Homosexual Marriage

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: belverron Dirty Name's making my head hurt, so I'll get back on this when I've had a little more sleep. Off to vanquish the trolls and the undead and the combination thereof!

That always happens when you are forced to think about the argument of the opposition, instead of dismissing it with a wave of your hand.

I look forward to your replies in the coming days.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Not even close. A childless couple may still have the potential to produce offspring. A homosexual couple does not.

Until they do, they're still childless and undeserving of any benefits allocated to your child-rearing requirement.

Quote by: Dirty Name Why should we eliminate federal tax incentives for married couples, even if they are currently childless? Do they not have the potential to conceive a child? The answer, of course, is yes. My point, again, is that the federal government offers these tax breaks and incentives to encourage a stable, nuclear family, so that our society can continue in perpetuity. The federal government has an interest in encouraging men and women to marry, live with one another, and bond, prior to becoming parents. Federal tax incentives to married couples, childless or not, promote the interest of the federal government.

And once they do produce children, they'll be eligible to receive tax benefits related to marriage.

Quote by: Dirty Name Health insurance offered by employers is entirely different, and should be left entirely up to the employer.

Once an employer isn't required to pay a larger premium for childless couples, they have the option not to. Benefits are one of the first things to cut if a company is trying to keep more folks on payroll when slumps occur. Besides, state insurance depts/commission (and even the feds) still regulate insurance companies, including self-insured plans. Many states have specific requirements about spouse and child premiums/benefits.

Quote by: Dirty Name Income tax rates have been dealt with in the previous paragraph.

After adding my comments they have.

Quote by: Dirty Name Insofar as such incentives as social security, pension survivor benefits and asset transfers have little to do with the promotion of a nuclear family, and more to do with taking care of senior citizens, I dismiss it here as not relevant to our discussion.

Great! Then you agree childless couples won't receive those benefits. See? I knew we could find areas to compromise! :)

[Jack]

Oh, so now you want to include ANY "loving relationship" as the legal equivalent to a child-producing heterosexual couple and the benefit to society that such families produce?

I was quite specific.

"homosexual relationship"=loving relationship

[Dirty Name]

Until they do, they're still childless and undeserving of any benefits allocated to your child-rearing requirement.

Dude, that's YOUR child-rearing requirement. I don't require anyone to get pregnant and raise offspring in order to be married. I merely require them to have the potential to do so without any invasion of their privacy (to include forcing them to take fertility tests).

[Dirty Name]

And once they do produce children, they'll be eligible to receive tax benefits related to marriage.

Such tax incentives have nothing to do with encouraging childbirth, but everything to do with encouraging a stable, committed relationship that is essential FOR childbirth and raising children in the ideal, nuclear family relationship.

[Dirty Name]

Once an employer isn't required to pay a larger premium for childless couples, they have the option not to. Benefits are one of the first things to cut if a company is trying to keep more folks on payroll when slumps occur. Besides, state insurance depts/commission (and even the feds) still regulate insurance companies, including self-insured plans. Many states have specific requirements about spouse and child premiums/benefits.

I fail to see your point here. You continue to argue in favor of cutting childless couples out of "marriage." I don't advocate such a thing. Obviously most childless couples are not incapable of getting pregnant, they are simply waiting until the time is right. My original point has little to do with the private sector, except insofar as government recognition of homosexual marriage would harm businesses and/or their employees...which is yet another reason why I am opposed to gay marriage.

But that was not my original point.

[Dirty Name]

Great! Then you agree childless couples won't receive those benefits. See? I knew we could find areas to compromise!

No, silly. I simply said those particular benefits have nothing to do with having children AT ALL. Thus, it's irrelevant to our discussion.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name Dude, that's YOUR child-rearing requirement.

It's the only fair treatment for childless married couples. You've heard of PayGo? This is the benefits equivalent of PayGo to support perpetuation.

The upside of implementing this rule is that it will most likely promote child-rearing That is what you're claiming the government favors, right?

[Dirty Name]

The upside of implementing this rule will most likely be to promote child-rearing That is what you're claiming the government favors, right?

Ah...now I see where you have gone astray.

NO. I do NOT claim that the government favors "child-rearing" per se. That suggests our society just wants people to pop out kids left and right just to boost the population.

While sustaining the population is one component of the government's interest, it's more accurate to say that government wants to propogate society in the most stable environment known to mankind - the nuclear family - because children raised in a home with a mother and a father go on to be productive citizens themselves, and not a drain on society.

Thus, it's CRITICAL that we encourage through tax incentives, and yes, even private insurance coverage, for childless couples to get married and stay married, in order to learn more about one another and bond PRIOR to having children, so that the stress and financial burdens of raising a child do not fracture the nuclear relationship.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name No, silly. I simply said those particular benefits have nothing to do with having children AT ALL. Thus, it's irrelevant to our discussion.

People wouldn't be jumping through financial hoops if it weren't for the fact they wish to pass undiminished assets to future generations to aid perpetuation, silly.

[Dirty Name]

And yet, your argument regarding those benefits has NOTHING to do with our discussion. Further, homosexuals can jump through those same financial hoops if they wish to pass assets to a loved one, regardless of the beneficiary's sexual orientation.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name While sustaining the population is one component of the government's interest, it's more accurate to say that government wants to propogate society in the most stable environment known to mankind - the nuclear family - because children raised in a home with a mother and a father go on to be productive citizens themselves, and not a drain on society. Thus, it's CRITICAL that we encourage through tax incentives, and yes, even private insurance coverage, for childless couples to get married and stay married, in order to learn more about one another and bond PRIOR to having children, so that the stress and financial burdens of raising a child do not fracture the nuclear relationship.

And the test for meeting these requirements first is to acquire the knowledge and finances prior to having children.

Considering the divorce rate, it's become glaringly obvious the current set of incentives have only made it easier for people to make errors in judgment long before they are ready to be parents.

Once a previously childless couple has met the aforementioned means test and proven their ability, they deserve child-rearing benefits.

Not a nanosecond before then.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name And yet, your argument regarding those benefits has NOTHING to do with our discussion.

Repeating that statement won't make it magically become true, you know.

Quote by: Dirty Name Further, homosexuals can jump through those same financial hoops if they wish to pass assets to a loved one, regardless of the beneficiary's sexual orientation.

Until it comes to social security and pension survivor benefits. Plus the tax rate on passing assets on to a person not related by marriage is much higher.

Moreover, language in recent state laws that recognize only opposite sex marriages have called into question the enforceability of powers of attorney, wills, and other testamentary documents between gay couples.

[Dirty Name]

When you say "child-rearing benefits," are you suggesting that they aren't allowed to get married until that point? I'm unclear on what specific benefits you are attempting to restrict.

What is alarming to me is that you seem to be advocating some sort of new government bureaucracy, such as the Federal Marriage Benefits Agency (FMBA?)...which is responsible for testing couples for fertility and financial solvency. Wow. That seems pretty stupid when we already have the perfect means test:

Man + Woman = Potential offspring
Man + Man = No possible offspring
Woman + Woman = No possible offspring

So by now it should be fairly obvious that given the choice between limiting marriage to one man and one woman, versus creating a federal agency to oversee all marriage licensing via fertility and means testing, the general population is going to side with the notion that marriage = one man and one woman. It just makes perfect financial sense as far as the government is concerned. A perfect, natural test to determine who should be married! Why, that's so SIMPLE!

[belverron]

Quote by: Dirty Name That always happens when you are forced to think about the argument of the opposition, instead of dismissing it with a wave of your hand.

You presume too much, Dirty Name.

[italiangm]

Quote by: Dirty Name When you say "child-rearing benefits," are you suggesting that they aren't allowed to get married until that point?

Nope. Simply put, nobody gets child-rearing benefits unitl they marry and have children.

Quote by: Dirty Name I'm unclear on what specific benefits you are attempting to restrict.

Exactly what I wrote above.

Quote by: Dirty Name What is alarming to me is that you seem to be advocating some sort of new government bureaucracy, such as the Federal Marriage Benefits Agency (FMBA?)...which is responsible for testing couples for fertility and financial solvency.

Fertility, no. Ability to raise a child, yes. But no extra agency required to do this. The current mechanisms work fine.

Quote by: Dirty Name Wow. That seems pretty stupid when we already have the perfect means test

If you continue to find it necessary to be insulting, this debate is over.

[belverron]

Quote by: italiangm If you continue to find it necessary to be insulting, this debate is over.

If you hadn't picked up on it, I second that motion.

[Dirty Name]

Until it comes to social security and pension survivor benefits. Plus the tax rate on passing assets on to a person not related by marriage is much higher. Moreover, language in recent state laws that recognize only opposite sex marriages have called into question the enforceability of powers of attorney, wills, and other testamentary documents between gay couples.

Pity.

But when you say you want to exclude childless couples from these benefits, what do you mean by this? What if my child died at birth? What if he died at two years old? What if my wife had a miscarriage? An abortion? The question is still the same - where do we draw the line?

The answer couldn't be simpler: We draw the line in the most obvious place, where we don't even have to LOOK to know whether or not a couple is capable of experiencing pregnancy, childbirth, and parenting.

[Dirty Name]

If you continue to find it necessary to be insulting, this debate is over.

I didn't insult you. I simply said that the idea of a Federal Agency for means testing and fertility testing was stupid.

That wasn't even your idea, so how you could take offense from it is beyond me. Regardless, I don't wish to offend anyone, so please accept my apologies if I was unclear in who or what I was talking about.

[Dirty Name]

Quote by: belverron You presume too much, Dirty Name.

Hmmph. Now look who's being insulting. You suggest that "your head hurts" from reading my posts.

Now you say your feelings are hurt. Sounds to me like you might be a bit too sensitive for online discussions anyway. But if not, feel free to actually CONTRIBUTE to the discussion instead of just piling on what others say. The world has plenty of cheerleaders.

Cheerio. I'll be back tomorrow to see what you boys have "thunk up".