Gays can't marry in Cali or whatever.

[V.V.V.V.V.]

wat

The tax breaks for a married couple are not INCENTIVES TO CONTINUE THE FAMILY... :|

Instead, I provide you with a quote from research I've done!

"If your aim is to help parents provide a stable, loving home for children, policy needs to be aimed at supporting parents - not simply people who are married. Otherwise it penalises all those children living with unmarried parents or with one parent - and 90% of lone parents are women."This tax break would give better treatment to a man [or woman - my addition] who has had an affair, left their partner and remarried... It would privilege a childless couple who have been married a week over an unmarried couple of 20 years standing with three kids, and would be an unfair and counterproductive tax break."

So as you can see I don't think it works in the utopian way you're describing. The quote comes from a British article, but I am suggesting that the intent and general implications are similar if not the same.

 

[genocide roach]

But aren't benefits given to married couples already in place as a sort of "incentive" to continue in the tradition of the family?

ive met alot of couples who get married solely for the legal/financial benefits and they never last. so i would argue no. the financial and legal benefits arent really incentive. it takes more than that for a marriage to work.
~gR~

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

ding ding ding!

 

[genocide roach]

i teh winnar?!

sorry, watching raw... GO JERICHO!
~gR~

 

[zabu of nΩd]

No, I am just saying that I can see the logic in there being additional benefits to traditional families.

Then why don't you explain this logic to the rest of us, since you haven't yet?

Just to make it clear, I'm not necessarily opposed to government incentives for families, but government incentives for only heterosexual families is unjust.

 

[skeptik]

Benefits received upon marriage are NOT "in place as a sort of 'incentive' to continue the tradition of the family." They are "in place" to recognize the rights of two consenting individuals who wish to be categorized together as one unit. This is not to encourage anything.

And I've already said this, but marriage in terms of religion is not the same marriage that gives you legal benefits. Marriage in terms of the law is what gives you legal benefits, and is not defined by religious dogma, and the fact that any state constitution would define marriage in such a way is unconstitutional.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Nevermind the fact that raping the system in ways similar to in the quote that I posted (not sure how it is in America but I assume it is fairly easy to fuck with the system as usual) just illustrates further forms of injustice caused by this that need to be fixed, not just "homosexuals deserve rights too"...but that's another point/topic entirely I suppose...

 

[viewerfromnihil]

have you read the thread?

it was 14 pages, of course not i was just throwin in my own two sense

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Your two cents have been drastically reduced over the course of 14 pages to the point where they don't even make any sense if you consider yourself a smart human being/citizen of the US.

 

[AchrisK]

ive met alot of couples who get married solely for the legal/financial benefits and they never last. so i would argue no. the financial and legal benefits arent really incentive. it takes more than that for a marriage to work.
~gR~

Of course what you're saying is true. But it doesn't mean that it didn't used to be different.

So then where do the financial benefits of marriage come from?

wat

The tax breaks for a married couple are not INCENTIVES TO CONTINUE THE FAMILY... :|

Instead, I provide you with a quote from research I've done!

So as you can see I don't think it works in the utopian way you're describing. The quote comes from a British article, but I am suggesting that the intent and general implications are similar if not the same.

Obviously that's all true. But if people were not to selfish and understood what love was, there would be much more of a correlation between marriage and raising kids than there is now. Of course couples have always had the choice about having kids, but most did. So I see the "incentive" thing as being the original intention.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

"If your aim is to help parents provide a stable, loving home for children, policy needs to be aimed at supporting parents - not simply people who are married. Otherwise it penalises all those children living with unmarried parents or with one parent - and 90% of lone parents are women."This tax break would give better treatment to a man [or woman - my addition] who has had an affair, left their partner and remarried... It would privilege a childless couple who have been married a week over an unmarried couple of 20 years standing with three kids, and would be an unfair and counterproductive tax break."

The financial incentives should definitely take the presence of children into account (though in my opinion there should be penalties for having more than two children in order to combat overpopulation). However, it's generally better that children be raised by two parents than by one.

I might write the marriage law according to the following model:

Married, no kids: no tax credit
Single, kids: tax credit for first kid, penalty for more than one
Married, kids: more tax credit than for singles, and can get credits for up to two kids, but penalty for more than two

I would also give tax credits for adoptions, because orphaned kids need families.

 

[AchrisK]

Benefits received upon marriage are NOT "in place as a sort of 'incentive' to continue the tradition of the family." They are "in place" to recognize the rights of two consenting individuals who wish to be categorized together as one unit. This is not to encourage anything.

And I've already said this, but marriage in terms of religion is not the same marriage that gives you legal benefits. Marriage in terms of the law is what gives you legal benefits, and is not defined by religious dogma, and the fact that any state constitution would define marriage in such a way is unconstitutional.

I am talking about the financial benefits of marriage. For what reason did they originate?

 

[genocide roach]

I am talking about the financial benefits of marriage. For what reason did they originate?

to help families who have a hard time making ends meet. especially families with kids...

gay couples can, or atleast should be able to, adopt. they may suffer from the same financial burdens. does that kid not deserve the same support the law affords hetero kids?
~gR~

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Conservatives like you wanted to tell everyone how to live, iirc, and decided to do this by saying "hey if you're married with a straight family you're better so have some money because you're not some dick-sucking anti-god faggot".

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Benefits received upon marriage are NOT "in place as a sort of 'incentive' to continue the tradition of the family." They are "in place" to recognize the rights of two consenting individuals who wish to be categorized together as one unit. This is not to encourage anything.

If that's really the case, then I don't see what the point of the benefits are at all.

That aside, though, do you believe that giving tax credits to encourage the formation of families is a good thing?

 

[AchrisK]

The financial incentives should definitely take the presence of children into account (though in my opinion there should be penalties for having more than two children in order to combat overpopulation). However, it's generally better that children be raised by two parents than by one.

I might write the marriage law according to the following model:

Married, no kids: no tax credit
Single, kids: tax credit for first kid, penalty for more than one
Married, kids: more tax credit than for singles, and can get credits for up to two kids, but penalty for more than two

I would also give tax credits for adoptions, because orphaned kids need families.

Tax credits or deductions? I guess it doesn't matter. Either way I see the sense in what you are saying.

Yeah, I mean I think that in our current situation in the us with so much divorce and irresponsibility, something like this would be the best you could do. And people do get tax deductions for the people they are taking care of.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'm not really sure whether credits or deductions is a better idea. The government would lose more money giving credits, but on the other hand people might get more incentive out of the guaranteed money of a tax credit than from the conditional money of a deduction.

But anyway, I think my incentives plan for families is super so VOTE VIHRIS IN 2012!!!

 

[AchrisK]

to help families who have a hard time making ends meet. especially families with kids...

But it applies to all married couples. Not just low income. Low income people don't even pay taxes, at some point.

gay couples can, or atleast should be able to, adopt. they may suffer from the same financial burdens. does that kid not deserve the same support the law affords hetero kids?
~gR~

I see your point. Go ahead and make a new thing for gays. Give them tax benefits if they have kids.

 

[AchrisK]

Vihris/Palin 2012

 

[genocide roach]

But it applies to all married couples. Not just low income. Low income people don't even pay taxes, at some point.

I see your point. Go ahead and make a new thing for gays. Give them tax benefits if they have kids.

couples suffer from nearly universal financial obstacles. im sure you're family has, just like my parents did.

you know what gives gay couples those same benefits? marriage...

Vihris/Palin 2012

id vote for that
~gR~