options such as IVF, IUI and other such meathods of fertility assistance would not be availible at all, nevermind to the general public.

Tell that to the people on your side. They are the ones who keep bringing up infertile couples as a way of attacking my argument. But thanks for another supporting argument on my behalf.

Quote by: Nikkums I would also like to see some proof that homosexual marriage would infact "dilute" the institution of marriage.

Simple. Same-sex marriage would do so in two ways:

First, assume a pool of benefits. Say $100,000 for 100 married couples. We have, on average, $1,000 in benefits per couple. Now add 10 same-sex couples to the original 100 potentially procreative couples. We now have $100k divided 110 ways for a per couple benefit of $910 per couple.

Over-simplified? Sure. Does it demonstrate my point? Yes.

Second, some of you argue in favor of "any two people" should be allowed to get married. Even those who are against polygamy and incest cannot effectively articulate how they would screen those folks out without being guilty of the same discrimination and bigotry you accuse me of.

So, in the case of "any two people," not only does the pool of married couples increase at a much higher rate than in the above example, it essentially renders the legal aspects of the institution useless. The only effect would be to give away free money. You would be a fool to NOT be married. Single people would be cheating themselves out of thousands of dollars in benefits every year. As a result, virtually every adult would make sure they are married as soon as they can legally claim benefits.

I dare you to explain why people wouldn't do that. My guess is that you'll apply contemporary attitudes rather than realizing that with a radical change in the law, future generations simply won't view marriage the same way we do now. It will become a vehicle for benefits and little else. Sure, you'll still have the traditional Christians and hopeless romantics going to Church and having a wedding. For everyone else, it'll become little more than checking another box on a form to get free money.

Quote by: Nikkums To ask them how your prejudice, at the expense of their happiness, is effecting them in a positive way.

I dare YOU to show me evidence of my prejudice, where I have said that gay individuals do not deserve the same rights as everyone else. Go ahead, try.

Quote by: Nikkums Tell them how you feel your opinion is more important than their rights as a human being, and how because of your pre-concieved notions about their "kind" in general has led you put them on a lower class than you socially and legally.

What "rights" of homosexuals are you suggesting I don't value as much as my opinion? Please name the legal right enumerated in the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, in the Declaration of Independence that you are talking about.

Quote by: Nikkums I would also like to add, since it was brought up in another post, that the legal benifits for married couples in regards to raising children are no where near the amount of legal benifits and tax breaks single parents recieve.

So what?

[Nikkums]

Quote by: Dirty Name You aren't getting it. Legal marriage isn't intended to promote procreation, and I've NEVER claimed it was. Try to follow along here: The state knows that procreation occurs, with or without marriage. The state also knows that the best procreative outcomes occur in a stable environment. Thus, the state offers you and your spouse incentives to formalize your intimate, potentially procreative relationship. It's pretty simple really. The state has a compelling interest in positive procreative outcomes. Relationships with ZERO potential for such outcomes don't qualify for legal recognition, as the state has no compelling interest to recognize such outcomes. Further, the state recognizes potential harm to the institution through the dilution of benefits paid to non-traditional, non-procreative relationships, and through the erosion of legal defenses against polygamy and incest and more harmful relationships. How do you account for welfare and other social programs paid for by the government? And AGAIN, I tell you, that I have NOT made that argument. See my first response to you, above. Tell that to the people on your side. They are the ones who keep bringing up infertile couples as a way of attacking my argument. But thanks for another supporting argument on my behalf. Simple. Same-sex marriage would do so in two ways: First, assume a pool of benefits. Say $100,000 for 100 married couples. We have, on average, $1,000 in benefits per couple. Now add 10 same-sex couples to the original 100 potentially procreative couples. We now have $100k divided 110 ways for a per couple benefit of $910 per couple. Over-simplified? Sure. Does it demonstrate my point? Yes. Second, some of you argue in favor of "any two people" should be allowed to get married. Even those who are against polygamy and incest cannot effectively articulate how they would screen those folks out without being guilty of the same discrimination and bigotry you accuse me of. So, in the case of "any two people," not only does the pool of married couples increase at a much higher rate than in the above example, it essentially renders the legal aspects of the institution useless. The only effect would be to give away free money. You would be a fool to NOT be married. Single people would be cheating themselves out of thousands of dollars in benefits every year. As a result, virtually every adult would make sure they are married as soon as they can legally claim benefits. I dare you to explain why people wouldn't do that. My guess is that you'll apply contemporary attitudes rather than realizing that with a radical change in the law, future generations simply won't view marriage the same way we do now. It will become a vehicle for benefits and little else. Sure, you'll still have the traditional Christians and hopeless romantics going to Church and having a wedding. For everyone else, it'll become little more than checking another box on a form to get free money. I dare YOU to show me evidence of my prejudice, where I have said that gay individuals do not deserve the same rights as everyone else. Go ahead, try. What "rights" of homosexuals are you suggesting I don't value as much as my opinion? Please name the legal right enumerated in the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, in the Declaration of Independence that you are talking about. So what?

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH!!! I am sorry!!!

You live in the United States don't you??

I don't, so I sometimes forget how backward and twisted things are there. I had to look up the information myself (since you felt it was unimportant.. but how were you to know, right? I only asked..) You can find it here if you would like: 2006 Federal Tax Rate Schedules
I had no idea your tax system was that ****ED up to be perfectly honest. I am used to a tax system that provides benifits to those who actually need them. (Did you know we dont have to pay ANY taxes if we make under a certain amount?? Seems our government does not seem to think people who make $1 a year make enough to pay the government:eek: ) I did not realize this was all about how you are trying to scam your government to your advantage and that making more people eligible for the same things you are would be taking money from your pocket.Thank you for making it so clear to me.

So, do I have it straight now? This NOT about prejudice, it's about greed??

[fushigi]

Quote by: Dirty Name 1) How do you identify "non-reproductive straight couples" in a cost-effective manner?

Simple. Only give tax breaks to people who are pregnant, give birth, or adopt.

Quote by: Dirty Note that my argument for the marriage benefit doesn't seek to promote procreation, which happens anyway - it seeks to promote a stable environment where procreation should occur.

Gay parents who adopt need to provide a stable environment too. Furthermore, the cost of adopting is even greater than the cost of giving birth, so actually gay couples would deserve the tax breaks even more.

[Dirty Name]

Simple. Only give tax breaks to people who are pregnant, give birth, or adopt.

For folks who have had children, or adopt, we already give tax breaks. And under your idea, you miss out on the opportunity to strengthen the relationship ahead of the time children enter into it.

Finally, your idea doesn't advance gay rights, it merely strips legal protections from married couples. Yet another example of the potential harm of legalizing gay marriage.

Gay parents who adopt need to provide a stable environment too.

The state has an interest in ensuring that procreation and child-rearing occurs in a stable environment. In the case of gay adoptive parents, that interest is served by the pre-adoption investigation. In any adoption, the state takes a really good look at the prospective parent(s). The state doesn't get that luxury when it comes to children who aren't placed for adoption, nor should they.

Thus, in traditional relationships, the state's interests are served by legal marriage.

Furthermore, the cost of adopting is even greater than the cost of giving birth, so actually gay couples would deserve the tax breaks even more.

Hence the $10,000 adoption tax credit available to every adoptive parent, gay and straight alike.

Next, please.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: Nikkums OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH!!! I am sorry!!! You live in the United States don't you?? I don't, so I sometimes forget how backward and twisted things are there. I had to look up the information myself (since you felt it was unimportant.. but how were you to know, right? I only asked..) You can find it here if you would like: 2006 Federal Tax Rate Schedules I had no idea your tax system was that ****ED up to be perfectly honest. I am used to a tax system that provides benifits to those who actually need them. (Did you know we dont have to pay ANY taxes if we make under a certain amount?? Seems our government does not seem to think people who make $1 a year make enough to pay the government ) I did not realize this was all about how you are trying to scam your government to your advantage and that making more people eligible for the same things you are would be taking money from your pocket.Thank you for making it so clear to me. So, do I have it straight now? This NOT about prejudice, it's about greed??

I hate to pat myself on the back, but I took down virtually every point you brought up, and THIS is your response?

I asked you a number of questions, and answered a bunch of yours, and all you respond with is...a rant about the United States tax system.