bodecea
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #501
Oh really? So there is no potential for procreation WITHOUT nuptials?Again, the potential for procreation begins at the nuptials. Most likely the assumption that a woman was going to sacrifice a career and potential retirement plan by becoming a housewife and potential mother began at this point. Therefore the tax breaks begin even without yet the realization of children. The tax breaks continue into old age because at least one of the couple, assumed to be the wife, sacrificed a career and is in less position to effect a retirement plan.Right. But since the nature of the marriage creates the potential for children those tax breaks were created.Married filing jointly allows for tax breaks -- even before any children are realized. The potential burden for procreation being the original impetus. Homos can't procreate, therefore moot.Yes...and that is in the marriage license itself? Show me where that is...and show me it ONLY applies if you are married.
And yet, there is no documented requirement for children, or even plans for children, in order to be able to file a joint tax return.
No, that is why the tax breaks for children were created. The Joint Filing status has nothing to do with children. It is also available to senior citizens, long past the child bearing or raising years.
Your argument fail in a number of way.
And what is best is that is has failed spectacularly. Even Alabama, one of the last bastions of old school, is now going to recognize gay marriage.
Anyone who wants to change marriage provisions for hetero couples in light of cultural changes over the years, especially insofar as career women is concerned, is OK by me. But to grant these current subsidies to homo couples and allow for the child abuse of adoption into a home devoid of both genders as parents is immoral and wrong and selfish and outdated already. Not cutting-edge. 1960's old school outdated thinking.