Gays should be denied tax breaks that heterosexual people get from marriage

[ChristJudgeOfAll]

Okay, fine, the Supreme Court has ruled that the gays can get married, but it doesn't mean they need to get tax breaks from getting married.

The government gave tax breaks because they wanted to promote the creation of family, and a stable foundation for starting a family. Gay people can't start families, the best they can do is adopt from other people's families.

They don't deserve the tax credits from marriage. Make them pay their fair share, if they can't positively contribute to society through their marriage, they still need to pay their higher taxes.

Marriage isn't about love, it's also about benefitting society. Gay people if anything need to pay a high fee to get married due to their inability to procreate.

Let the gays call what they have marriage, doesn't mean they should get all the benefits of marriage that was created for opposite sex couples.

 

[jacknife]

Okay, fine, the Supreme Court has ruled that the gays can get married, but it doesn't mean they need to get tax breaks from getting married.

The government gave tax breaks because they wanted to promote the creation of family, and a stable foundation for starting a family. Gay people can't start families, the best they can do is adopt from other people's families.

They don't deserve the tax credits from marriage. Make them pay their fair share, if they can't positively contribute to society through their marriage, they still need to pay their higher taxes.

Marriage isn't about love, it's also about benefitting society. Gay people if anything need to pay a high fee to get married due to their inability to procreate.

Let the gays call what they have marriage, doesn't mean they should get all the benefits of marriage that was created for opposite sex couples.

That makes no sense, you say gay's cant start families and then name a way they can start a family!

 

[cow451]

Okay, fine, the Supreme Court has ruled that the gays can get married, but it doesn't mean they need to get tax breaks from getting married.

The government gave tax breaks because they wanted to promote the creation of family, and a stable foundation for starting a family. Gay people can't start families, the best they can do is adopt from other people's families.

They don't deserve the tax credits from marriage. Make them pay their fair share, if they can't positively contribute to society through their marriage, they still need to pay their higher taxes.

Marriage isn't about love, it's also about benefitting society. Gay people if anything need to pay a high fee to get married due to their inability to procreate.

Let the gays call what they have marriage, doesn't mean they should get all the benefits of marriage that was created for opposite sex couples.

Good luck with that.

 

[Catherineanne]

Okay, fine, the Supreme Court has ruled that the gays can get married, but it doesn't mean they need to get tax breaks from getting married.

The government gave tax breaks because they wanted to promote the creation of family, and a stable foundation for starting a family. Gay people can't start families, the best they can do is adopt from other people's families.

They don't deserve the tax credits from marriage. Make them pay their fair share, if they can't positively contribute to society through their marriage, they still need to pay their higher taxes.

Marriage isn't about love, it's also about benefitting society. Gay people if anything need to pay a high fee to get married due to their inability to procreate.

Let the gays call what they have marriage, doesn't mean they should get all the benefits of marriage that was created for opposite sex couples.

If any couple marry then they are a family. Children extend a family but do not start it.

Meanwhile, when SCOTUS has made a decision based on the US Constitutional principle of all people being equal under the law, you suggest violating that principle by making gay people unequal under the law? Nice going.

Or are you suggesting that infertile couples and those over childbearing age also pay a higher fee, because they too are getting married without the ability to have children?

 

[JustOneWay]

Marriage isn't about love, it's also about benefitting society. Gay people if anything need to pay a high fee to get married due to their inability to procreate.

I know a bunch of gay people who have children.

You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[seashale76]

OP- I think you're failing to understand that this entire enterprise was about benefits from the get go. The 'love wins' view isn't something I was personally naive enough to ever buy into. It's always just been about benefits. It's not really about marriage- just the benefits that go with it. Personally, I've long thought certain benefits should be given to people whether they're married or not.

 

[Catherineanne]

OP- I think you're failing to understand that this entire enterprise was about benefits from the get go. The 'love wins' view isn't something I was personally naive enough to ever buy into. It's always just been about benefits. It's not really about marriage- just the benefits that go with it. Personally, I've long thought certain benefits should be given to people whether they're married or not.

If you mean inheritance rights and such, then certainly that is a factor. But I think it was mostly about equality; about not being regarded legally as a second class human being.

 

[seashale76]

If you mean inheritance rights and such, then certainly that is a factor. But I think it was mostly about equality; about not being regarded legally as a second class human being.

Benefits is what was really meant by equality. Many of those benefits shouldn't just be given to married people in the first place. In my view, non-married people should have the ability to create contracts with the state and federal government with another person they're not married to. The government gives specific benefits to those it considers married. If the government didn't do that, then this would never have been an issue.

 

[Catherineanne]

Benefits is what was really meant by equality. Many of those benefits shouldn't just be given to married people in the first place. In my view, non-married people should have the ability to create contracts with the state and federal government with another person they're not married to. The government gives specific benefits to those it considers married. If the government didn't do that, then this would never have been an issue.

I am not sure I agree. Even without benefits, gay people would want to be treated the same as everyone else. I don't think this is primarily about money at all.

 

[ChristJudgeOfAll]

That makes no sense, you say gay's cant start families and then name a way they can start a family!

They can't start a family themselves.

 

[keith99]

Since my brother's wife and all her siblings were adapted I've got to ask, should her parents have been deigned the benefits a fertile couple get?

There are many things to call those who would deny such couples equal protection and rights but few that can be said on a family friendly site.

 

[ChristJudgeOfAll]

Since my brother's wife and all her siblings were adapted I've got to ask, should her parents have been deigned the benefits a fertile couple get?

There are many things to call those who would deny such couples equal protection and rights but few that can be said on a family friendly site.

They can actually start a family though, should they choose, they can easily create a baby. Infertile couples are also physically able to start families.

Gay people are not physically unable to start families. They can have sex with women, they simply don't want to. Plenty of gay men have done it in the past. Gay men have procreated with women. By allowing society to accept homosexuals, they will come out of the closet, which is terrible. Far better a closeted homosexual keeping his urges in check and sacrificing to benefit society, than a open-homosexual coming out to destroy it.

 

[scraparcs]

I don't think we're ever going to have marital benefits taken from couples too old to procreate. Marital benefits are easier to administer across the board. That's life.

 

[The Cadet]

@OP would you remove tax breaks from marriages where one of the parties is unable to demonstrate their fertility/virility? Or where the female party is older than 50?

 

[ChristJudgeOfAll]

@OP would you remove tax breaks from marriages where one of the parties is unable to demonstrate their fertility/virility? Or where the female party is older than 50?

Nope because those people actually can't have children due to natural circumstances. Gay people can have kids, their relationship stops it. Many gay people in the past have married opposite sex people. A gay man can have sex with a woman, marry her and have kids. A gay man doesn't need to have sex with another man.

There have been closeted homosexuals that reproduced for thousands of years. I don't see why we are letting them out of the closet, just so they can satisfy sexual urges.

 

[DaisyDay]

If any couple marry then they are a family. Children extend a family but do not start it.

To quibble: a single mother and her children are also a family. A family can start with a marriage or with children.

If you mean inheritance rights and such, then certainly that is a factor. But I think it was mostly about equality; about not being regarded legally as a second class human being.

The larger fight was about equality, but the specific case was about benefits.

 

[The Cadet]

Nope because those people actually can't have children due to natural circumstances. Gay people can have kids, their relationship stops it.

An issue rapidly being resolved. Surrogate mothers, in vitro fertilization, and the like means that gay people can, in fact, have their own children. Their relationship does nothing to hinder it.

Many gay people in the past have married opposite sex people. A gay man can have sex with a woman, marry her and have kids. A gay man doesn't need to have sex with another man.

There have been closeted homosexuals that reproduced for thousands of years. I don't see why we are letting them out of the closet, just so they can satisfy sexual urges.

Oh, I dunno, just a little thing referred to as basic human decency and dignity? I don't know if you know this, but living "in the closet" is kind of terrible. Can you imagine basically being forced by society to pick another man to spend the rest of your life with, and needing to act like it was perfectly okay with you, and to have sex with this man? That's basically what it's like for most homosexuals who were forced into the closet. It's awful, lying to yourself and everyone around you about who you are and what you want, being told that your own nature is sinful and irredeemable, that what you desire makes you a terrible person.

Asking "why can't homos just stay in the closet" is a bit like asking "why do those negroes want to get off the plantation?"

 

[ChristJudgeOfAll]

An issue rapidly being resolved. Surrogate mothers, in vitro fertilization, and the like means that gay people can, in fact, have their own children.



Oh, I dunno, just a little thing referred to as basic human decency and dignity? I don't know if you know this, but living "in the closet" is kind of terrible. Can you imagine basically being forced by society to pick another man to spend the rest of your life with, and needing to act like it was perfectly okay with you, and to have sex with this man? That's basically what it's like for most homosexuals who were forced into the closet. It's awful, lying to yourself and everyone around you about who you are and what you want, being told that your own nature is sinful and irredeemable, that what you desire makes you a terrible person.

Asking "why can't homos just stay in the closet" is a bit like asking "why do those negroes want to get off the plantation?"

No one is whipping gays, raping them, and killing them like cattle. A closeted gay is simply just being denied his sexual urges. Sexual urges are not that important, many people take vows of no sex for life, and pedofiles have to suppress their urges too. Are you somehow a slave just because you have to keep your sexual urge in check? You cannot compare the two, it's insane to even think they are anywhere close to being the same level.

 

[The Cadet]

No one is whipping gays, raping them, and killing them like cattle. A closeted gay is simply just being denied his sexual urges. Sexual urges are not that important, many people take vows of no sex for life, and pedofiles have to suppress their urges too. Are you somehow a slave just because you have to keep your sexual urge in check? You cannot compare the two, it's insane to even think they are anywhere close to being the same level.

So you would enter into a gay marriage with another man, pretend to love him to the outside world, and spend the rest of your life denying your heterosexual urges?

 

[Unix]

I agree with ChristJudgeofAll and seashale76. Heterosexuals don't have rights either. I'm a heterosexual and You should see what I'm like. And no I will probably not be married a large part of my life, tax benefits have to come other ways. Tax benefits and deductions is not a right and shouldn't be given to the majority. If both heterosexual and homosexual couples get tax benefits/deductions the sum of the number of both heterosexual and homosexual married couples will eventually be the majority and that's wrong. And yes I know both what it's like to pay a little taxes and what it's like to pay a lot of taxes.
No-one should take for granted that marriage means any benefits. If there are benefits we should be thankful to our spouse but not ask for more benefits. No-one is married to the state, and sex-life is a private matter which is another reason for that the majority shouldn't get tax reliefs thanks to their sexuality whether homosexual or heterosexual or both. As long as most people are single and not married and homosexuals don't get the same benefits as other married couples, everything is fine - and this is rapidly changing in most countries I know something about so that the situation will soon no-longer be optimal in most countries.
Nor was the situation optimal long ago when the majority of the adults were married couples and there were no homosexual marriages.
This is typical to history: nothing remains optimal for a very long time:

So you would enter into a gay marriage with another man, pretend to love him to the outside world, and spend the rest of your life denying your heterosexual urges?