 |
|
MrBaggins
|
|
It depends. Only one person can be Head of Household, which is generally preferable to Single or Married filing separately, but usually worse when combined with another person filing as Single, when compared to Married filing jointly.
You have to take both rates into account.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sava
I don't really care about the religious or social aspects of those topics... I care about the government's role in it. The government grants certain rights and privilages to heterosexual married couples. Those same rights and privilages should be granted to homosexual couples as well.
|
This is exactly where my concern begins. I am strongly pro-family and by this I mean man-woman-kids. To say that giving preferences to families is unconstitutional - or even threatening it, causes me enormous concern.
We legislate in favor of families precisely to favor having kids born and raised in such relationships. I think it is enormously important to our society that we be able to do this.
So, even though I favor the concept of gay marriage, I am very concerned that gay marriages will unravel all governmental preferences for families.
Just for sake of argument, suppose we passed a pro-family law like this:
Married couples filing jointly could take a $20,000 credit per dependent child. Suppose that that child had to be their child (as denominated on the child's birth certificate). Suppose further, that this credit was refundable even if a person made no money at all - to a cap of, let us say, $50k per couple.
Now, such legislation would be strongly pro-family and anti-divorce. But would it be unconstitutional as discriminatory against gays?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrBaggins
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
In Kalifornia, I can split my income between my wife and myself and then file separately. When I do this, I pay less tax. So it seems that filing jointly does incur some penalty. |
It depends on the relative incomes of the two people. There is no "One True Tax Solution (TM)"... and it doesn't explain why two guys living together for years shouldn't have the same tax burden as a guy and a woman.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
So, even though I favor the concept of gay marriage, I am very concerned that gay marriages will unravel all governmental preferences for families.
|
This is the part of your post that makes no sense. How would it unravel any governmental preference for families, let alone all of them?
You can still have all the benefits you want for giving birth to and raising kids - it's a totally seperate issue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Really?
Until I am reassured on this issue, I remained very concerned. |
What on earth would reassure you? Common sense?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Thorn
It is not a friggen lifestyle, it is how we live. Unless you consider yourself a heterosexual lifestyle. Lifestyle implies that you CHOOSE for this happen, it is more like homosexual CIRCUMSTANCES, not lifestyle.
What kind of a moron marries someone that they don't love or aren't attracted to, and don't even want to be around, does that make and &(#$(*&$# sense!!??!
If you do it is usually fraud to try and fool the INS. |
To marry someone you don´t love was absolutely normal for the western (christian) world during most of the time.
To marry because of love is something that developed during the 19th/20th century.
Before that time it was rather normal to marry the person which your parents chose for you or which would bring the most gain for your Family.
And till today the latter is absolutely normal in other cultures, for example within the hinduistic or the muslim world.
Often the couple sees each other a few day before the marriage or even at the day of the marriage for the first time.
I don´t know about christian sects, but I could imagine in some of them this practice is still alive, even today.
So if you don´t connect marriage with love, you aren´t disciminated.
But, yes, if you insist on marrrying the person you love, you are de facto discriminated because this isn´t possible for homosexuals if the person you marry has to be of the opposite sex.
Sorry, I´m just playing advocatus diaboli here.
And it could be a good counterargument for christian fundamentalists that you aren´t prevented to marry, regardless wether you are homo or hetero (as long as you don´t marry a person of the same sex).
I am for the right of Homosexuals to marry each other, as I don´t see the matrimony as a prerequisite for producing Children (and after all also a gay/lesbian couple is able to raise a child [as long as law allows it])
After all the homosexual world fights also in Germany for the right to marry the person they love (with the CDU (Christian Democratic Union) being strongly against it and the Greens being strong supporters of the Homosexuals)
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CiverDan
|
|
This afternoon Sen. Santorum from PA made the statement that Gay marriage might lead to Parents marrying childen. I personally would like to see a poll seeing how many people is this country would actually be in favor of THAT. Probably not many.... As far as I know, in countries where gay marriage is legal, people arent petitioning for the right to marry their children (or there dogs for that matter).. This is an arguement I get tired of hearing.
I think there are too separate debates going on here. One is about the meaning of the term "marriage", and its long-standing social and religious meaning that it imparts The other is about the family structure in general and how homosexuals should or should have a part is this.
Conservative groups, if they want to make a solid argument (I am not a conservative) should focus on these points. Give me data that tells me that children adopted by homosexual couples are more likely to be homosexual, have more troubles lives, etc., from countries where gay marriage is legal now and/or focus on the religious connection (even if marriage is technical not religious act) I really get turned off when I hear agruments like:
1. The "This will lead to incest" argument given above
2. Homosexual relationships are less stable - Well..I would find it less enticing to stay in a relationship also If I couldnt get married, raise children, or gain financial benifits from maintaing a relationship. 50 % of heterosexual relationshis do end in divorce, even given the above.
3. This will cause the collapse of civilation like it did to the Roman Empire. Were all Barbarians gay? ZZZzzzz
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-02-2004 05:51
while were at it, let's put something in there for birthdays and barmitzvas too 
.
|