70 percent of voting black Californians should be ashamed of themselves.

[Fidatelo]

Dola

Does anyone think that the lesbians kind of get dragged down by the gays in all this? I mean, if it was just an issue of letting chicks get it on and get married, all the sex-starved clergymen would be like "ahh, that doesn't seem so wrong. I'm pretty sure God is cool with that shit".

Unfortunately the gay portion of homosexuality seems to be the more prominent one, so instead of hot chick-on-chick action the face of the movement is severe anal pounding. Not a good sell.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

As for the bigots, you can't expect people who don't want to change the laws to actively work to change the laws. That's just not how life works, and that logic is incontrovertible as well. The difference between you and me is that you seem to want to demand that people think like you as well, whereas I'm content with equal access under the law, and leave the argument in the private arena, rather than within the government.

I'm actually the tolerant one here. Surprising, huh?

wrong. you're incorrect. they do want to change the laws, only they want to change them into something discriminatory. nice try though.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Dola

Does anyone think that the lesbians kind of get dragged down by the gays in all this? I mean, if it was just an issue of letting chicks get it on and get married, all the sex-starved clergymen would be like "ahh, that doesn't seem so wrong. I'm pretty sure God is cool with that shit".

Unfortunately the gay portion of homosexuality seems to be the more prominent one, so instead of hot chick-on-chick action the face of the movement is severe anal pounding. Not a good sell.

Have you ever seen hot lesbians? Not the ones in pr0n. In real life. And no, Lohan doesn't count either.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Because it is far easier to rant and rave on teh internets and seemingly, a good place for Karlifornia to express his anger and hatred again.

That reminds me of when I attended an Earth Day concert in 1990 and the jam band (could have been Phish) yelled "EARTH FIRST! NO COMPROMISE!". Then proceeded to turn up the amps and lights, thus, consuming lots of coal-burning electricity.

It's not hatred, Buc. It's severe disappointment. There is most certainly anger involved, but none of it stems from hatred.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Dola

Does anyone think that the lesbians kind of get dragged down by the gays in all this? I mean, if it was just an issue of letting chicks get it on and get married, all the sex-starved clergymen would be like "ahh, that doesn't seem so wrong. I'm pretty sure God is cool with that shit".

Unfortunately the gay portion of homosexuality seems to be the more prominent one, so instead of hot chick-on-chick action the face of the movement is severe anal pounding. Not a good sell.

Most lesbians I know are not girls you'd want to see having sex.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

wrong. you're incorrect. they do want to change the laws, only they want to change them into something discriminatory. nice try though.

You're telling me no gay couples have ever sued for the right to be married? You're trying to tell me that we've HAD gay marriage all along and it's the religious nuts trying to ban it? C'mon now, that's just silly.

Frankly, I'm suprised to see you arguing against a clear seperation of church and state. I would think in order to safeguard against religion having any say in the matter, you'd be all FOR my position of making marriage a religious institution that has no bearing on who is eligible for a civil union. Instead, you're arguing that we keep this odd mix of cultural meaning, legal meaning, religious meaning together, even though it means for one side to be happy, the other side will be miserable. It shows to me, frankly, that you're just as bigoted towards religious people as they may be towards gays.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Why should any unions have tax benefits?

The assumption has to do with a "household", where there are multiple people taking care of each other, meaning less people relying on the government for care. There is also "head of household" status for those situations that don't involve a married couple, showing the government recognizes the value of this.

Yes, it probably all ought to be streamlined into a more uniform code that decides what behavior we want to reward, separated from hetero/gay/polygamy and centered on groups of people taking care of each other.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

1. Not all hetero unions produce offspring. If you want to encourage offspring, then give tax incentives for having kids (which I believe is something that happens here in Canada).

We do not go into a marriage with a fertility test first to check. Therefore the assumption is all hetero have a chance to produce offspring unless shown otherwise. I think it is very reasonable to allocate tax benefits based on this assumption.

If we accept the most commonly used definition, i.e. the lack of pregnancy after 1 yr of unprotected regular intercourse, infertile couples represent about 10–15% of all couples. According to the definition of the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, i.e. the lack of pregnancy within 2 yr by regular coital exposure, the prevalence of infertile couples in Europe and North America is approximately 5–6% (1).

This would seem to indicate couples that truly cannot produce offspring (vs having difficulty) is < 5%.

[stevew]

This thread was a clusterfuck from the first post, really.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

So then hetero couples who are infertile? Or did they somehow pay their dues? What if a gay couple adopts? Isn't that providing society a service?

See above to your first part above.

The adoption question is interesting. Can you tell me the % of gay couples that do adopt? If the % is miniscule then your argument is moot.

[Apathetic Lurker]

White people never been oppressed? Give me a fucking break!

[Edward64]

Just so every knows my stance. I am okay with civil unions. I am not okay with a 'religious marriage' if the church org opposes. I do not fully understand what gays 'do not have in terms of taxes, benefits etc.' but am generally okay with equal treatment in laws/taxes with certain exceptions.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by stevew

This thread was a clusterfuck from the first post, really.

I think its got potential. Poligamy, perception of 'hotness'. Pictures maybe?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I think its got potential. Poligamy, perception of 'hotness'. Pictures maybe?

Possibly.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Edward64

See above to your first part above.

The adoption question is interesting. Can you tell me the % of gay couples that do adopt? If the % is miniscule then your argument is moot.

...leaving aside the severe bias against gay couples adopting. For instance, it's now illegal in Arkansas (as is any unmarried couple).

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Celeval

...leaving aside the severe bias against gay couples adopting. For instance, it's now illegal in Arkansas (as is any unmarried couple).

Fair counterpoint. If you have any stats though ... I would like to know if there are any studies/surveys on '% of gays that would adopt if legal'.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Edward64

In vitro?

And gays can't do this? Not all hetro couples can sustain a childbirth...

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

And gays can't do this? Not all hetro couples can sustain a childbirth...

To your first question - probably not est 50% of them. To the other 50% who can, 0% with both partners egg/sperm. To your second question, true but see above on my position and assumed stats.

[AZSpeechCoach]

My wife and I have made a conscious decision not to have children. Should we be forced to divorce? Do we not benefit society? We are also interracial. Two strikes!

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Fair counterpoint. If you have any stats though ... I would like to know if there are any studies/surveys on '% of gays that would adopt if legal'.

Honestly, I have no idea. Just wanted to make sure that was noted.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by AZSpeechCoach

My wife and I have made a conscious decision not to have children. Should we be forced to divorce? Do we not benefit society? We are also interracial. Two strikes!

You are drawing an argument that I am not proposing. The argument is should non-hetero couples have the same benefits as hetero. My stance is probably most but not necessarily all.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Actually, that could be a religious/cultural bias too. I think there have been quite a few cultures with practices that pair adults/adolescents (many where the pairings are same-sex, too).

Ahh, the good old days.

FWIW, in one of my classes this week (one I'm taking, not teaching), we were discussing Thomas Burke's Limehouse Nights and the question came up as to why young teenagers could marry comparatively recently in our history, but there was a shift to 18 in a lot of states.

I took the lead in responding and pointed out that technological advances and the introduction of the post-industrial age necessitated more education and so a longer "childhood" period of sorts. Hence, you have the upward shift of ages of consent.

A good example of this is in Lolita, where Humbert complains that he's in a US that permits a man of 40 to court a girl of 16, but not 14. This was back in the post-World War II era. Now it's changed to 18, but not 16 (depending on individual state law of course).

Now, even given this scenario of more technology needing greater education, I still think 16 should be the age of consent standard, as it is in several states and many countries around the world, including the equally advanced European nations.

I suppose one could rather flippantly say, "Old enough to drive, old enough to ride."

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by stevew

Have you ever seen hot lesbians? Not the ones in pr0n. In real life. And no, Lohan doesn't count either.

Yep, when I was in high school I went to a lesbian wedding and there were lots of hot women there including the bride and bride.

In SC I worked with a police officer who was a lesbian and her girlfriend was model material.

Now, I work with a cute as a button lesbian and her girlfriend who does not work there is a smoking leggy redhead.

Visit Amsterdam if you want to see smoking hot lesbians/bisexuals in the wild. I'm just saying. Been there, done that.

Now, I've certainly seen a lot of not so hot lesbians but from my perspective same thing goes for straight women but it seems this stereotype dies really hard.

[adubroff]

Originally Posted by Edward64

To your first question - probably not est 50% of them. To the other 50% who can, 0% with both partners egg/sperm. To your second question, true but see above on my position and assumed stats.

So is your assumption that it only helps "continue the tax base" when both parents participate in the conception?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by adubroff

So is your assumption that it only helps "continue the tax base" when both parents participate in the conception?

Show me some studies that indicates same-sex have the propensity to adopt and nurture children and I can be persuaded otherwise. I can't help but feel (admitedly without any stats) that same-sex for the large part would not care to be parents.

[adubroff]

Originally Posted by Edward64

To your first question - probably not est 50% of them. To the other 50% who can, 0% with both partners egg/sperm. To your second question, true but see above on my position and assumed stats.

Adoption and Foster Care by Lesbian and Gay Parents in the United States

Key Findings

• More than one in three lesbians have given birth and one in six gay men have fathered or adopted a child.
• More than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians want to have a child.
• An estimated two million GLB people are interested in adopting.
• An estimated 65,500 adopted children are living with a lesbian or gay parent.
• More than 16,000 adopted children are living with lesbian and gay parents in California, the highest number among the states.
• Gay and lesbian parents are raising four percent of all adopted children in the United States.
• Same-sex couples raising adopted children are older, more educated, and have more economic resources than other adoptive parents.
• Adopted children with same-sex parents are younger and more likely to be foreign born.
• An estimated 14,100 foster children are living with lesbian or gay parents.
• Gay and lesbian parents are raising three percent of foster children in the United States.
• A national ban on GLB foster care could cost from $87 to $130 million.
• Costs to individual states could range from $100,000 to $27 million.

Despite legal hurdles for adoption and foster care, a lot of gay couples/gay individual are raising children.

[JW]

So if I want to marry my biological sister, is that okay? Or my biological brother? Are the gay marriage advocates cool with that? Just trying to figure out where they would draw the line, since what we are really talking about is where to redraw the line.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by Edward64

We do not go into a marriage with a fertility test first to check. Therefore the assumption is all hetero have a chance to produce offspring unless shown otherwise. I think it is very reasonable to allocate tax benefits based on this assumption.

This would seem to indicate couples that truly cannot produce offspring (vs having difficulty) is < 5%.

Who cares about chance to produce offspring? You either do or you don't. Lots of couples get married and don't ever intend to have children (I know many). Why should they get tax breaks a gay couple don't? Especially a gay couple that intends to adopt or otherwise acquire children? Or what about people that have children outside of wedlock? Aren't they helping grow society or whatever your point is? Shouldn't they get tax breaks for that?

Or hey, let's go a step further. I'm sure that certain races statistically have far more children per family than others. I have no idea which ones, but lets pretend that Indian and African people pump out more children than Asian or Caucasians. Maybe we should give more tax breaks to the Indian and African people for marrying each other since they are more likely to help grow the population? And lets penalize people who marry whites or Asians since those groups tend to have fewer babies.

Hell, we could use statistics to group people into all kinds of segments and then give incentives to the ones we want to promote. But the problem with all of that is it isn't fair.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by adubroff

Adoption and Foster Care by Lesbian and Gay Parents in the United States
[/list]Despite legal hurdles for adoption and foster care, a lot of gay couples/gay individual are raising children.

Interesting study, thanks for the data. I concede that GLB do have the propensity to nurture and parent children.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by JW

So if I want to marry my biological sister, is that okay? Or my biological brother? Are the gay marriage advocates cool with that? Just trying to figure out where they would draw the line, since what we are really talking about is where to redraw the line.

The incest argument is interesting. On the one hand, I really don't care if you want to marry your sister and get the legal/tax benefits of doing so. On the other hand, you may end up producing a cyclops, which is where it really takes on a different edge than the other unions we've discussed thus far. I think that's where it then becomes not an issue of morality but of public health, and that's when I don't feel it would be wrong for the government to legislate against it for the good of the population.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

It's no less logical than declaring a black person to be 3/5ths of a person for the purposes of representation, even though that black person was denied the right to vote for a representative.

What's logical is that it's necessary to find some sort of common ground on an issue that is as divisive as this. Neither side is going to be happy if the other wins out, so unless you think it's a good thing to keep spending time and energy yelling at each other, I'd prefer to reach some sort of compromise.

There can't be common ground when one side is forcing their personal beliefs on another. bigotry is wrong, it doesn't matter if you dress it up as Christian, Islamic, buddhist whatever, bigotry is wrong, this country has said so repeatedly over its long existance.

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

people who are "anti gay marriage" ought to instead of passing amendments saying "marriage is only between a man and a woman" ought to be proposing amendments saying "make civil unions the law of the land and leave the word marriage to be a private non-secular term."

if they were doing that then they wouldn't be bigots. but the fact that they are NOT doing that is what is so abhorrent. instead of working to SOLVE a problem by creating a more equitable structure, they are actively working to discriminate.

Bingo!

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Where's all the outrage for slippery slope here? Oh, because it's different.

Its still the same topic, just varying versions. When you bring in a new argument with a new segment of society )children, which are legally defined seperate from adults) then you change your entire argument and as noted earier, you fail

Originally Posted by Daimyo

What would the compromise have been in 1861? What about 1965?

Some issues aren't up for compromise.

Ding.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Saying something nonsensical for the second time doesn't make any more logical. If civil unions is the goal, then that's what you work for. You keep talking about the length of time it would take to get this, but civil unions would be much easier to accept than government approval of same-sex "marriage". It would take LESS time to get that than continuing the process of "judges rule in favor of gay marriage, people vote against it, rinse and repeat".

As for the bigots, you can't expect people who don't want to change the laws to actively work to change the laws. That's just not how life works, and that logic is incontrovertible as well. The difference between you and me is that you seem to want to demand that people think like you as well, whereas I'm content with equal access under the law, and leave the argument in the private arena, rather than within the government.

I'm actually the tolerant one here. Surprising, huh?

Thats part of the probloem Cam, you're being tolerant of something this nations history says cannot and cannot be tolerated. How does that help your position at all?

Gays want to be treated equally under the law, nothing more. They're not asking to be recognized by churches or religion in any form, but the religious want to force them to not be recognized at ALL.

Marriage is not about procreation, Marriage in this nation is about the legal rights afforded two people who choose to become a single legal unit. Prop 8 is purely discrimminatory against a faction of this ountry because...why? because the religious feel they are being threatened personally by someone NOT believing as they do and having the temerity to demand to be treated equally under the law.

There is no compromise there. Prop 8 is legalized discrimination. It will take time I'm sure, but it WILL change.

As for your outcry of "What have you done for me lately" We're doing what everyone does first, we're debating, we're arguming the point and trying to find out if either side has a fallical position. I know one does, but you seem to think its better to kiss both sides ass instead of do whats right legally. I don't understand that. its a very cop out position on a human rights topic.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Who cares about chance to produce offspring? You either do or you don't. Lots of couples get married and don't ever intend to have children (I know many). Why should they get tax breaks a gay couple don't? Especially a gay couple that intends to adopt or otherwise acquire children? Or what about people that have children outside of wedlock? Aren't they helping grow society or whatever your point is? Shouldn't they get tax breaks for that?

Of course society should help those that produce offspring. I don't see why you don't understand that. For people that have children outside of wedlock, they have been supported by society. Maybe not to the extent that it needs to be, but it is done.

I am going to substitute your "produce offspring" for "parent and nurture children". Under that scenario, I concede based on the study above that tax breaks should probably be given.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

Who cares about chance to produce offspring? You either do or you don't. Lots of couples get married and don't ever intend to have children (I know many). Why should they get tax breaks a gay couple don't? Especially a gay couple that intends to adopt or otherwise acquire children? Or what about people that have children outside of wedlock? Aren't they helping grow society or whatever your point is? Shouldn't they get tax breaks for that?

I'm still confused why there are tax benefits for being married and/or having children.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

I'm still confused why there are tax benefits for being married and/or having children.

I can't answer that, it's strange to me as well. But if they are gonna be there, then everyone should get them no matter how many penises are involved.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

I'm still confused why there are tax benefits for being married and/or having children.

I don't know why you are confused. I think it has been stated, in different ways in the posts, that society (should) helps those that nurture and parent children.

Maybe you can explain why you don't believe that?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I don't know why you are confused. I think it has been stated, in different ways in the posts, that society (should) helps those that nurture and parent children.

Maybe you can explain why you don't believe that?

Having a child is a responsibility that you need to be able to afford. It's your decision to get married and/or have a child. Why is it fair to penalize someone that chooses to remain single or a couple that chooses to not have a child?

If someone has a child that means they will be using more resources, which means said person should be putting more money into the system. Society should support all citizens and there should be no preferential treatment regardless of martial status or if one chooses to have a child.

[sabotai]

Originally Posted by Axxon

Now, I've certainly seen a lot of not so hot lesbians but from my perspective same thing goes for straight women but it seems this stereotype dies really hard.

Same experience with me. Some of the hottest chicks I've known have been lesbians (and yes, I thought that before I knew they were lesbians), and I've met some really ugly ones. The ratio of good looking lesbians to ones that are not is the same as straight women.

At least with the ones I've known. Maybe they just grow really hot lesbians in Jersey.

[DanGarion]

See the problem with the No on 8 side was that they marketed incorrectly. If they had commercials with hot lesbians kissing they would have won.

[adubroff]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

See the problem with the No on 8 side was that they marketed incorrectly. If they had commercials with hot lesbians kissing they would have won.

The slogan could have been: "Anybody who doesn't vote for 8 is gay?"

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

Having a child is a responsibility that you need to be able to afford. It's your decision to get married and/or have a child. Why is it fair to penalize someone that chooses to remain single or a couple that chooses to not have a child?

If someone has a child that means they will be using more resources, which means said person should be putting more money into the system. Society should support all citizens and there should be no preferential treatment regardless of martial status or if one chooses to have a child.

If you argument is "using more resources" than the child returns, I disagree.

In general, the short term investment (18-22 yrs?) will be outweighed by the longer return on investment and the perpetuity it brings (grand children etc). Yes, there are exceptions (80-20 rule maybe?) and probably not valid in some societies/countries (ex. Somalia?).

I may be misreading you, but it seems strange that you do not understand society has a self intest to help itself in this manner, especially because this is a case of parenting/nuturing a child.

Lets agree to disagree.

[QuikSand]

Wow, this whole "tax benefits for marriage" red herring has gotten totally out of control. Like the fish that got away that gets bigger every time you tell the story - now it's a great white shark.

Okay, let's try to bring just a shade of common sense to this "tax" issue. Not that doing so will accomplish much, but just in the unlikely event that there's anyone who is genuinely ignorant about this topic and also has an open mind.


The tax system is naturally and essentially built around individuals. How much do you make, in what ways, what can you write off, and then based upon all that what do you owe. That's the basic concept of income taxes, nothing shocking there.

One way to set this up is to require each and every person to file independently. That would be fine, at one level.

However, there's a secondary issue. It's an extraordinarily common practice for adults to marry and essentially enter into a mutual contract of community property. Together you own the house, pay the bills, buy the groceries, mow the lawn, and so on. You most likely even make income-earning decisions based on the *total* income from the two of you, rather than thinking of his income is this, ans her income is that. You essentially become one entity for most practical purposes.

Now... back to the tax system. In large part because we have a tax system that has a variety of puts and takes in it (I know, everyone wants to rail against how terrible this is, that's for another day) this makes treating two married people who are in such a relationship -- where they essentially think of their income, property, and debts as shared -- sort of uncomfortable. Which person is paying the mortgage? Which person is paying the costs of the child's health care? Which person made that charitable donation? Who claims the kids as dependents? If you force every married couple to make decisions like this and award tax differences for each of them, you invariably create all sorts of stupid inconsistencies. Easy example: would it be fair that one couple with $50K + $25K incomes pays less in taxes than another couple with $75K + $0 incomes? Most people would agree that's not fair -- but it's exactly what happens if you force everyone to pretend he's an individual, regardless of his reality. And it goes on and on, where you could alter tax treatment just by moving "shared" things from one person to the other. That's just dumb, in many ways.

So, in short, the government has made a prudent decision -- to recognize the fact that such people are really more effectively dealt with as one economic unit. Thus, the "married filing jointly" tax system is created. And every set of tax brackets or limitations is created with two limits involved -- that for individuals, and that for married couples. There was at one time a perceived "marriage penalty" but the specific elements of that were repealed -- now, in practice, most married couples pay a shade less in taxes filing jointly than they would filing as individuals (though this can vary a bit by circumstance).

THAT is the reason for the tax treatment of married people. It just makes sense to recognize that the two-person shared-responsibility arrangement is extremely common, and to reasonably build the tax system around that fact. It's really got nothing to do with promoting babies, or endorsing religious institutions, or anything else either glorious or nefarious, depending on your position on the hot-blooded issues in this thread.


As a practical matter, there is no particular reason why this filing status of "married filing jointly" needs to have any relationship at all to a religious term or ceremony. Obviously countless people get married in non-religious settings, and simply appropriate the same term that has been used by many religions for generations to express their two-person binding relationship. This has no bearing on how the government views their "contract" -- if they say they are married and fill out the license, it's done, and that's that.

Not to suggest that the facts will end this particular stone from being thrown in the debate. I think this is like a lot of issues, where people take their position first, dig in their heels deeply, and only later on might they "think" about why their position is so important and defensible. In my view, the argument of "tax benefits for child-makers" is a product of some late stage in that process. We have lots and lots of ways to either promote births or support children, through the tax code and otherwise, that make tons more sense than just confirming unmatched genitalia at the time of a paper license that clearly has no necessary relationship to procreation.

[adubroff]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

...make tons more sense than just confirming unmatched genitalia at the time of a paper license that clearly has no necessary relationship to procreation.

What would you have guessed the odds of you typing "confirming unmatched genitalia" in sequence at when you woke up this morning?

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Wow, this whole "tax benefits for marriage" red herring has gotten totally out of control. Like the fish that got away that gets bigger every time you tell the story - now it's a great white shark.

Okay, let's try to bring just a shade of common sense to this "tax" issue. Not that doing so will accomplish much, but just in the unlikely event that there's anyone who is genuinely ignorant about this topic and also has an open mind.


The tax system is naturally and essentially built around individuals. How much do you make, in what ways, what can you write off, and then based no all that what do you owe. That's the basic concept of income taxes, nothing shocking there.

One way to set this up is to require each and every person to file independently. That would be fine, at one level.

However, there's a secondary issue. It's an extraordinarily common practice for adults to marry and essentially enter into a mutual contract of community property. Together you own the house, pay the bills, buy the groceries, mow the lawn, and so on. You most likely even make income-earning decisions based on the *total* income from the two of you, rather than thinking of his income is this, ans her income is that. You essentially become one entity for most practical purposes.

Now... back to the tax system. In large part because we have a tax system that has a variety of puts and takes in it (I know, everyone wants to rail against how terrible this is, that's for another day) this makes treating two married people who are in such a relationship -- where they essentially think of their income, property, and debts as shared -- sort of uncomfortable. Which person is paying the mortgage? Which person is paying the costs of the child's health care? Which person made that charitable donation? Who claims the kids as dependents? If you force every married couple to make decisions like this and award tax differences for each of them, you invariably create all sorts of stupid inconsistencies. Easy example: would it be fair that one couple with $50K + $25K incomes pays less in taxes than another couple with $75K + $0 incomes? Most people would agree that's not fair -- but it's exactly what happens if you force everyone to pretend he's an individual, regardless of the reality. And it goes on and on, where you could alter tax treatment just by moving "shared" things from one person to the other. That's just dumb, in many ways.

So, in short, the government has made a prudent decision -- to recognize the fact that such people are really more effectively dealt with as one economic unit. Thus, the "married filing jointly" tax system is created. And every set of tax brackets or limitations is created with two limits involved -- tat for individuals, and that for married couples. There was at one time a perceived "marriage penalty" but the specific elements of that were repealed -- now, in practice, most married couples pay a shade less in taxes filing jointly than they would filing as individuals (though this can vary a bit by circumstance).

THAT is the reason for the tax treatment or married people. It just makes sense to recognize that the two-person shared-responsibility arrangement is extremely common, and to reasonably build the tax system around that fact. It's really got nothing to do with promoting babies, or endorsing religious institutions, or anything else either glorious or nefarious, depending on your position on the hot-blooded issues in this thread.


As a practical matter, there is no particular reason why this filing status of "married filing jointly" needs to have any relationship at all to a religious term or ceremony. Obviously countless people get married in non-religious settings, and simply appropriate the same term that has been used by many religions for generations to express their two-person binding relationship. This has no bearing on how the government views their "contract" -- if they say they are married and fill out the license, it's done, and that's that.

Not to suggest that the facts will end this particular stone from being thrown in the debate. I think this is like a lot of issues, where people take their position first, dig in their heels deeply, and only later on might they "think" about why their position is so important and defensible. In my view, the argument of "tax benefits for child-makers" is a product of some late stage in that process. We have lots and lots of ways to either promote births or support children, through the tax code and otherwise, that make tons more sense than just confirming unmatched genitalia at the time of a paper license that clearly has no necessary relationship to procreation.

This is the best post of the thread. Thanks QS, very informative.

[Raiders Army]

Originally Posted by RendeR

Its still the same topic, just varying versions. When you bring in a new argument with a new segment of society )children, which are legally defined seperate from adults) then you change your entire argument and as noted earier, you fail

Here I thought you failed since you weren't being consistent in your beliefs!

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Wow, this whole "tax benefits for marriage" red herring has gotten totally out of control. Like the fish that got away that gets bigger every time you tell the story - now it's a great white shark.

:
:

THAT is the reason for the tax treatment of married people. It just makes sense to recognize that the two-person shared-responsibility arrangement is extremely common, and to reasonably build the tax system around that fact. It's really got nothing to do with promoting babies, or endorsing religious institutions, or anything else either glorious or nefarious, depending on your position on the hot-blooded issues in this thread.

Lots to read and am distilling your argument to:

The position that tax benefits for marriage is a red herring because the intent of the tax laws are for a more practical purpose, not specifically to promote marriage.

Tax policy has changed throughout the years, shifting between marriage penalty and bonus, dependant on the other partner's compensation etc. Lots of factors.

Tax policy has in recent years geared towards eliminating the marriage penalty. Other tax policy supports/benefits children through deductions, tax credits, eductional deductions, medical deductions etc.

Although your premise that there was no master, comprehensive master plan to specifically help a family with tax policy, there is no doubt there are tax advantages to marriage and having children, which helps to offset the cost/burden elsewhere. What was the intent of Congress in evolving/structuring the tax policy as it is today? Don't ask me to read through the old news clippings but suspect a large part of that is because they wanted to support the family unit.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You're telling me no gay couples have ever sued for the right to be married? You're trying to tell me that we've HAD gay marriage all along and it's the religious nuts trying to ban it? C'mon now, that's just silly.

Frankly, I'm suprised to see you arguing against a clear seperation of church and state. I would think in order to safeguard against religion having any say in the matter, you'd be all FOR my position of making marriage a religious institution that has no bearing on who is eligible for a civil union. Instead, you're arguing that we keep this odd mix of cultural meaning, legal meaning, religious meaning together, even though it means for one side to be happy, the other side will be miserable. It shows to me, frankly, that you're just as bigoted towards religious people as they may be towards gays.

you misunderstand my position Cam, which i have stated multiple times. I am all FOR a separation of church and state "civil unions for all". HOWEVER, UNTIL WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE THAT HAS HAPPENED that doesn't give us the right to discriminate in the interim.

I've made this abundantly clear.

[Young Drachma]

Links on Prop 8 at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture

A really long omnibus post of links chronicling the initial motivation and title of this thread. Very insightful for those who are engaging this particular issue, especially the blamers.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Although your premise that there was no master, comprehensive master plan to specifically help a family with tax policy, there is no doubt there are tax advantages to marriage and having children, which helps to offset the cost/burden elsewhere. What was the intent of Congress in evolving/structuring the tax policy as it is today? Don't ask me to read through the old news clippings but suspect a large part of that is because they wanted to support the family unit.

I'm not asking you to do shit.

All I'm suggesting is that the tax system's "recognition" of married people is borne of practical reasons, not religious or partisan ones. The "no doubt" assertion that marriage is a tax-favored status is simply not as obvious as you make it out to be. By and large, the income tax system is designed to make a pretty fair translation from the simple single earner to the two-adult family unit without a material bias toward one or the other.

Yes, there are a number of ways that the current tax structure provides support for children. In that sense,it encourages people to do so. And rather than refute my point -- that helps to make my point. My point is that if you want to make raising kids more affordable -- give tax credit for child care, or greater deductions/exemptions for dependent children. There's no reason to build all the pro-child incentives into the mundane act of retrieving a marriage license (or by doing so only with the government-approved type of person) in hopes that some of those people will follow through and have babies. Just reward the actual having of the babies. Seriously -- the logic in this whole argument is just inescapably weak.

[Young Drachma]

Daily Kos: Facts Belie the Scapegoating of Black People for Proposition 8

[ISiddiqui]

Yes.... most of the hard feelings is that in breaking through on one form of bigotry, a lot of those benefiting voted for another form of bigotry.