patrick.net

chanakya4773 says

Remove all the marriage benefits and get the Govt out of marriage.

Yes, yes. I understand that this is the point you really want to get across, and you could give two-shits about gays and polygamy.

You should forget the whole smokescreen of red herrings, straw-men, cherry-picked data, etc.

If you want to argue that government should get entirely out of the marriage business then argue that on its own merit. Look for some of Dan8267's posts on the topic. He does a very good job of arguing for the astonishment of government endorsed marriage.

leo707 says

chanakya4773 says

lets end it here.

OK

*Errr* OK, I'll stop now.

curious2 says

BTW, zzyzzx, while divorce lawyers may see more business in the long run, the immediate commercial interest is in the wedding business. The opponents of Prop H8 in California included coastal mayors, hotel owners and hotel workers, etc

Now that you mention it, yes I do recall seeing a TV news segment about the wedding industry looking to ripoff more people yes.

chanakya4773 says

Why is the GOVT discriminating against single people by giving benefits to only married people ?

no not discrimination.. its pity! so the govt provides Tax Relief laws...

The main "discrimination" that single people face is economics not some judicial made up slight. The problem is that they face much higher living costs - they pay rent/mortgage, car payments, utilities all on their own. Unless they have a roommate which many of them do not these extra expenses could easily be in the 5 figure range per year. That can make it rather uncomfortable to live in bay area. Unless a single person makes about $100,000 a year it is hard to be comfortable around here.

I knew this was coming!

chanakya4773 says

I don't think there are any other options left on the table.

So, the way you see it the only options are a straw man or the option you would really like to see happen?

*Pssst* you forgot to add incest and dogs and cats living together in your first option.

chanakya4773 says

They could encourage child rearing by giving tax incentives to people who take care of a kid irrespective of whether they are married or not.

Currently there are no child tax incentives available to married couples that are not also available to non-married couples. Are you talking about adding more tax incentives to have children?

donjumpsuit says

Honestly, I still find it uncomfortable. Even though this seems like a fine yearly salary, it is taxed at ~33% (because of single status).

Naaah. Maybe you're confusing your bracket for your real effective tax rate. With no real deductions or anything a 100K salary is more like 20%.

leo707 says

So, you are saying that singles should get the benefits of marriage with out having to enter into the contract of marriage and also accept the obligations?

Yes! Yet, the OP also "wants" to bequest their "benefits" to a friend in the same way married people do.

So I want contractual rights without a contract! Good luck doing that in any capacity, much less a marital contract.

But as you've said, it's all really just a red herring.

donjumpsuit says

dublin hillz says

Unless a single person makes about $100,000 a year it is hard to be comfortable around here.

Honestly, I still find it uncomfortable. Even though this seems like a fine yearly salary, it is taxed at ~33% (because of single status).

Well good thing you are not married then or your tax rate would be even more.

Here is a quick calculator you can use to estimate federal taxes for various scenarios:
http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/calculators/taxcaster/?priorityCode=3468337910

Play around with it for a bit. You will find that if you and a potential spouse both make $100,000 you would get taxed less if you were to remain unmarried, and getting married increases your total taxes. The only time that marriage gives a tax break is if one spouse makes significantly less than the other.

chanakya4773 says

FortWayne says

What benefits are there? In our tax bracket we pay more being married than we would if we both were single.

Tax system isn't setup to punish or reward single/married people. It's setup to take as much money as it can from everyone. So they play around with tax numbers until they find the best way to take more.

I posted a long list of benefits in a previous post for people like you.

I don't see any, where, can you post again list of tangible benefits that only married couples get? Because the only real benefit is being a stable respectable family. There are no tax benefits of any kind that I know of.

FortWayne says

There are no tax benefits of any kind that I know of.

There can be tax benefits if the one spouse makes zero (or close to zero), but if the spouses are equal-ish then there is a tax penalty.

FortWayne says

I don't see any, where, can you post again list of tangible benefits that only married couples get?

You are correct that chan never really articulated any list (or even one?) of specific benefits of marriage.

However, there are indeed tangible benefits for being married.

leo707 says

Here are some benefits of marriage:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/same-sex-couples-federal-marriage-benefits-30326.html

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

Primarily they are things like Social Security survivor benefits, estate taxes, visitation rights (hospital/jail), Federal and employer benefits, etc.

As stated earlier in this thread all these benefits are available to singles if they enter into a marriage contract (you don't have to have sex with or even live with your spouse) with a friend (currently has to be opposite sex friend). Dan is the only person who seems to be denied the ability to give his Social Security survivor benefits to his sister.

chanakya4773 says

No , i am saying that all benefits should be removed and the only benefit that should be kept is the tax incentives to have children because that's the only thing that benefits the society.

As per your own link earlier, encouraging stable nuclear families for those children to grow up in also have a very significant advantage to society.

Even the studies that who there are no negatives to gay parents show that a strong nuclear family is very beneficial.

chanakya4773 says

leo707 says

So, the way you see it the only options are a straw man or the option you would really like to see happen?

Can you give us the options please ?

First give us an options that is not a straw man.

leo707 says

Dan is the only person who seems to be denied the ability to give his Social Security survivor benefits to his sister.

What is he marries his sister?

dublin hillz says

The main "discrimination" that single people face is economics not some judicial made up slight. The problem is that they face much higher living costs - they pay rent/mortgage, car payments, utilities all on their own. Unless they have a roommate which many of them do not these extra expenses could easily be in the 5 figure range per year. That can make it rather uncomfortable to live in bay area. Unless a single person makes about $100,000 a year it is hard to be comfortable around here.

What's stopping you from cohabiting without getting married?

chanakya4773 says

The so called CONTRACT is being modified now to include same sex people.

Yes, but why "so called" it is indeed a contract.

chanakya4773 says

Why can't the CONTRACT be modified where the only clause for getting the benefits is that you JUST choose some person for benefits with no strings attached.

Can you think of any contract that is not a two way street of benefits and obligations? Any contract?

Is there any legal contract where someone does not have to give something up in order to get something?

chanakya4773 says

Why does the contract have some many clauses ? ...why should they be there ?

The short answer, "Common Law."

You really should read that paper written on polygamy that I posted. It will give you a little window into how marriage evolved into what it is today, and why democratic developed nations don't allow polygamy.

chanakya4773 says

...who determined them ?

Us.

chanakya4773 says

Are these clauses not discriminatory towards single people who don't want to sign up for those but just want a no strings attached contract ?

No. Single people are welcome to enter into the same contract with a friend of their choosing. A single person choosing not to participate in a state sanctioned marriage contract with a friend is no more discriminated against than a couple that also chooses not to enter into a marriage contract.

chanakya4773 says

zzyzzx says

Dan is the only person who seems to be denied the ability to give his Social Security survivor benefits to his sister.

What is he marries his sister?

This confirms my option1 in my previous post.

lets continue ....

No, it does not...

you are delusional.

chanakya4773 says

leo707 says

As per your own link earlier, encouraging stable nuclear families for those children to grow up in also have a very significant advantage to society.

How do make sure they are stable...How stable are families in US with more than 50% divorce rates ? you are delusional.

I suppose now we can put "delusional" right next to "hypocritical" in the list of words that don't mean what chanakya thinks they mean.

Do you also think that it would be "ironic" if it were to rain on your wedding day? (of course I am speaking of your wedding to your platonic friend)

Is your goal to devolve this conversation to ad hominem statements if you fail to adequately articulate your point?

Being worried about estate issues via taxable amount exemption hardly qualifies as oppression in my opinion. Wouldn't it be more productive to live life to the fullest instead of questioning how to distrubute property tax free after death? I think this dilemma basically symbolizes in many ways what ails america.

chanakya4773 says

dublin hillz says

Due to roughly equal ratio between men and women in society if polygamy were legalized what would inevitably happen is that some men would have multiple wives but it would be at expense of other men who will not be able to find mates of their own. And in a span of several generations, you can end up in a situation where genetic deseases will be multipled due to inbreeding.

dude...you are assuming polygamy means one man many wives. it could be one woman married to many men as well. that fixes your problem.

Polyandry is extremely rare because it's not attractive or beneficial to either gender. So, polygamy would really be many wives to one man.

However, chanakya4773 is still dead wrong because he's scenario assumes a very small population base. There are 7, soon to be 10, billion people on the planet. Lack of mate diversity is not a problem.

Polygamy does create mateless men, which leads to all sorts of problems from male ejection to violent crime, however, this does not make for a good case for outlawing polygamy since many things like religion and sports cause violent crime and other problems but remain legal.

In reality, if polygamous marriages were legal in our society, they would be extremely rare: a couple of rich rappers, executives, and Republicans. Most people would happily keep having polygamous sexual relationships outside of marriage, which is the real new norm. Of the minority that do marry, almost all would choose monogamy. After all, who the hell needs more than one mother-in-law?

zzyzzx says

leo707 says

Dan is the only person who seems to be denied the ability to give his Social Security survivor benefits to his sister.

What is he marries his sister?

I'm not from Arkansas or Tatooine.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/LtU9h0VUBZg

New healthcare law subsidizes single people with income of up to $45,960, or family of 4 up to $94,200. These people would get a lot more subsidies if they were not married.

Taxes, higher taxes apply to single people making 200,000 or married 250,000. These people would pay less taxes if they were not married.

This is the reality and opposite of what the author of this thread thinks it is.

I'd like a list of all of the suckers, er I mean folks that feel like they being discriminated against in this 2013 society. I may a have lucrative racket I'd like sample a few retards with.

chanakya4773 says

you didn't answer my question

Right, I answered your ad hominem. See how that works?

chanakya4773 says

Why can't we change the contract ?

Aren't we changing it now to include same-sex couples? Yes, it can be changed.

chanakya4773 says

Also , you didn't answer how a single male could give benefits to his sister ?

I did in an earlier post, just after Dan first brought it up.

leo707 says

chanakya4773 says

Also , you didn't answer how a single male could give benefits to his sister ?

Please rephrase that.

chanakya4773 says

Also , you didn't answer how a single male could give benefits to his sister ?

do you suggest he marry her ?

Yes.

leo707 says

I did in an earlier post, just after Dan first brought it up.

Yeah, but your solutions, if they work, have some pretty serious side effects as well. If Social Security is forced savings, even in part, I should be able to give the unused portion of those savings to my heirs without having to adopt or marry a niece or nephew. If Social Security is insurance, then the max levels should be way lower and few people should receive it.

I don't like making SS a combination of insurance and force savings as it seems to then do a poor job of both and separating those functions honestly is near impossible. One solution per problem, please, otherwise your solutions will not work well.

chanakya4773 says

How many people are really sticking together to raise kids ? Divorce is all
time high and i can't think of anything more devastating to a kid than parents
divorcing.

Basically , whatever Govt is trying to do is not working ... like always.

All the more reason why the Government shouldn't mess or water down marriage any further by changing the definition to include alternative sexual lifestyles of a small minority of the population.

The institution of marriage (per the government's interest) should only be about assisting with the hard work of procreation and raising kids (future tax payers).

Those who are in favor of gay marriage seem more interested in the institution of marriage to be about the adult's needs (and their want for societal affirmation) than it is about the core requirement of civilization (propagation of the species).

I really think the rise in the divorce rate has much to do about divorcing marriage (pun intended) from procreation. Today's generation is all about MY feelings and MY pleasure. The Greens have even made breeding seem like a selfish act believing we are hurting mother earth. Sure there are plenty of loving couples who are happily married without children. But the vast majority of heterosexual marriages (over 80%) result in children.

The State has a vested interest in supporting a societal structure like heterosexual marriage which is responsible for providing our society's future.

socal2 says

The institution of marriage (per the government's interest) should only be about assisting with the hard work of procreation and raising kids (future tax payers).

So you are suggesting that people who are barren (nature or by choice), or people that simply don't want to have kids should not be able to legally get married?

leo707 says

So you are suggesting that people who are barren (nature or by choice), or people that simply don't want to have kids should not be able to legally get married?

Evidently. He appears also to be suggesting that marriages should expire when the kids move away. Allowing the elderly to get married or stay married would put the adults' needs first, and "divorce marriage from procreation."

BTW, many gay couples DO have kids, but he doesn't see that. At least Justice Kennedy seemed to recognize the unfairness of failing to recognize those marriages, though nobody knows how the decision will go.

The OP's comment about hating activists' "hypocrisy" reminds me of this quotation:

"We can easily reduce our detractors to absurdity and show them their hostility is groundless. But what does this prove? That their hatred is REAL. When every slander has been rebutted, every misconception cleared up, every false opinion about us overcome, intolerance itself will remain finally irrefutable."

They can't provide logical reasons why, but they know what they feel.

leo707 says

So you are suggesting that people who are barren (nature or by choice), or people that simply don't want to have kids should not be able to legally get married?

you are completely lost and unable to understand the concept of marriage.

thomaswong.1986 says

leo707 says

So you are suggesting that people who are barren (nature or by choice), or people that simply don't want to have kids should not be able to legally get married?

you are completely lost and unable to understand the concept of marriage.

I don't think that marriage should be exclusive to childrearing. There are many DINKs out there and they have a right to be married. Why should people give up their freedom not to have children?

curious2 says

BTW, many gay couples DO have kids, but he doesn't see that.

you have a last name.. you are the blood of your father and his father down the family lineage. He who carries the family name. Adoption isn't a substitute for the family tree. Marriage is part of many cultures across the globe and across time. Else we are all bastards and can claim the rights without legal bloodlines to prove it.

dublin hillz says

I don't think that marriage should be exclusive to childrearing.

look at global cultures across time and say that !

thomaswong.1986 says

Adoption isn't a substitute for the family tree.

??? So now you're against adoption too? Do you recall that President Gerald Ford, a REPUBLICAN, was [update - see below - informally] adopted? Should he not have been allowed to adopt his stepfather's family name?adoptive parents not have been allowed to get married?

And besides, many gay couples have children who are BIOLOGICALLY the child of one or the other, not even adopted.

curious2 says

leo707
says

So you are suggesting that people who are barren (nature or by choice), or
people that simply don't want to have kids should not be able to legally get
married?

Evidently. He appears also to be suggesting that marriages should expire when
the kids move away. Allowing the elderly to get married or stay married would
put the adults' needs first, and "divorce marriage from procreation."

BTW, many gay couples DO have kids, but he doesn't see that. At least Justice
Kennedy seemed to recognize the unfairness of failing to recognize those
marriages, though nobody knows how the decision will go.

No - I don't want the government determining who is fertile or who is capable or wants to have kids in issuing marriage licenses. But it doesn't take much investigation to realize that gay couples can't procreate without going through extensive outside procedures like surrogates or adoption.

Just because some gay couples have managed to adopt or find a surrogate to have children, doesn't mean it is the norm or enough to require to change the definition of marriage. We have very little data on how these family arrangements turn out in the long run. And I think most people would agree that all things being equal, it is better to have a male and female as parents instead of a gay couple raising kids. Can you even agree to that statement?

And I am certainly not saying that marriages should expire when the kids move away. I think kids should be the first line in taking care of their parents when they get older and need financial and medical help.

All I am saying is that marriage is a delicate institution not to be messed with. Marriage is older than organized religion and is one of the most vital relationships to advance civilization. But look how the divorce rate has skyrocketed in the US in the last few decades with the availability of contraception and no-fault divorce. Look at the ruin of the African American family where over 70% of kids are born to single mothers (and guaranteed poverty). Well meaning liberals spent a good part of the last few decades telling the culture that a "village" of grandmothers, aunties and sisters were just as good as the traditional nuclear family in raising kids. We have allowed the culture to separate marriage from child raising responsibilities and it has destroyed some segments of our society.

socal2 says

Can you even agree to that statement?

No, that claim has been disproved repeatedly and is already addressed above, and you're repeating it as a way of repeating your position which you hold for other reasons. It isn't even an argument against recognizing gay couples' marriages, and in fact you have none, it's just a distraction. But the exchange is a waste of time, for the reason already explained above.

socal2 says

All I am saying is that marriage is a delicate institution not to be messed with. Marriage is older than organized religion and is one of the most vital relationships to advance civilization.

In that case, you should blame Constantine for prohibiting same-sex couples from getting married, and converting to Christianity, which led to the fall of Rome.

Dan8267 says

If Social Security is forced savings, even in part, I should be able to give the unused portion of those savings to my heirs without having to adopt or marry a niece or nephew.

Zero, of your dollars that are payed into SSI are ever saved, in any way, specifically for you.

Dan8267 says

If Social Security is insurance, then the max levels should be way lower and few people should receive it.

Social Security is entirely an insurance system to "insure" that workers and those that depend on them for financial assistance don't fall into poverty due to things like old age, injury, death, etc. One of the biggest misconceptions about our system is that SSI is anything other than insurance.

As I am not an actuary--in addition to not having access to all the data--I can't comment on what levels are necessary.

Yes, many people that receive checks from Social Security feel entitled to the money even when they don't need it and would be entirely comfortable if the SSI checks stopped tomorrow. In my opinion these people should not be eligible for benefits. Like with car or health insurance people should aspire to never receive a SSI check.

Dan8267 says

I don't like making SS a combination of insurance and force savings as it seems to then do a poor job of both and separating those functions honestly is near impossible. One solution per problem, please, otherwise your solutions will not work well.

Sure I more or less agree that one solution per problem is the way to go. However, one program can use many solutions to solve a number of problems. How many problems does having public fire fighters solve? And, they don't try and solve every problem by spraying water on it or hitting it with an axe.

Is SSI perfect? Hell no, but its general mandate is something worthy to aspire to.

thomaswong.1986 says

dublin hillz says

I don't think that marriage should be exclusive to childrearing.

look at global cultures across time and say that !

They have simply not evolved enough to appreciate all the free time that can be filled by entertaining television programs, sporting events and wine/beer tasting....

curious2 says

??? So now you're against adoption too? Do you recall that President Gerald Ford, a REPUBLICAN, was adopted? Should his adoptive parents not have been allowed to get married?

once again .. your lost ! As for Ford.. do try to read up on his childhood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_ford