>> ^rougy:
>> ^Creature:
Swing and a miss. The tax code is not the goal, it's the means by which the goal is accomplished. The religious want to push their concept of "marriage" and marriage itself by giving tax benefits to that particular union for which licensure is required.
Then I trust we are in agreement here.
I've yet to hear the "tax code" argument being made anywhere but here.
The "Marriage is only for the usefulness of society" argument vaguely rings a bell.
And pause for a moment to see who voted against this video.


:🤦: Thanks. I can't believe I took the bait....

>> ^BansheeX:
>> ^rougy:
"Libertarian Logic" - two words I've rarely seen used together, and for good reason.

Oh?

I guess it escaped your purview that tax codes are not even on the list of why NOM wants to discriminate against homosexuals, or why any social conservative chooses to for that matter.
I guess "Libertarian Logic" is a euphemism for "missing the point."

Swing and a miss. The tax code is not the goal, it's the means by which the goal is accomplished. The religious want to push their concept of "marriage" and marriage itself by giving tax benefits to that particular union for which licensure is required.
>> ^jwray:
You're forgetting about child support, alimony and property that can be disputed before a divorce settlement can be reached. These are some of the protections gays are denied.
No, I'm not. There are people who have children and never got licenses. There are people who live with each other and share property and never got licenses. And their disputes/divides are settled in our court system regardless, or should be. It's mostly the IRS that requires licensure, gays can't get child or marriage credits without it.
Sorry your tax code logic is pretty flawed. If you're a childless couple it's really not much of a difference, if anything the married couple is more likely to get screwed come tax season.
How so? What's the point of seeking government permission to get married then if the tax benefit is negligible? Have a ceremony, swear oaths, profess love, print up your own certificate, you don't need permission from bigots to love someone or live with someone. Licensure is meaningless if not for the fact that it creates inequity by granting superior tax status to one legal choice over another.
If you do have children the system is set up to reward who ever has custody.
If you're referring to child support, that's restitution rather than a tax. Fact is, both parents will then lose their IRS marriage credits, but why would we want to reward/penalize based on marriage status?
As for children, the more dependents you have, the more government services you use, yet the less taxes you pay. We don't want to incentivize people to have children they can't afford by using money taken from other legal behaviors, like being single, being gay, or being childless. Subsidizing one legal choice with another makes no sense and creates tremendous distractions and infighting in this country.
If you're an abused spouse and can prove it,you'll have a better shot and getting custody of any children and recieving child support.

Child support is restitution ordered by the court, it's merely a transfer payment as part of an inferred contract when the child was born. Why are you even adding a child to my scenario? Stop trying to confound the clear example I am giving you. If a marriage is loveless, abusive, dishonest, or some other breakdown, the tax code says "stay in that marriage or we'll penalize you by revoking the subsidy we gave you for being heterosexually married." This is a carrot/stick system from a religious viewpoint that goes back a long ways when divorce for any reason was frowned upon and never seen as the best solution. And this is the system you still support, even when including gays as applicable for licensure. You're not going to worm your way out of this by adding a child and child support to confound the argument.


It's flawed because it is an attempt to reduce marriage to solely a tax issue. There are more rights involved.

I can understand why you feel the tax status is unfair. As I said before it's really a minor change in status, and since I didn't make myself clear earlier, I wouldn't shed a tear if everyone held the same status.

It's not just about divorce protections. Consider hospital visitation, being able to make medical decisions on behalf of an incapacitated spouse, and the ability to inherit valuables in the event death. In the case of an unmarried couple the sick or injured partner's family can step in and essentially screw the healthy one over.

Still, choice is really at the heart of the issue.

>> ^BansheeX:
This is more of a tax dispute than anything. Government is only in the business of licensing marriage because we tax the heterosexually married less than we tax single people and gays, and they need licensure to enforce that. Seriously, all the people in this thread still fundamentally support a tax code that says "if you're a woman in an abusive marriage, we will penalize you the minute you get a divorce." If you truly wanted marriage to become about love again, you would create an environment in which government licensure was unnecessary.
Sorry to blow up your conservative/liberal pissing contest with libertarian logic, but I have a simple rule when it comes to taxes: the tax code should not be used as a social engineering tool to incentivize one legal behavior over another.


You're forgetting about child support, alimony and property that can be disputed before a divorce settlement can be reached. These are some of the protections gays are denied.

Sorry your tax code logic is pretty flawed.If you're a childless couple it's really not much of a difference, if anything the married couple is more likely to get screwed come tax season. If you do have children the system is set up to reward who ever has custody. If you're an abused spouse and can prove it,you'll have a better shot and getting custody of any children and recieving child support.

In the U.S. there is this thing called separation of church and state. That means that when a couple gets married the state can only recognize said marriage on a secular level. If it means more to you based on religion great, but it's none of the state's business.

You can't block gay marriage based on purely religious grounds. 1st amendment aside, it's worth noting that not everyone's religion is anti-gay.

As it stands a wedding ceremony does not have to include any religious language. The officiant does not have to have any sort of religious affiliation. As long as all of the paperwork is in order the government really doesn't care.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I very much see why people who believe homosexuality is morally wrong do not want the concept of 'marriage' being expanded to define gay couples. Such a change would be used to try and force churches that morally object to gay marriage into the act of performing gay weddings or risk lawsuits and other legal reprisals.


That isn't even a real threat, it's nothing more than a scare tactic, and a sorry excuse to deny the legal protections marriage provides. Churches can already discriminate all they want. Ever heard of people converting in order to get married? Or take a look at the Mormons, they only open their facilities to certain members. You're not even allowed to attend unless they think you're up to snuff.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
End result - because the gay community is not willing to compromise the laws they propose always go down in flames. And they always will until they learn to compromise and allow defenders of traditional marriage the right to morally object to thier lifestyle.


Um....you've heard of the whole domestic partnership thing right???? That was the compromise, thing is that "separate but equal" can never be equal. It's just like having separate water fountains, or telling someone they have to sit in the back of the bus. It's not equality it's just a sorry attempt to marginalize a part of the population that works just as hard, and pays just as many taxes as anyone else.

Totally mooching, which is why their money is worth more....

*kill

*kill

*kill

>> ^9781:
is it just me that thinks that this COULD actually be an awesome metal song?


I'm thinking in the same vein as Type O's cover of "Cinnamon Girl"

In humans its known as parasitic twin.

Now I'm hungry. No excuse to miss it next time.

Why does hulu have to be blocked??? This is such a great clip.

The United States of Canada and its neighbor... Jesusland