Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael1
This statement:
is contradicted by this later statement:
If in your own words there are over 1,000 rights and priveleges, I don't see how a tax penalty exists. Besides, married couples have every right to file their federal taxes separately.
|
1) The marriage tax penalty (for
some situations) is discussed here.
Marriage penalty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It exists.
2) Nothing I said was contradictory.
You can have both "rights and privileges" for a situation wherein there also exists a potential "penalty".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael1
That argument really bores me. If John, Jane and Mary consent there is no legitimate state interest. They all consented which should be a requirement for multiples.
|
But that's not how "marriage" works.
In modern marriages, if John marries Mary, it doesn't require that you get Jane's permission first.
What you describe is a potential work-around that would have to be implemented independently of the current status of marriage.
On the flip side, there is no necessary legal modification necessary to allow gays to marry.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael1
So in your mind it's in the state's interest to promote fucking? I said nothing about a sexual relationship, however the bond I share with my family members is stronger than most fornication arrangements.
|
I didn't say anything like that.
But, I think we all should acknowledge that sexual interaction IS a part of marriage.
And on another level, YOU create a contradiction here in proclaiming that marriage is about "children", yet you balk at the idea of you marrying your mother involves implications of sexual relationships.
Come on. You can't have it both ways.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael1
That's what marriage used to be all about. Marriage laws were all written when the best way to get ahead was to procreate as much as possible. Until recently that's always been the point of marriage.
|
I'm still waiting on you to show any semblance of proof in the legal history of your claim.
You talking more is not proof.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael1
Until recently procreation has always been the implied point of marriage.
|
Ignoring the "until recently" claim, the fact that it is NOT CURRENTLY helps further my point.
So unless we are about to require it for everybody, it is unconstitutional to require it JUST for a targetted discrimination class.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael1
How can it be a double-whammy if none of the benefits that marriage conveys are intended to ease the burden of child rearing?
|
You're not thinking along the "double-whammy" lines I was talking about.
It would be like enacting a law that prevents blacks from voting if they can't read.
But then along comes a black man who CAN read, and the powers that be STILL forbid him from reading.
It points to the fact that "reading" wasn't a real point of preventing him voting in the first place.
Likewise, "procreation" isn't a real point of preventing gays from marrying when gays DO procreate and it doesn't matter.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael1
Indeed. I'd rather not measure whether or not there are too many people on our planet or in our country based on our inability to realize we have a fatally flawed entitlement / redistribution scheme at the federal level.
|
Barring changing the Social Security / Medi-government aid situation, it's a legitimate one.
What's the alternative? Callously cutting off health care for the elderly?
I would think there would be a flaw in requiring John to help pay for the over-65 crowd for the time he was under 65, but then some time after he reaches 65, John isn't cut the same favor.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael1
My daughter is 16 and once she's of age she can't collect, except I believe for burial costs and such.
|
The cursory glance I took at the appropriate web-sites said it was 18. Must be more to it than you describe.
Benefits For Children
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael1
Because it was my money they were stealing from me all these years?
|
You're moving the conversation so far away the actual issue of the thread it isn't funny.
But regardless, whether you like it or not, there is a system that is in place, with rules and guidelines.
I can talk about the PURPOSE of the rules and guidelines, and how your intended action does not meet the existing purpose.
And if you want to change the purpose, you should get enough people together to change the system...
But as for the existing PURPOSE, your argument is like saying "This portion of my tax money is used for college financial aid. And while I don't want to go to college, I want my money back!"
The PURPOSE of the money involves the situation I previously explained.
You want it to be something else, then work within the legislative process to get it changed.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael1
Proof?
|
Your dependent parents can receive benefits if they are age 62 or older. (For your parents to qualify as dependents, you would have had to *provide at least one-half of their support.)
Survivors Benefits
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael1
I am willing to make that committment, but you discriminate against me with your conditions regarding who is a suitable marriage partner. How is that any different than your claims that we're currently doing that to homosexuals?
|
Quit asking questions that have already been answered.
There is a clear difference inbetween John and Jim being forbidden to marry, and not getting the benefits...
... and Jack being ALLOWED to marry, but not getting the benefits because he refuses to marry.
It would be like comparing forbidding a black person to vote...
... to a white person who is too lazy to go to the damn polls to vote.
