If States Defined Why They Give Tax Breaks to Marrieds....

[Silhouette]

For more references on the legal aspects of how children's well being is legally dominant to adult civil rights: Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

Also: Specific Legal Mandates Why Gay Marriage Is Illegal Everywhere in the United States

One way for states to remedy the "gay marriage" tyrannical decree would be to pass laws that say "OK, you may be legally married, but our state only incentivizes marriages that provide both a mother and father to children we know will statistically be involved, nevermind the rare exceptions. So, enjoy your rights of survivorship, your rights of hospital visitations and so on, but do not expect tax breaks or the "legal right" to adopt in our state. You don't qualify."

I'd like to see some of the more ethical states pass such laws on behalf of children and then of course the gays will sue them. Then the question of Ferber and Fawcett can come up in argument for the states. States will argue that it makes absolutely no sense at all for them to incentivize with tax breaks, the union of two people whose very union creates harm to the children involved "as married". Churning out hamstrung young adults who missed half of their upbringing as a "newly forced institution" is intolerable to grace with incentives or tax breaks. A state gets nothing out of that deal but woe, indigence, drug addition and malformed adults...higher prison rolls etc. States must not be forced to tolerate this.

From a purely secular position, marriage was created over a thousand years ago to remedy all the ills children found themselves in as a result of coming into the world in inferior situations to mother/father. Long ago we learned that if a child is missing either of these vital components, we could expect bad things for/from them as adults and part of society later. Single parents at least hold out the hope of eventually being enticed by state incentives in marrying and providing that necessity for children.

"Gay marriage" cuts that clean away as an institution for life. It in effect creates a mental prison for the children involved of maximum security in which any hope for escape is utterly removed. Two men marrying announces to the children: "you will NEVER have a mother. Two women marrying announces to the children: "you will NEVER have a father. A state should not have to incentivize or endorse or reward that announcement of cruelty to children in any way, shape or form. Ferber and Fawcett allow them to win that argument.

Read the survey top to bottom and discover that lacking an intimate-devoted and regular role model of the same gender in a daily way leaves children crippled mentally, prone to depression, indigency, crime and suicide as young adults: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

 

[PaintMyHouse]

 

[Silhouette]

The idea of witholding tax breaks is new. Though I will look forward to you and your group spamming single-lined posts one after the other, as is your custom, liberally using ad hominems and beating up anyone who opposes your dogma. So maybe your post warning of "spam" is accurate after all..

 

[mdk]

How about nobody gets a tax break for simply getting married?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The idea of witholding tax breaks is new. Though I will look forward to you and your group spamming single-lined posts one after the other, as is your custom, liberally using ad hominems and beating up anyone who opposes your dogma. So maybe your post warning of "spam" is accurate after all..

 

[mdk]

That picture must be like garlic to Vampire for Sil. lol

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That picture must be like garlic to Vampire for Sil. lol

Love won, Sil lost. Love, like society, is moving on.

 

[Arianrhod]

Can someone reword the poll so that it makes sense?

 

[konradv]

Can someone reword the poll so that it makes sense?

That would require a sane OP.

 

[Silhouette]

Sunshine, beaming young men, beauty, clean pressed suits and smiles...

..that aside at the end of the day, which one of those men is the children's mother for life?

Beautiful dykes kissing! What a joy! That aside, at the end of the day, which one of those women is the children's father for life?

 

[Syriusly]

The idea of witholding tax breaks is new. Though I will look forward to you and your group spamming single-lined posts one after the other, as is your custom, liberally using ad hominems and beating up anyone who opposes your dogma. So maybe your post warning of "spam" is accurate after all..

No- not really- you use the same logic that was used to deny marriage- which failed.

The 14th Amendment still applies.

 

[Syriusly]

[QU

Beautiful dykes kissing! What a joy! That aside, at the end of the day, which one of those women is the children's father for life?

What makes you think they have children?

And if they do have children- why do you insist on harming those children by preventing them from having married parents?

 

[Skylar]

For more references on the legal aspects of how children's well being is legally dominant to adult civil rights: Is Gay Marriage Void? New York v Ferber (1982) Etc.

Also: Specific Legal Mandates Why Gay Marriage Is Illegal Everywhere in the United States

One way for states to remedy the "gay marriage" tyrannical decree would be to pass laws that say "OK, you may be legally married, but our state only incentivizes marriages that provide both a mother and father to children we know will statistically be involved, nevermind the rare exceptions. So, enjoy your rights of survivorship, your rights of hospital visitations and so on, but do not expect tax breaks or the "legal right" to adopt in our state. You don't qualify."

I'd like to see some of the more ethical states pass such laws on behalf of children and then of course the gays will sue them. Then the question of Ferber and Fawcett can come up in argument for the states. States will argue that it makes absolutely no sense at all for them to incentivize with tax breaks, the union of two people whose very union creates harm to the children involved "as married". Churning out hamstrung young adults who missed half of their upbringing as a "newly forced institution" is intolerable to grace with incentives or tax breaks. A state gets nothing out of that deal but woe, indigence, drug addition and malformed adults...higher prison rolls etc. States must not be forced to tolerate this.

From a purely secular position, marriage was created over a thousand years ago to remedy all the ills children found themselves in as a result of coming into the world in inferior situations to mother/father. Long ago we learned that if a child is missing either of these vital components, we could expect bad things for/from them as adults and part of society later. Single parents at least hold out the hope of eventually being enticed by state incentives in marrying and providing that necessity for children.

"Gay marriage" cuts that clean away as an institution for life. It in effect creates a mental prison for the children involved of maximum security in which any hope for escape is utterly removed. Two men marrying announces to the children: "you will NEVER have a mother. Two women marrying announces to the children: "you will NEVER have a father. A state should not have to incentivize or endorse or reward that announcement of cruelty to children in any way, shape or form. Ferber and Fawcett allow them to win that argument.

Read the survey top to bottom and discover that lacking an intimate-devoted and regular role model of the same gender in a daily way leaves children crippled mentally, prone to depression, indigency, crime and suicide as young adults: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

Sigh....thread number 42. The same, obsessive horseshit in virtually every one of them. As I've said before, this is what mental illness looks like.

Sil, your argument is already DOA. The Supreme Court found that denying same sex couples marriage harms hundreds of thousands of children.

And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives....

....DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for families by taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. And it denies or reduces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouse and parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security.

With the Supreme Court reiterrating the harm denying same sex marriage causes children in the Obergefell ruling.

A third basis for protecting the right to marry is that it safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation, and education. Without the recognition, stability, and predictability marriage offers, children suffer the stigma of knowing their families are somehow lesser. They also suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents, relegated to a more difficult and uncertain family life. The marriage laws at issue thus harm and humiliate the children of same-sex couples.

And finally, the Supreme Court found that same sex marriage benefits children:

By giving recognition and legal structure to their parents’ relationship, marriage allows children “to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.” Marriage also affords the permanency and stability important to children’s best interests.

And affirm again that same sex marriage benefits children, recognizing gays and lesbians as creating loving, supportive families:

As all parties agree, many same-sex couples provide loving and nurturing homes to their children, whether biological or adopted. And hundreds of thousands of children are presently being raised by such couples. Most States have allowed gays and lesbians to adopt, either as individuals or as couples, and many adopted and foster children have same-sex parents. This provides powerful confirmation from the law itself that gays and lesbians can create loving, supportive families.

And of course, the Supreme Court already affirmed that the right to married is predicated on neither children nor the ability to have them.

This does not mean that the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. Precedent protects the right of a married couple not to procreate, so the right to marry cannot be conditioned on the capacity or commitment to procreate.

So.....your latest piece of obsessive pseudo-legal gibberish is irrelevant. As the findings of the courts contradict your insanity.

Your argument is literally that the court is going to ignore ITSELF. Because you don't like what they found. Um, no. That's not happening.

 

[Syriusly]

What are these 'tax breaks' that you imagine?

 

[Skylar]

What are these 'tax breaks' that you imagine?

'Imagine' being the key word. There's no part of her argument that isn't pure imagination. Which she'd deluded herself into believing trumps the USSC, the law, the constittuion, and any court ruling.

We're dealing with someone who is mentally ill, Sy. Asking her to quote the voices she hears is like asking someone who just lost their hand to see how far they get arterial blood to squirt from the stump.

 

[Silhouette]

What are these 'tax breaks' that you imagine?

Income tax breaks...head of household...married vs single. Are you attempting a strawman here?

The question of this thread is, maybe states should define WHY marrieds were given/are given tax breaks...why their incentive program to marry exists at all. Then they could clarify what everyone already knows: tax breaks for marrieds is to entice and encourage homes with a mom and dad for girls and boys to statistically have the best shot at a fully formed adult fledging...so that prison rolls, suicides, drug addiction and mental health issues are kept at a dull roar.. PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

 

[Skylar]

What are these 'tax breaks' that you imagine?

Income tax breaks...head of household...married vs single. Are you attempting a strawman here?

The question of this thread is, maybe states should define WHY marrieds were given/are given tax breaks...why their incentive program to marry exists at all. Then they could clarify what everyone already knows: tax breaks for marrieds is to entice and encourage homes with a mom and dad for girls and boys to statistically have the best shot at a fully formed adult fledging...so that prison rolls, suicides, drug addiction and mental health issues are kept at a dull roar..

Alas, the Supreme Court has already destroyed your argument by recognizing that right to marry isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. And by finding that children benefit from same sex marriage. And again when finding that the denying marriage hurts children.

You can ignore these findings of the court. But they don't magically disappear because you pretend they don't exist.

PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

The Prince Trust Study never so much as mentions marriage, mothers or fathers. NOr does it measure the effects of any kind of parenting.

Rendering it irrelevant to your argument. Sigh....again.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What are these 'tax breaks' that you imagine?

Income tax breaks...head of household...married vs single. Are you attempting a strawman here?

1. Income tax breaks (i.e. dependent deduction) you don't have to be married, single parents get the same deduction.

2. Head of household - you have to be single or legally separated for at least 6 months of the tax year.

3. Married v. Single - Ever hear of the "marriage penalty"? That's where married people actually pay MORE in taxes then if they were have been able to file individually as a single.


Sil strikes again.

>>>>

 

[Unkotare]

How about nobody gets a tax break for simply getting married?

How about everybody does?

 

[mdk]

How about nobody gets a tax break for simply getting married?

How about everybody does?

That works for me. All or nothing.