The costs of gay marriage

[colton]

Just saw this opinion piece, https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/20/opinion/george-gay-marriage?iref=obinsite. The article is in large part actually about polygamy, but these quotes on the gay marriage issue echo some of what I was saying in my earlier post in this thread:

The attractive civil rights rhetoric of "marriage equality" masks a profound error about what marriage is. Of course, if marriage were simply about recognizing bonds of affection or romance, then two men or two women could form a marriage just as a man and woman can.
...
But marriage is far more than your emotional bond with "your Number One person," to quote same-sex marriage proponent John Corvino.
...
All human beings are equal in dignity and should be equal before the law. But equality only forbids arbitrary distinctions. And there is nothing arbitrary about maximizing the chances that children will know the love of their biological parents in a committed and exclusive bond. A strong marriage culture serves children, families and society by encouraging the ideal of giving kids both a mom and a dad.

 

[GVC]

As I see it, extending marriage to a group of people who don't have as much of a cultural prerogative to get married should strengthen the institution of marriage, not weaken it.

 

[babe]

So the standard for marriage is that the union must benefit society and children?

Marriage is a privilege reserved for those who intend to use the institution in the service of the state.

Obviously, your disconnect here is the fact that progressives, by the postulates of their religion, must justify everything as the generous gift of true understanding to the lesser humans who must be governed by their superior views.

Of course this whole discussion is exactly based on what institutions can best be used in the service of the state, and on how the lesser humans must be brought into conformance with the True Religion of the Man-gods destined to rule the world.

 

[babe]

As I see it, extending marriage to a group of people who don't have as much of a cultural prerogative to get married should strengthen the institution of marriage, not weaken it.

As you see it, you can just solve everything by changing the meanings of words. Right.

 

[Zombie]

As you see it, you can just solve everything by changing the meanings of words. Right.

Probably not all problems, just this one.

 

[Gameface]

As you see it, you can just solve everything by changing the meanings of words. Right.

Are you talking about the meaning of the word marriage? That's a definition it seems is hard to pin down depending on when and where you ask.

 

[moevillini]

Just saw this opinion piece, https://www.cnn.com/2013/03/20/opinion/george-gay-marriage?iref=obinsite. The article is in large part actually about polygamy, but these quotes on the gay marriage issue echo some of what I was saying in my earlier post in this thread:

so what would you think of amending the tax code such that the benefit of being "married" and filing jointly only extends to those with dependent children in the home - if a couple is "pre-kids" or "post-kids" they would not be eligible for the tax benefits of filing a joint return. If the basic issue for you is what results from the sex act, then make the rules apply after the results have been achieved, and not make the benefit automatic just because...

To me, the paramount issue is trying to achieve a level of fairness in the tax code with respect to same-sex and opposite sex couples. I just don't think a woman who had a deep and long-lasting relationship with another woman rather than a man should be punished with having to pay an additional $250,000 estate tax.

 

[babe]

so what would you think of amending the tax code such that the benefit of being "married" and filing jointly only extends to those with dependent children in the home - if a couple is "pre-kids" or "post-kids" they would not be eligible for the tax benefits of filing a joint return. If the basic issue for you is what results from the sex act, then make the rules apply after the results have been achieved, and not make the benefit automatic just because...

To me, the paramount issue is trying to achieve a level of fairness in the tax code with respect to same-sex and opposite sex couples. I just don't think a woman who had a deep and long-lasting relationship with another woman rather than a man should be punished with having to pay an additional $250,000 estate tax.

I'd eliminate the death tax in a heartbeat. People pay taxes on income, and property taxes all their lives, and there are plenty of tax dodges the very wealthy use to escape death taxes. Most of the death taxes that are collected come from farmers and other folks who just don't think they can afford a CPA and a lawyer.

the principal benefits of the death tax go to corporate ag cartels and real estate salesmen who get a percent of everything that has to be sold to pay Uncle Sam.

However, society including creditors and government have a huge benefit in having married couples "hook up" financially. A stay-at-home mom gives nothing to "society" financially, but produces future taxpayers. With no breadwinner in the picture, she would be a welfare mom, at a huge cost to society.

the tax break for married couples getting legally hitched is a good deal for working single taxpayers, because otherwise their taxes would go up much more than the married couples' taxes go down.

 

[babe]

Are you talking about the meaning of the word marriage? That's a definition it seems is hard to pin down depending on when and where you ask.

Well, Webster, all words are like that to some extent. Until dictionaries were invented and lawyers arose from the evolutionary muck.

Let's just say the Roman Centurions, who were paired as lovers by their commanders as a method of strengthening their military cohesiveness sometimes, didn't use the term "marriage" as most of society will understand it. It's principal meaning has not varied much across the ages. . . . and means a joining of adult male and female for general life purposes, including having and raising children and many other things that are essential to their general welfare individually and collectively.

As I would take it, same-sex pairings are about as beneficial to humanity, society, and individuals as slavery ever was. Well, sometimes I tell my wife I'm not her slave, and she likewise may say she's not my slave, but at least in heterosexual marriage there is an obvious basis for consider the other partner as more than just an extra pair of hands. . . .. as someone who through differences in characteristics and nature deserves respect for being something other than what you are.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

so what would you think of amending the tax code such that the benefit of being "married" and filing jointly only extends to those with dependent children in the home - if a couple is "pre-kids" or "post-kids" they would not be eligible for the tax benefits of filing a joint return. If the basic issue for you is what results from the sex act, then make the rules apply after the results have been achieved, and not make the benefit automatic just because...

To me, the paramount issue is trying to achieve a level of fairness in the tax code with respect to same-sex and opposite sex couples. I just don't think a woman who had a deep and long-lasting relationship with another woman rather than a man should be punished with having to pay an additional $250,000 estate tax.

I don't oppose amending the tax code to extend joint-filing benefits to both marriages and civil unions. I don't think anyone would have a problem with that. However, I doubt the U.S. Supreme Court would be invoked just to resolve a simple proposed change to the U.S. tax code. I'm pretty sure tax status isn't what's driving the Prop 8 / No Prop 8 debate.

Again, I think this is about whether the state will make a statement to explicitly sanction same-sex couples on par with traditional married couples. It's an equal-status, equal-esteem debate.

 

[babe]

As a further thought about tax policy, I wish to go on record for supporting a complete abolition of income tax, period. Okay. Now we're "fair". And personal relations are nobody's business. Period.

 

[Gameface]

As a further thought about tax policy, I wish to go on record for supporting a complete abolition of income tax, period. Okay. Now we're "fair". And personal relations are nobody's business. Period.

Yeah, if only.