Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Changing the goalpost? You asked for a specific benefit that a married couple recieves that a single woman would not for producing not raising a child.
I gave you one.
No you didn't. Each one of those items (reproductive counseling, birth defect counseling, post pregnancy depression) are all available to single women and non-married couples. For expenses non covered by insurance they are each tax deductible if the individual files long form and the expenses exceed 10% of adjusted gross income.
Just you call it "marriage counseling" doesn't mean it isn't available to non-married couples and when it qualifies for tax deductions the deductions are the same.
So nope, your example doesn't fly.
But the entire question was a deflection to begin with, wasn't it?
Nope I wanted to know what tax deduction their was for producing children that only applied to Civilly Married persons. The answer is - none. Any tax deduction for the "production of children" applies just as well to non-married individuals.
As a matter of fact it would be easier for a single mother to qualify for long form deductions exceeding 10% of AGI since there would be only one income involved. Same for non-married couples, just ensure it's the lower income person paying the bills.
>>>>
Sure singles often go to marriage counseling.
It is strange why anyone would compare those two groups. Both have male/female coupling.
Only those couplings produce ALL THE CHILDREN BEING ARGUED ABOUT.
100%
Changing the goalpost? You asked for a specific benefit that a married couple recieves that a single woman would not for producing not raising a child.
I gave you one.
No you didn't. Each one of those items (reproductive counseling, birth defect counseling, post pregnancy depression) are all available to single women and non-married couples. For expenses non covered by insurance they are each tax deductible if the individual files long form and the expenses exceed 10% of adjusted gross income.
Just you call it "marriage counseling" doesn't mean it isn't available to non-married couples and when it qualifies for tax deductions the deductions are the same.
So nope, your example doesn't fly.
But the entire question was a deflection to begin with, wasn't it?
Nope I wanted to know what tax deduction their was for producing children that only applied to Civilly Married persons. The answer is - none. Any tax deduction for the "production of children" applies just as well to non-married individuals.
As a matter of fact it would be easier for a single mother to qualify for long form deductions exceeding 10% of AGI since there would be only one income involved. Same for non-married couples, just ensure it's the lower income person paying the bills.
>>>>
Sure singles often go to marriage counseling.
It is strange why anyone would compare those two groups. Both have male/female coupling.
Only those couplings produce ALL THE CHILDREN BEING ARGUED ABOUT.
100%
What tax deduction is there for producing children that only applies to Civilly Married persons. The answer is - none. Any tax deduction for the "production of children" applies just as well to non-married individuals.
This argument is getting tired. The usual routine of using the anecdotal to try to make a larger point.All of the ways in which 'other taxpayers' are being forced to 'subsidize' gay marriage are, by definition, the same ways in which gays are obliged to subsidize hetero marriages.
Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.
When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.
Heteros who don't but can won't. But the possibility still exists thereby warranting the protection of tax breaks, etc.
Those who can't still provide the ideal circumstance of mother/father in the event of the choice for adoption. Both cases are moot for homos.
Really- they automatically provide the ideal circumstances?
And how long should children abandoned by their heterosexual parents wait for that ideal circumstance to show up?
100,000 children at any time are awaiting adoption in the U.S.
33,000 or so will wait 3 or more years to be adopted.
Thousands will never be adopted- and instead will age out of the system- literally dumped out of their foster homes onto the streets.
These are the children you want to wait for the 'ideal'.
Such comfort they must take for your concern.
Yes, I'm sure. If you and your partner were the biological parents, you'd be written up in medical journals. You have a link for that?
That's not what I said. I said that our children came from a 100% gay union...not that my wife and I are the biological parents. My wife and I are their parents, however, legally and where it matters, in the heart.
My wife and I have children, Kaz just like you do. We are the ones responsible for their upbringing and care. I'll keep "subsidizing" you and you keep "subsidizing" me. You can try to get those subsidies taken away for both of us. Have fun storming the castle!
All such siblings are created by opposite gender couplings. The sexuality is irrelevant.
So you must procreate using an opposite sex partner, whether that partner is straight or gay.
Kaz could not procreate using a same gender partner, no matter if they were straight or gay.
So? Procreation isn't parenting...unless you want to say adoptive parents aren't "real" parents. Do you want to say that? Do you want to say that the millions of couples that you ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) aren't "real" parents?
Do you want to say that my wife and I aren't the "real" parents of our children?
Unless we are redefining the word "real" then no, your children would have one "real" parent, and one that played no part in their creation.
Is this an important part of your argument?
'real' parents are the ones who actually make the effort to raise their kids.
Why do you insist on telling every adoptive parent in the United States that they are not 'real' parents?
Changing the goalpost? You asked for a specific benefit that a married couple recieves that a single woman would not for producing not raising a child.
I gave you one.
No you didn't. Each one of those items (reproductive counseling, birth defect counseling, post pregnancy depression) are all available to single women and non-married couples. For expenses non covered by insurance they are each tax deductible if the individual files long form and the expenses exceed 10% of adjusted gross income.
Just you call it "marriage counseling" doesn't mean it isn't available to non-married couples and when it qualifies for tax deductions the deductions are the same.
So nope, your example doesn't fly.
But the entire question was a deflection to begin with, wasn't it?
Nope I wanted to know what tax deduction their was for producing children that only applied to Civilly Married persons. The answer is - none. Any tax deduction for the "production of children" applies just as well to non-married individuals.
As a matter of fact it would be easier for a single mother to qualify for long form deductions exceeding 10% of AGI since there would be only one income involved. Same for non-married couples, just ensure it's the lower income person paying the bills.
>>>>
Sure singles often go to marriage counseling.
It is strange why anyone would compare those two groups. Both have male/female coupling.
Only those couplings produce ALL THE CHILDREN BEING ARGUED ABOUT.
100%
And such couplings produce every child who has been abandoned and is awaiting adoption.
Why do you not want those children to have parents?
This argument is getting tired. The usual routine of using the anecdotal to try to make a larger point.All of the ways in which 'other taxpayers' are being forced to 'subsidize' gay marriage are, by definition, the same ways in which gays are obliged to subsidize hetero marriages.
Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.
When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.
Heteros who don't but can won't. But the possibility still exists thereby warranting the protection of tax breaks, etc.
Those who can't still provide the ideal circumstance of mother/father in the event of the choice for adoption. Both cases are moot for homos.
Really- they automatically provide the ideal circumstances?
And how long should children abandoned by their heterosexual parents wait for that ideal circumstance to show up?
100,000 children at any time are awaiting adoption in the U.S.
33,000 or so will wait 3 or more years to be adopted.
Thousands will never be adopted- and instead will age out of the system- literally dumped out of their foster homes onto the streets.
These are the children you want to wait for the 'ideal'.
Such comfort they must take for your concern.
I've Raised a Concern" and according to you, that's enough to deny the right, or do you now see the problem with your aurgument.
That's not what I said. I said that our children came from a 100% gay union...not that my wife and I are the biological parents. My wife and I are their parents, however, legally and where it matters, in the heart.
My wife and I have children, Kaz just like you do. We are the ones responsible for their upbringing and care. I'll keep "subsidizing" you and you keep "subsidizing" me. You can try to get those subsidies taken away for both of us. Have fun storming the castle!
All such siblings are created by opposite gender couplings. The sexuality is irrelevant.
So you must procreate using an opposite sex partner, whether that partner is straight or gay.
Kaz could not procreate using a same gender partner, no matter if they were straight or gay.
So? Procreation isn't parenting...unless you want to say adoptive parents aren't "real" parents. Do you want to say that? Do you want to say that the millions of couples that you ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) aren't "real" parents?
Do you want to say that my wife and I aren't the "real" parents of our children?
Unless we are redefining the word "real" then no, your children would have one "real" parent, and one that played no part in their creation.
Is this an important part of your argument?
'real' parents are the ones who actually make the effort to raise their kids.
Why do you insist on telling every adoptive parent in the United States that they are not 'real' parents?
"Mommy, babies come from a Mommy and a Daddy, who's my real Daddy?"
Get it?
Changing the goalpost? You asked for a specific benefit that a married couple recieves that a single woman would not for producing not raising a child.
I gave you one.
No you didn't. Each one of those items (reproductive counseling, birth defect counseling, post pregnancy depression) are all available to single women and non-married couples. For expenses non covered by insurance they are each tax deductible if the individual files long form and the expenses exceed 10% of adjusted gross income.
Just you call it "marriage counseling" doesn't mean it isn't available to non-married couples and when it qualifies for tax deductions the deductions are the same.
So nope, your example doesn't fly.
But the entire question was a deflection to begin with, wasn't it?
Nope I wanted to know what tax deduction their was for producing children that only applied to Civilly Married persons. The answer is - none. Any tax deduction for the "production of children" applies just as well to non-married individuals.
As a matter of fact it would be easier for a single mother to qualify for long form deductions exceeding 10% of AGI since there would be only one income involved. Same for non-married couples, just ensure it's the lower income person paying the bills.
>>>>
Sure singles often go to marriage counseling.
It is strange why anyone would compare those two groups. Both have male/female coupling.
Only those couplings produce ALL THE CHILDREN BEING ARGUED ABOUT.
100%
What tax deduction is there for producing children that only applies to Civilly Married persons. The answer is - none. Any tax deduction for the "production of children" applies just as well to non-married individuals.
Yeah, you take them even though same sex coupling has never produced a single one.
you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing themCould you identify, specifically please, what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child?
Not raising mind you, but for producing.
Thank you in advance.
>>>>Can you put your comments in relation to my OP post rather than in terms of your question, answer and word splicing? I made my argument pretty clear
Can you respond to the statement of yours that I responded to?
Your statement was pretty clear, you said you were talking about tax breaks that exist for producing children. I asked what tax breaks for producing children exist only for Civilly Married couples and don't apply to non-married persons.
I'm curious what those tax breaks are, that's all. If there aren't any, that's OK also.
>>>>
you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing themCould you identify, specifically please, what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child?
Not raising mind you, but for producing.
Thank you in advance.
>>>>Can you put your comments in relation to my OP post rather than in terms of your question, answer and word splicing? I made my argument pretty clear
Can you respond to the statement of yours that I responded to?
Your statement was pretty clear, you said you were talking about tax breaks that exist for producing children. I asked what tax breaks for producing children exist only for Civilly Married couples and don't apply to non-married persons.
I'm curious what those tax breaks are, that's all. If there aren't any, that's OK also.
>>>>
you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing themCould you identify, specifically please, what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child?
Not raising mind you, but for producing.
Thank you in advance.
>>>>Can you put your comments in relation to my OP post rather than in terms of your question, answer and word splicing? I made my argument pretty clear
Can you respond to the statement of yours that I responded to?
Your statement was pretty clear, you said you were talking about tax breaks that exist for producing children. I asked what tax breaks for producing children exist only for Civilly Married couples and don't apply to non-married persons.
I'm curious what those tax breaks are, that's all. If there aren't any, that's OK also.
>>>>
you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing themCould you identify, specifically please, what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child?
Not raising mind you, but for producing.
Thank you in advance.
>>>>Can you put your comments in relation to my OP post rather than in terms of your question, answer and word splicing? I made my argument pretty clear
Can you respond to the statement of yours that I responded to?
Your statement was pretty clear, you said you were talking about tax breaks that exist for producing children. I asked what tax breaks for producing children exist only for Civilly Married couples and don't apply to non-married persons.
I'm curious what those tax breaks are, that's all. If there aren't any, that's OK also.
>>>>
I already answered that question in post 3891 directly to you, and I also answered it in the ... OP post. At this point you just don't like the answer. I'm not sure why you don't consider lower tax rates a tax break, but I don't really care why you don't like that and I'm not going to keep answering the same question. I don't expect you to read every reply to every poster. However, I do expect you to read answers to you and to read the OP post, both of which answered this question. I will answer a different one if you like
So your response is to point to single parent households. Not a valid comparison.How many times do I have to refer to every single predominantly black jurisdiction in this country? In each of those you find the prevalence of unstructured families and an uptick in social demise. It transcends socioeconomics. It's about depleted family structure. Mostly a lack of dads. It is as empirical as the sunrise.Kids need mother and father, not one of either. It doesn't mean homos can't be good parents. Kids just need both genders. Procreation was the given in the advent of marriage. One of those things its creators most likely didn't expect needed explanation.This argument is getting tired. The usual routine of using the anecdotal to try to make a larger point.
Heteros who don't but can won't. But the possibility still exists thereby warranting the protection of tax breaks, etc.
Those who can't still provide the ideal circumstance of mother/father in the event of the choice for adoption. Both cases are moot for homos.
You're right...your failed argument is getting tired. Procreation is not a requirement for civil marriage. No one is denied one for an unwillingness or inability to procreate. No one. Further destroying your argument is the fact that some couples in some states are required to prove they cannot procreate before they can civilly marry.
The final nail in your failed argument is the fact that children don't need a mother and a father, they need parents.
One University of Virginia and George Washington University same-sex adoption study came to the same conclusions.
This study researched preschool-aged children who had been adopted as babies in heterosexual adoptions and same-sex adoptions, including both lesbian and gay adoptive parents. It went beyond earlier studies by researching outside evaluations of teachers and caregivers, as well as reports by the parents.
As with other studies, this study found that the children from same-sex adoptions were as well-adjusted as those from heterosexual adoptions.
This study also researched gender identification of the children to examine how children raised with same-sex parents identified with gender-related behavior. Overall, children start exhibiting gender behavior during the preschool years, with girls wanting to play with toys like dolls, and boys wanting toys like trucks and cars. This study found that all the children showed similar gender behavior as their same-aged peers, whether they were raised by same-sex parents or by heterosexual parents.
The study did find that, as with any family, the outcomes of the children hinged on: parenting abilities overall; the stresses in the family; and the satisfaction of the parents' relationship. And, the study found that heterosexual and same-sex adoptive parents exhibited these success factors equally.
Your argument is old, petty and defeated.
Thanks for sharing your uneducated opinion. Saying it over and over and over and over doesn't actually make it so.
It's noted that you provide no studies or evidence...just you repeating the same opinion over and over.
We don't raise our children in bubbles so no, kids don't need a mother and a father. All the studies show they need two parents, that's it.
Seriously, how do you explain that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?
Again, how do you explain that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?
you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing themCould you identify, specifically please, what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child?
Not raising mind you, but for producing.
Thank you in advance.
>>>>Can you put your comments in relation to my OP post rather than in terms of your question, answer and word splicing? I made my argument pretty clear
Can you respond to the statement of yours that I responded to?
Your statement was pretty clear, you said you were talking about tax breaks that exist for producing children. I asked what tax breaks for producing children exist only for Civilly Married couples and don't apply to non-married persons.
I'm curious what those tax breaks are, that's all. If there aren't any, that's OK also.
>>>>
you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing themCould you identify, specifically please, what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child?
Not raising mind you, but for producing.
Thank you in advance.
>>>>Can you put your comments in relation to my OP post rather than in terms of your question, answer and word splicing? I made my argument pretty clear
Can you respond to the statement of yours that I responded to?
Your statement was pretty clear, you said you were talking about tax breaks that exist for producing children. I asked what tax breaks for producing children exist only for Civilly Married couples and don't apply to non-married persons.
I'm curious what those tax breaks are, that's all. If there aren't any, that's OK also.
>>>>
I already answered that question in post 3891 directly to you, and I also answered it in the ... OP post. At this point you just don't like the answer. I'm not sure why you don't consider lower tax rates a tax break, but I don't really care why you don't like that and I'm not going to keep answering the same question. I don't expect you to read every reply to every poster. However, I do expect you to read answers to you and to read the OP post, both of which answered this question. I will answer a different one if you like
So when you talk about "we're talking about tax breaks for producing them", there are no differences between "producing kids that" are different between married individuals and non-individuals.
Could have just said: "Well, there aren't any."
Thanks.
>>>>
you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing themCould you identify, specifically please, what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child?
Not raising mind you, but for producing.
Thank you in advance.
>>>>Can you put your comments in relation to my OP post rather than in terms of your question, answer and word splicing? I made my argument pretty clear
Can you respond to the statement of yours that I responded to?
Your statement was pretty clear, you said you were talking about tax breaks that exist for producing children. I asked what tax breaks for producing children exist only for Civilly Married couples and don't apply to non-married persons.
I'm curious what those tax breaks are, that's all. If there aren't any, that's OK also.
>>>>
you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing themCould you identify, specifically please, what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child?
Not raising mind you, but for producing.
Thank you in advance.
>>>>Can you put your comments in relation to my OP post rather than in terms of your question, answer and word splicing? I made my argument pretty clear
Can you respond to the statement of yours that I responded to?
Your statement was pretty clear, you said you were talking about tax breaks that exist for producing children. I asked what tax breaks for producing children exist only for Civilly Married couples and don't apply to non-married persons.
I'm curious what those tax breaks are, that's all. If there aren't any, that's OK also.
>>>>
I already answered that question in post 3891 directly to you, and I also answered it in the ... OP post. At this point you just don't like the answer. I'm not sure why you don't consider lower tax rates a tax break, but I don't really care why you don't like that and I'm not going to keep answering the same question. I don't expect you to read every reply to every poster. However, I do expect you to read answers to you and to read the OP post, both of which answered this question. I will answer a different one if you like
So when you talk about "we're talking about tax breaks for producing them", there are no differences between "producing kids that" are different between married individuals and non-individuals.
Could have just said: "Well, there aren't any."
Thanks.
>>>>
When I didn't say the words you were trying to put in my mouth, you just put them there yourself. Most people think a lower tax rate is a tax break. I guess I don't know what you think on that since you're more interested in telling me what I think than arguing what you do
you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing themCould you identify, specifically please, what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child?
Not raising mind you, but for producing.
Thank you in advance.
>>>>Can you put your comments in relation to my OP post rather than in terms of your question, answer and word splicing? I made my argument pretty clear
Can you respond to the statement of yours that I responded to?
Your statement was pretty clear, you said you were talking about tax breaks that exist for producing children. I asked what tax breaks for producing children exist only for Civilly Married couples and don't apply to non-married persons.
I'm curious what those tax breaks are, that's all. If there aren't any, that's OK also.
>>>>
you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing themCould you identify, specifically please, what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child?
Not raising mind you, but for producing.
Thank you in advance.
>>>>Can you put your comments in relation to my OP post rather than in terms of your question, answer and word splicing? I made my argument pretty clear
Can you respond to the statement of yours that I responded to?
Your statement was pretty clear, you said you were talking about tax breaks that exist for producing children. I asked what tax breaks for producing children exist only for Civilly Married couples and don't apply to non-married persons.
I'm curious what those tax breaks are, that's all. If there aren't any, that's OK also.
>>>>
I already answered that question in post 3891 directly to you, and I also answered it in the ... OP post. At this point you just don't like the answer. I'm not sure why you don't consider lower tax rates a tax break, but I don't really care why you don't like that and I'm not going to keep answering the same question. I don't expect you to read every reply to every poster. However, I do expect you to read answers to you and to read the OP post, both of which answered this question. I will answer a different one if you like
So when you talk about "we're talking about tax breaks for producing them", there are no differences between "producing kids that" are different between married individuals and non-individuals.
Could have just said: "Well, there aren't any."
Thanks.
>>>>
When I didn't say the words you were trying to put in my mouth, you just put them there yourself. Most people think a lower tax rate is a tax break. I guess I don't know what you think on that since you're more interested in telling me what I think than arguing what you do
I also believe that lower tax rates are a tax break no disagreement there.
Please provide an example of how tax rates are different for producing kids or not producing kids where marriage is the determining factor and that rate reduction does not also apply to those that produce kids that aren't married.
Medical expenses are deductible, if not covered by insurance and exceed 10% AGI if filing long form, whether married or not. Those deductions lower income resulting in a lower rate. But that ability to lower an effective tax rate isn't exclusive to married people.
Deductions for dependents? Not a factor because you said it wasn't about "raising children", it was about "producing kids". Dependent deductions, child care expense deductions - those all have to do with raising kids not producing kids.
>>>>
Can you respond to the statement of yours that I responded to?
Your statement was pretty clear, you said you were talking about tax breaks that exist for producing children. I asked what tax breaks for producing children exist only for Civilly Married couples and don't apply to non-married persons.
I'm curious what those tax breaks are, that's all. If there aren't any, that's OK also.
>>>>
Can you respond to the statement of yours that I responded to?
Your statement was pretty clear, you said you were talking about tax breaks that exist for producing children. I asked what tax breaks for producing children exist only for Civilly Married couples and don't apply to non-married persons.
I'm curious what those tax breaks are, that's all. If there aren't any, that's OK also.
>>>>
I already answered that question in post 3891 directly to you, and I also answered it in the ... OP post. At this point you just don't like the answer. I'm not sure why you don't consider lower tax rates a tax break, but I don't really care why you don't like that and I'm not going to keep answering the same question. I don't expect you to read every reply to every poster. However, I do expect you to read answers to you and to read the OP post, both of which answered this question. I will answer a different one if you like
So when you talk about "we're talking about tax breaks for producing them", there are no differences between "producing kids that" are different between married individuals and non-individuals.
Could have just said: "Well, there aren't any."
Thanks.
>>>>
When I didn't say the words you were trying to put in my mouth, you just put them there yourself. Most people think a lower tax rate is a tax break. I guess I don't know what you think on that since you're more interested in telling me what I think than arguing what you do
I also believe that lower tax rates are a tax break no disagreement there.
Please provide an example of how tax rates are different for producing kids or not producing kids where marriage is the determining factor and that rate reduction does not also apply to those that produce kids that aren't married.
Medical expenses are deductible, if not covered by insurance and exceed 10% AGI if filing long form, whether married or not. Those deductions lower income resulting in a lower rate. But that ability to lower an effective tax rate isn't exclusive to married people.
Deductions for dependents? Not a factor because you said it wasn't about "raising children", it was about "producing kids". Dependent deductions, child care expense deductions - those all have to do with raising kids not producing kids.
>>>>
Read the OP, that is the position I'm arguing
So your response is to point to single parent households. Not a valid comparison.How many times do I have to refer to every single predominantly black jurisdiction in this country? In each of those you find the prevalence of unstructured families and an uptick in social demise. It transcends socioeconomics. It's about depleted family structure. Mostly a lack of dads. It is as empirical as the sunrise.Kids need mother and father, not one of either. It doesn't mean homos can't be good parents. Kids just need both genders. Procreation was the given in the advent of marriage. One of those things its creators most likely didn't expect needed explanation.You're right...your failed argument is getting tired. Procreation is not a requirement for civil marriage. No one is denied one for an unwillingness or inability to procreate. No one. Further destroying your argument is the fact that some couples in some states are required to prove they cannot procreate before they can civilly marry.
The final nail in your failed argument is the fact that children don't need a mother and a father, they need parents.
One University of Virginia and George Washington University same-sex adoption study came to the same conclusions.
This study researched preschool-aged children who had been adopted as babies in heterosexual adoptions and same-sex adoptions, including both lesbian and gay adoptive parents. It went beyond earlier studies by researching outside evaluations of teachers and caregivers, as well as reports by the parents.
As with other studies, this study found that the children from same-sex adoptions were as well-adjusted as those from heterosexual adoptions.
This study also researched gender identification of the children to examine how children raised with same-sex parents identified with gender-related behavior. Overall, children start exhibiting gender behavior during the preschool years, with girls wanting to play with toys like dolls, and boys wanting toys like trucks and cars. This study found that all the children showed similar gender behavior as their same-aged peers, whether they were raised by same-sex parents or by heterosexual parents.
The study did find that, as with any family, the outcomes of the children hinged on: parenting abilities overall; the stresses in the family; and the satisfaction of the parents' relationship. And, the study found that heterosexual and same-sex adoptive parents exhibited these success factors equally.
Your argument is old, petty and defeated.
Thanks for sharing your uneducated opinion. Saying it over and over and over and over doesn't actually make it so.
It's noted that you provide no studies or evidence...just you repeating the same opinion over and over.
We don't raise our children in bubbles so no, kids don't need a mother and a father. All the studies show they need two parents, that's it.
Seriously, how do you explain that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?
Again, how do you explain that there is no difference in outcomes between children raised by gays and children raised by straights?
I know you don't know anything at all about science, but to make a statment like that is ridiculous. Child rearing has untold variables, you need to have a measurement system in place and make a specific conclusion. Do you mean there is "no difference" educationally? Career wise? Income? What measurement are you claiming as "outcome?"
Also, failure to detect a difference is in no way proof there is not one. Logic really isn't your thing
I already answered that question in post 3891 directly to you, and I also answered it in the ... OP post. At this point you just don't like the answer. I'm not sure why you don't consider lower tax rates a tax break, but I don't really care why you don't like that and I'm not going to keep answering the same question. I don't expect you to read every reply to every poster. However, I do expect you to read answers to you and to read the OP post, both of which answered this question. I will answer a different one if you like
So when you talk about "we're talking about tax breaks for producing them", there are no differences between "producing kids that" are different between married individuals and non-individuals.
Could have just said: "Well, there aren't any."
Thanks.
>>>>
When I didn't say the words you were trying to put in my mouth, you just put them there yourself. Most people think a lower tax rate is a tax break. I guess I don't know what you think on that since you're more interested in telling me what I think than arguing what you do
I also believe that lower tax rates are a tax break no disagreement there.
Please provide an example of how tax rates are different for producing kids or not producing kids where marriage is the determining factor and that rate reduction does not also apply to those that produce kids that aren't married.
Medical expenses are deductible, if not covered by insurance and exceed 10% AGI if filing long form, whether married or not. Those deductions lower income resulting in a lower rate. But that ability to lower an effective tax rate isn't exclusive to married people.
Deductions for dependents? Not a factor because you said it wasn't about "raising children", it was about "producing kids". Dependent deductions, child care expense deductions - those all have to do with raising kids not producing kids.
>>>>
Read the OP, that is the position I'm arguing
I just re-read the OP, there is nothing in there that provides specific examples of how tax breaks exist regarding "producing children" (not raising them as you noted earlier when you said "you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing them"). Deductions which lower the effective tax rate exist whether you are different-sex married couple, different-sex unmarried couple, single mother, or same-sex couple (whether married or not) any of which can use either natural methods or reproductive technologies to have children (surrogacy, IVF, sperm donation).
>>>>
I know that all the studies of children raised by couples show that there is no difference in outcomes between our children and yours
[
I don't have a problem with what you are asking, I just don't get it. People bring up "children" as a justification for gay marriage, but children are already deductible. Can you clarify the point in the OP you're addressing and the point you're trying to make?
[
I don't have a problem with what you are asking, I just don't get it. People bring up "children" as a justification for gay marriage, but children are already deductible. Can you clarify the point in the OP you're addressing and the point you're trying to make?
You said - in the context of the tread pertaining to "subsidizing" gay marriage - that there were tax deductions for producing a child and that is what marriage accomplished.
I'm simply asking you to identify what tax deductions exist for producing children that are limited context of being Civilly Married.
Now we all now there are tax deductions for the medical expenses for having a child (if you itemize deuctions and expenses exceed 10% of AGI) and costs associated with raising a child (indivdiual deductions, child care deductions, etc). Such deductions lower the AGI and therefore the effective tax rate. But known that I now of are limited to those in a Civil Marriage, they all apply to parents (different-sex couples, same-sex couples, and single moms and dads) equally.
>>>>
