patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,194,237 comments by 13,886 users - AmericanKulak, anniecoyote, WookieMan online now
Discrimination against single people ?
invite response
2013 Mar 27, 3:27am 21,865 views 129 comments
« First « Previous Comments 91 - 129 of 129 Search these comments
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.
curious2
2013 Mar 28, 8:01am
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.
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.
leo707
2013 Mar 28, 8:02am
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.
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.
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.
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....
??? 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
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?
I believe over 80% of heterosexual marriages result in procreation. So procreation is very much an intregal part of the vast majority of marriage.
Besides, this topic is about descrimination against single people. The only reason the State gives incentives to married couples is to help the 80% majority who take on the hard and vital work of raising future tax payers.
I love my kids. But I would be living much larger here in Southern California at the beach and traveling the world if I didn't have to spend money to educate, shelter and feed them to become productive citizens.
leo707
2013 Mar 28, 8:08am
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....
Ummm...OK, I looked across time and through all cultures and did not see one culture that barred infertile people from getting married or immediately dissolved marriages after the children were grown and the parents too old to bear any more.
However, I did see many that allowed same sex marriages.
Maybe I missed something could you give an example please?
And besides, many gay couples have children who are BIOLOGICALLY the child of one or the other, not even adopted.
strange ways! trying telling that to many global cultures.. it just isnt Kosher!
This can be very easily solved - if you want to incentivize the upbringing of children then provide financial assistance per proven child currently being brought up, regardless whether the person is married or not. Other than that the government should completely keep out of marriage, at least on the federal level.
This can be very easily solved - if you want to incentivize the upbringing of children then provide financial assistance per proven child currently being brought up, regardless whether the person is married or not. Other than that the government should completely keep out of marriage, at least on the federal level.
One thing the government can do to incentivize having children is provide day care at small fee that will be open during times that parents are likely to be working. The small fee would mean that it would be partially subsidized by the goverment and be paid for via existing or if necessary new revenues.
curious2
2013 Mar 28, 8:13am
it just isnt Kosher!
You don't need to be Jewish to get married, or to have children. Though other global cultures might kill you for being Christian and holding to strange ways and beliefs, yet that is not an argument against marriage equality.
But thank you for the information about Gerald Ford. He wasn't formally adopted. But, he adopted his stepfather's family name, should he not have been allowed to do that? Living with his biological mother and an otherwise unrelated stepfather put him in a situation quite similar to the children of many gay couples, who live with one biological parent and benefit from the security and stability of marriage.
leo707
2013 Mar 28, 8:13am
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....
Perhaps it is a myth, but didn't medieval peasants have a lot more free time that people today?
No, flat screen TVs though.
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....
Perhaps it is a myth, but didn't medieval peasants have a lot more free time that people today?
No, flat screen TVs though.
Yeah, but they couldn't climate control their pad and had no cars.
No, that claim has been disproved repeatedly and is already addressed above,
Wow - quite remarkable. I checked your link and didn't see how it was addressed before.
Do you have kids?
I can guarantee you that my wife can provide my daughter with better parenting advice on female issues, emotions, hormones, menstration etc. than I can since she has biologically experienced it already. And I can certainly provide my boy better parenting advice than my wife can in terms of male issues, discipline, agression and respect since I have lived it too.
We live in a bizarro world where some people really seem to think there are no biological and emotional differences between the sexes in terms of child raising.
That said, I know full well that there are many good and stable gay couples that are raising good kids. And I think it is preferable to have kids adopted to gay parents than stuck in foster homes or single parents. But all things being equal, I think it is absolutely a no brainer to place adopted kids to heterosexual couples than gay couples.
leo707
2013 Mar 28, 8:16am
if you want to incentivize the upbringing of children then provide financial assistance per proven child currently being brought up, regardless whether the person is married or not.
This is the current system. I have never heard of any incentive for raising children that is only available to married people.
This can be very easily solved - if you want to incentivize the upbringing of children then provide financial assistance per proven child currently being brought up, regardless whether the person is married or not. Other than that the government should completely keep out of marriage, at least on the federal level.
They already do that. Why do you think we have so many welfare babies and children being born out of wedlock? I personally have a couple co-workers who have kids who have kids who don't want to get married because they will lose their government subsidy.
Raising children to single parents is a guarantee to a life in poverty, dependency and even crime. Regardless of how much government assistance they get.
Better to have policies that keep the married couples together who are raising kids.
Dan8267
2013 Mar 28, 8:30am
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.
If that's the case, it's damn fucking expensive insurance at $7,049.40/yr or $317,223 over a working lifetime (assuming retiring at 65). That's a McMansion in a prime location.
Also, as an insurance policy, it's paying out to way too many people who aren't poor. Perhaps that's why its so expensive. I know a lot of people on Social Security who are middle class, not poor, and would still be even without SS.
Perhaps SS was intended to be solely an insurance policy against poverty, but the way it acts and the way people expect it to act surely isn't purely insurance.
Plus, as an insurance policy, it really doesn't make sense that highly paid professionals should have to pay more than unskilled workers. After all, the former is much less likely to need the insurance.
Dan8267
2013 Mar 28, 8:31am
If that's the case, it's damn fucking expensive insurance at $7,049.40/yr or $317,223 over a working lifetime (assuming retiring at 65). That's a McMansion in a prime location.
To clarify, that's just the employee contribution. The total cost of this insurance is twice that amount.
Dan8267
2013 Mar 28, 8:33am
if you want to incentivize the upbringing of children then provide financial assistance per proven child currently being brought up
Shouldn't we be incentivizing not bringing up children? Like there's a job shortage in our country.
leo707
2013 Mar 28, 8:35am
I can guarantee you that my wife can provide my daughter with better parenting advice on female issues...I can certainly provide my boy better parenting advice than my wife....
While interesting your anecdotal evidence is not in-and-of-itself convincing.
This may be the case with you, as I am sure that it is with most couples. But, I am sure there are many couples where the man is immeasurably more qualified to give advice on any matter, including female, to his daughter; and vice versa.
Just as there are many man-on-man couples (or women-on-women for that matter) who's qualifications on advice giving are significantly greater than huge numbers of hetero-couples.
We live in a bizarro world where some people really seem to think there are no biological and emotional differences between the sexes in terms of child raising.
Yes, there are differences, but those differences are just one piece of the child raring puzzle, and the sex of the parents is far less important than many of the other factors.
That said, I know full well that there are many good and stable gay couples that are raising good kids. And I think it is preferable to have kids adopted to gay parents than stuck in foster homes or single parents. But all things being equal, I think it is absolutely a no brainer to place adopted kids to heterosexual couples than gay couples.
In real life all things are never equal, and the foster/adoption system in the US never has all the willing and compassionate parents it needs. It should be a no brainer to let gays marry, create families, and have kids adoption or otherwise.
Shouldn't we be incentivizing not bringing up children? Like there's a
job shortage in our country.
We can't have America's level of ponzi scheme entitlements with a shrinking population. It's just math.
leo707
2013 Mar 28, 8:53am
If that's the case, it's damn fucking expensive insurance at $7,049.40/yr or $317,223 over a working lifetime (assuming retiring at 65). That's a McMansion in a prime location.
Also, as an insurance policy, it's paying out to way too many people who aren't poor. Perhaps that's why its so expensive. I know a lot of people on Social Security who are middle class, not poor, and would still be even without SS.
Yeah, a lot of people could easily afford to be kicked off the SSI doles, and that would reduce the cost some, but SSI is keeping about 40% of retirees out of poverty. That can't be cheap.
Perhaps SS was intended to be solely an insurance policy against poverty, but the way it acts and the way people expect it to act surely isn't purely insurance.
Yep.
Plus, as an insurance policy, it really doesn't make sense that highly paid professionals should have to pay more than unskilled workers. After all, the former is much less likely to need the insurance.
I am not so sure about that. Being highly skilled does not make someone a better money manager. Also, may dangerous jobs are highly paid.
Anyway, that again is a question for an actuary.
Limiting social security payouts based on "need" will result in people not saving enough in their 401K and IRAs so that they can demonstrate the "need" to receive SS.
if you want to incentivize the upbringing of children then provide financial assistance per proven child currently being brought up, regardless whether the person is married or not.
This is the current system. I have never heard of any incentive for raising children that is only available to married people.
That's not accurate - you get a lot of changes in your rights, duties, taxes etc. just for getting married, even if you never will have kids.
if you want to incentivize the upbringing of children then provide financial assistance per proven child currently being brought up
Shouldn't we be incentivizing not bringing up children? Like there's a job shortage in our country.
That point can be made, I wasn't arguing either way, just stating that if the government truly wants to incentivize the upbringing of offspring, marriage status is not of much relevance if any.
This can be very easily solved - if you want to incentivize the upbringing of children then provide financial assistance per proven child currently being brought up, regardless whether the person is married or not. Other than that the government should completely keep out of marriage, at least on the federal level.
They already do that. Why do you think we have so many welfare babies and children being born out of wedlock? I personally have a couple co-workers who have kids who have kids who don't want to get married because they will lose their government subsidy.
Raising children to single parents is a guarantee to a life in poverty, dependency and even crime. Regardless of how much government assistance they get.
Better to have policies that keep the married couples together who are raising kids.
Of course they also do that but there is no reason to change your status in any way just for getting married and they also do that right now which is giving out incentives - or discriminating if you want to take the negative view - just for getting married - doesn't make much sense.
Dan8267
2013 Mar 28, 9:10am
Limiting social security payouts based on "need" will result in people not saving enough in their 401K and IRAs so that they can demonstrate the "need" to receive SS.
A valid point. It would be hard to design the system so that it cannot be gamed.
leo707
2013 Mar 28, 9:14am
look at this family which is raising a happy kid in a polyamourous relationship. Heck its much better than foster care !
Your anecdotal evidence fails to convince me.
If you want to just pass the "better than foster care" litmus test
? who said that? It was not me.
I was talking about both the foster and adoption system.
almost every union will qualify including polygamous, polyandry,Polyamorous, single parents and many other forms of union.
Did you entirely miss our conversation on polyandry?
Children under 10 raised in polyandry are 7-11 times more likely to die. I don't see how you could think this compares to any couple or single parent adoption. Also, it would be extremely difficult to place boy children/babies in families practicing polyandry, but I am sure they will take all the girls that you would give them.
I am beginning to tire with the way you seem to keep rehashing, seemingly with selective amnesia, points already discussed. It makes the conversation feel pointless.
why should even state be involved in marriage then ?
You already made that argument in your own post, are you changing your mind?
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/June/Gay-Parenting-Could-Negatively-Impacts-Kids/
The findings of the study you quoted here to show the negative effects of gay marriage, also showed that the best situation for kids to grow up in is a nuclear family. State involvement in marriage promotes a nuclear family.
...So, what is it? Do, you agree with your own source or not? Or, are you just not reading your own sources? I know you don't read the ones that I cite for you.
leo707
2013 Mar 28, 9:25am
But, I am sure there are many couples where the man is immeasurably more qualified to give advice on any matter, including female, to his daughter; and vice versa.
WOW...looks like you are certain about many things without any "studies" to prove it.LOL
SO how exactly, a man can experience ( not learn about ) periods ?
Maybe a blind person can teach a kid about painting by learning about it on internet. or a deaf person can teach a kid piano lessons.
Funny, because this seems to be a rare instance where anecdotal evidence is actually valid.
So you postulate that a woman teaching a boy about what it means to be a boy is akin to a blind person teaching a kid about colors.
let's say you are dieing and you have a choice as to who is going to teach your son how to be a man and about his body. You can pick either Dr. Ruth Westheimer, a woman, or Dr. Karl Pilkington, a man (and a totally nice guy). Who do you choose? Who is better qualified to give advice to your son? In the next round of elimination I will feel free to add criminals and mental defectives.
leo707
2013 Mar 28, 9:27am
if you want to incentivize the upbringing of children then provide financial assistance per proven child currently being brought up, regardless whether the person is married or not.
This is the current system. I have never heard of any incentive for raising children that is only available to married people.
That's not accurate - you get a lot of changes in your rights, duties, taxes etc. just for getting married, even if you never will have kids.
Uh, yeah, but I was only referring to the benefits given to caregivers of children. Is there any specific right given to a married couple over their child that is not available to a single parent?
Is there any specific right given to a married couple over their child that is not available to a single parent?
I don't think specifically regarding their child. But for example you cannot double your deductions, inheritance is taxed and such. Seems unfair although there are pitfalls of being married if you are the main breadwinner for example ;)
FortWayne
2013 Mar 29, 2:07am
chanakya4773 look at US tax code. Married people pay a lot more in taxes than single people do. Because US tax code assumes a wife makes 25% of husbands income, and increases taxes if she makes more.
Get over it already, you are not a victim. Taxes are not singling out single people, they are structured to take most they can from everyone who makes anything in order to fund government and everything around it.
zzyzzx
2013 Mar 29, 2:36am
I pay taxes to support schools, and I don't have and never will have kids... so screw you.
I also think that parents should pay much higher taxes just for this reason alone.
leo707
2013 Mar 29, 2:49am
What i mean is that statistically if you take thousand women and thousand men. The thousand women will on "average" be better teachers than the thousand men when it comes to teaching about the female body and experiences to a girl child. We can Safely conclude this based on the fact that women have an edge over men due to their experiences and this will show up when large numbers are involved.
...when we use large numbers (people) , this difference is guaranteed.
Well, then I am glad that we agree that amongst the population of 1000 that there are women who are better and more qualified to teach boys about their bodies than many of the men.
Also its pretty ridiculous for many on this forum to suggest that the only recourse for a single man to give his inheritances ( including SS) without getting taxed to his sister is to marry her.
I agree that would be totally ridiculous. Who in this thread suggested that? I must have missed it. Please quote it.
Is it not also pretty ridiculous for someone to think that Social Security is an inheritance? I have heard lots of absurd misconceptions about SSI, but that is a new one.
Dan8267
2013 Mar 29, 3:03am
Well, then I am glad that we agree that amongst the population of 1000 that there are women who are better and more qualified to teach boys about their bodies than many of the men.
Isn't that what gets all these female teachers in trouble?
leo707
2013 Mar 29, 3:05am
leo707 : this is for you..since you love studies.
Thank you, I do love studies, but I see here that you are using the term very loosely.
:(
This study is as good as the study you posted on polygamy. Either we can discredit both or accept both.
Accepting one and discrediting another just for allowing rights for gays and excluding other unions is what is wrong.
I am not sure if you are trying to rack-up another logical fallacy to add to the list of fallacies you already committed in this thread; or perhaps your knowledge of scientific process is just so limited that you don't realize what you are saying.
In either case, you are mistaken. Not all studies are considered equal. The study you cite (or rather the article you cited that cites a study)--and probably did not actually bother to read--is as good as the studies cited by the Creation Museum.
If you had bothered to even read the article that cited the study you would know that this was not a "study" about gay marriage, and apparently close to zero of the subjects in the study were kids from stable same-sex married parents.
FortWayne
2013 Mar 29, 3:25am
I pay taxes to support schools, and I don't have and never will have kids... so screw you.
Welcome to society, general welfare is in the constitution. My taxes pay for a lot of stuff you use too, yeah buddy!
And educated populace benefits everyone, not just the parents.
curious2
2013 Mar 29, 4:03am
If you had bothered to even read the article that cited the study you would know that this was not a "study" about gay marriage, and apparently close to zero of the subjects in the study were kids from stable same-sex married parents.
The thing I noticed about Chan's linked article was, for the reason you've pointed out, it seemed to show the opposite of what he was trying to say. The heterosexual divorcees, who could get re-married, were less likely to require public assistance. That's the point I tried to make days ago, that a major government purpose of marriage is to keep people off public assistance. That is particularly true for single parents, especially unwed or divorced mothers: when moms are allowed to get married or re-married, they are less likely to go on welfare or Medicaid, and the children have more security. Denying lesbian couples the equal protection of the marriage laws imposes a measurable cost on them and their children in the short run, and a measurable cost on the public in the long run, with no benefit to anyone.
« First « Previous Comments 91 - 129 of 129 Search these comments
Many people choose to be single and not marry.
Why is the GOVT discriminating against single people by giving benefits to only married people ? IS it not un constitutional to discriminate against single people just like it looks un unconstitutional to discriminate against gays?
example : Single people cannot give their inheritance ( tax free) to their "loved" ones like their sister/brother.