patrick.net

chanakya4773 says

If a gay couple is visiting a foreign country (like india/china/arab..etc) with a kid and when a group of adults laugh at them and ridicule them and their kid ,

Once again please feel free to post a link to the study that found this.

chanakya4773 says

i am sure the kid gets tormented for life.

Ohhhh...I see truthiness where it comes from.

chanakya4773 says

Common sense comes very handy most of the times... I am appalled....

Your anger and hatred are hardly common sense. They are not even sensible. Your intense emotional reaction seems to have clouded your judgment, and does not persuade.

chanakya4773 says

Just like your hatred and anger towards polygamists and singles.

Please provide any example where I have expressed hatred or anger? You have expressed hate (blaming it on hypocrisy, of which there is none) and you have stated that you are appalled etc. You have also falsely accused gay couples of subjecting their children to lifelong torment, contrary to all evidence. Have I shown anything like that?

chanakya4773 says

How can they be different cards on the same deck.

OK, for the sake of argument lets say you are right and there is a bad social consequence for gay marriage.

Gay marriage--negative impacts on society.
- Kids of gay couples will get picked on when they visit foreign countries.

Polygyny--negative impacts on society.
-Reduces women’s equality and treatment under the law
-Women 15-19 (and older) have more children
-Children less likely to receive an education
-Women get married much younger, and to men that are older
-Significant increase in maternal mortality
-Women’s lifespans are shorter
-Increase in sex trafficking
-Increase in female genital mutilation
-Much more domestic violence towards women
-Increased crime; particularly robbery, murder and rape
-In general fewer civil rights for both men and women
-Children have poorer nutrition, health and increased mortality
-“Scarce” women become viewed as commodities, and are under increased male control
-Increase in mental health problems for women

Yes, they are different.

chanakya4773 says

What else can be the reason to not give the same rights that gays are demanding for singles and polygamists as well ?

LOL - you leap to accusing me of hatred and anger with no basis at all, simply because you project your own feelings. Not everyone shares your hatred and anger. Have I even expressed any opinion on the rights of singles and polygamists?

chanakya4773 says

Just like your hatred and anger towards polygamists and singles.

We have already addressed the fact that once same sex marriage is legal then singles will have all the same marriage rights as couples.

Also, no one has expressed any hatred.

chanakya4773 says

I only hate hypocrisy.

How can you hate something when you don't appear to understand what it is?

leo707 says

no one has expressed any hatred.

chanakya4773 has expressed hatred twice: though he says he only hates hypocrisy, both times he attributes that trait to people who support equal protection of the laws for opposite-sex and same-sex couples. He also called gay couples "selfish" and accused them falsely of subjecting their children to lifelong torment, contrary to all evidence. All of this without any evidence of what their opinions about the issues he claims to care about might be, as if people who campaign for public education were being "selfish" by not devoting that time to feeding the poor. Perhaps it is merely his irrational anger, which seems obsessive in this thread, but he did use the word hate.

chanakya4773 says

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/June/Gay-Parenting-Could-Negatively-Impacts-Kids/

A news article is not a study. How can I see the methodology? Please post a link to the studies.

The "wired" single can get married right now for all of the "benefits" that the OP prattles on about. As it is currently, they can only choose opposite sex friends to pass those benefits to. If it becomes otherwise, you can marry either sex.

You are confusing everyone. If you are "wired" to be single, there is no requirement to do anything other than marry right now and live your life as you see fit. Your friend can reap these benefits now.

Beyond that, you are conflating a whole mess of your preconceived notions.

chanakya4773 says

Hating Hypocrisy of activists is different than hating people ...i think you should be mature enough to understand that.

There is difference in saying i hate your dress versus i hate you. I think if you were smart enough to understand that, we would not be having this conversation.

OK so now I'm neither mature nor smart, i.e. I'm immature and stupid. Thanks.

Do you protest bake sales for public education and call those people selfish hypocrites for not devoting that time to housing the homeless? Do you accuse those parents of subjecting their children to lifelong torment, perhaps related to their cookies?

chanakya4773 says

leo707 :I can list thousand reasons like you listed for gay marriage as well so lets just stop this here ..OK ?

It is convenient for you to stop when you don't have the sources to back up your thousand claims, and even then I doubt your claims could equal the problems with polygyny.

chanakya4773 says

Most of the findings that you showed are prevalent as part of the backwardness of the community which practices polygamy not purely due to polygamy. anyway...we are not going to go too far.

Once again I see that you did not read the paper, or summary. There were plenty of controls used during the studies (e.g.- comparing similar "backward" countries one that allows polygamy and ones that don't, etc.) All the polygamy of types of communities and countries were analyzed. Would you care to hazard a guess on what types of communities are attracted to countries that allow polygyny?

chanakya4773 says

You don't support rights for singles ..because singles "SUPPOSEDLY" affect the society negatively.

Nope, why would you think that? It must be a feeling in your gut, because no one on this board has said anything close to supporting that idea. If I missed a post please quote it!

chanakya4773 says

same for polygamy as well.

I am not inherently opposed to polygamy and am not sure if it should be legal or not. I just understand that there are many issues with polygamy that make it very different from any monogamous marriage system. Given the problems that could arise from those differences legalizing it should take careful consideration.
chanakya4773 says

lets end it here.

OK

chanakya4773 says

1) Single people don't need to be forced to marry. They should get all the benefits without a marriage.

? wait....?

From reading this thread I am assuming that the marriage contract come with a lot of obligations along with any benefits.

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? Yet, couples should need to enter into the contract? Sounds like a double standard to me. Isn't that just the thing you are complaining about?

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.