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

[TLK Valentine]

They can't start a family themselves.

Neither can the elderly -- let's cut off their tax benefits too.

 

[Armoured]

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.

So having children is the only positive contribution to society a family can make.

Shall we exempt childless heterosexual couples from tax breaks too?

 

[Unix]

Over here we have child allowance which is little more than $100 and doesn't depend on income. You don't have that?:

Shall we exempt childless heterosexual couples from tax breaks too?

 

[revanneosl]

My cousin and her wife have two natural-born children. The OP's argument is invalid.

 

[Cearbhall]

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.

"The best they can do?" I really hope there aren't any adopted people in your life who have to hear you say things like this. As if giving a needy child a loving home is somehow morally inferior and isn't worth being promoted. I second this:

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.

 

[Unix]

Everyone who adopts children is rich. That's a requirement over here - they have to have like a hundred thousand $:

"The best they can do?" I really hope there aren't any adopted people in your life who have to hear you say things like this. As if giving a needy child a loving home is somehow morally inferior and isn't worth being promoted. I second this:

 

[Cearbhall]

Everyone who adopts children is rich. That's a requirement over here - they have to have like a hundred thousand $:

Not only is that not true in the US, but I also have absolutely no idea what it has to do with what I said.

 

[Unix]

Over here being married is not an explicit requirement for adopting children, is it in the U.S.? If it isn't a requirement I've proved my point: homosexual couples have until now afforded to adopt children making a good enough impression to get to adopt (they can't be too poor can they? They have to say they are either making a housing career or have a driving license and an own car with air-conditioning, or go to Disneyland or buy a TV that covers the entire wall or equip each one in the family with a new (laptop) computer and flat-fee smartphone every 1½ years or they'll have to say they'll "support the hobbies of the children" - with money) and thereby they don't need any tax-breaks, haven't needed before so why would they need now?
Or is the problem that very few in the U.S. adopt children? Usually when I hear about adopting children no matter in what country the couple who wants to adopt is the problem is there are too many who desperately want to adopt children and it's often unclear whether the children really have to leave their biological parents or it's unclear how they left them.
Usually couples who want to adopt are either desperate or rich. I'm not saying there shouldn't be any adoptions. I just don't get it why everything should be supported with tax reliefs. Having children whether adopted or own biological ones or dads caring for children that are not biologically theirs together with the mother of the children, is not a right.
Everything You can achieve by having sex or choosing whom to marry is not a right, far from it!:

Not only is that not true in the US, but I also have absolutely no idea what it has to do with what I said.

 

[AceHero]

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.

Um, I'd say sexuality is a huge part of what makes a person unique. It's not something you simply turn on or off. The fact that humans mate for pleasure in addition to procreation shows that sexual urges are not some minor part of people's lives.

 

[AHH who-stole-my-name]

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.

I'm sorry but this hatred is getting really old and this, yet again is a good example of the actions that have chipped away at the credibility of the religious community. This is about the most pathetically desperate display of irrational nonsense I've read in a long, long time.
Gay people can have families and are able to contribute to society. What you propose here is taking away any chance of them proving it, which is what I think your intent is.

Have you not ever heard of heterosexual couples having a child through a surrogate? Have you not heard of adoption or foster care. Are these options not open to gay couples are is there an excuse in the works to explain how this too should not be afforded gay couples. My word you people are shacking in your boots over your inability to control others.

 

[tulc]

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.

Sorry, calling a Poe!
tulc(that's a penalty kick and a caution!)

 

[Jan Volkes]

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.

I agree.... also all the people listed below should be treated exactly the same because none of them [on the surface] would benefit our society:
People who get married but never intend to have children.
People who marry when the woman it too old to have children.
Old people should not be allowed to marry for obvious reasons.
People who are unable to have children.
People who would be unable to care for any children they did have.
People who prefer dogs, cats or other pets to children.
People who want nothing more than to be together and love each other.

Like old age religion does not come alone.

 

[Unix]

Most homosexuals, especially the ones who want their own homosexual weddings, only want the amusement.
On the other hand I have to work hard and usually make about no money whatsoever and prioritize hard, currently only APPROXIMATELY one out of two times I can serve those who want amusement, usually it's better than that. I have customers, such as transportation customers who want amusement - it's a fun work but sometimes I'm just over-loaded with work in my proprietary firm not because of customers but because I study during the semesters and thereby don't have time to take care of all the matters during the semesters and instead have to re-schedule time-consuming tasks to the vacation. If I would have time to sleep during the night I might remember things better, also for several years I didn't study so I forgot such a routine as using a pocket calendar/diary or whatever it's called in which You can change the paper annually and has a leather cover. Instead I've worked on scheduling in my brain.
The homosexual couples I'm speaking about want amusement 100% of the time: a tax deduction for having sex. They should keep in mind that most people can't afford communicating and the time for finding heterosexual relationships let alone to have sex in the first place.
I have capped internet (data cap) and starting from some time in October 2015 and onwards I won't have any internet at all. I can't for my life understand how people can afford either internet or a flat fee cellular phone - I've never paid a cent for those things. I haven't paid for internet since around the turn of the millenia, back then my invoice (modem) was about $3 a Month. I could afford a little more than $3 a Month now but not what it costs. Internet is much about amusement. Have to use internet, yes, will just have to do with the free options. It's outrageous that some have both expensive smartphones or tablets with real OS:s and enough RAM AND internet at home. I understand it's convenient but I also suspect very few think about the total lifetime cost. On top of that some buy new phones! Last time I paid for a new phone (actually two as I guessed right they didn't last long due to condensation because of very cold Winter) was 13 years ago and it only worked in the city (and far from all cities) and I lived at least a mile outside the coverage area, and of course a rather small country.
But I'm glad that my life is never about experimenting with sex.

 

[Catherineanne]

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.

No, it is not insane.

Unfortunately, the end result of oppression of gay people is exactly that; murder. 80 countries where being gay is illegal, 5 which execute gay people is not exactly 'no one'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people

This is why it matters when the US says that gay people have the same status and rights as everyone else; there is a chance it might lead other countries to stop behaving like ignorant barbarians and murdering innocent people.

 

[Jan Volkes]

No, it is not insane.

Unfortunately, the end result of oppression of gay people is exactly that; murder. 80 countries where being gay is illegal, 5 which execute gay people is not exactly 'no one'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_LGBT_people

This is why it matters when the US says that gay people have the same status and rights as everyone else; there is a chance it might lead other countries to stop behaving like ignorant barbarians and murdering innocent people.

It's a pity that things like this even need to be spelt out, this should be built in knowledge as part of being human.

 

[Catherineanne]

It's a pity that things like this even need to be spelt out, this should be built in knowledge as part of being human.

True enough. It would seem that many people spend inordinate amounts of energy in denying reality.

 

[Jan Volkes]

True enough. It would seem that many people spend inordinate amounts of energy in denying reality.

That's a fact.

 

[Unix]

Americans shouldn't be so proud, because if every country in the world would copy U.S. culture it would be a true disaster. There are already far too many countries doing that and that's what superficially speaking tens of millions are denying (deep in their hearts some of them are still against the copying of U.S. culture). Catherineanne and Jan Volkes: You might be denying that not everyone needs to accept all of what homosexuality entails the way things are heading for those who have that inclination, are You?:

True enough. It would seem that many people spend inordinate amounts of energy in denying reality:

It's a pity that things like this even need to be spelt out, this should be built in knowledge as part of being human.

One can be against things while being aware of reality, it's not a contradiction. You said it Yourself, that "there is a chance" - it's just a slight chance:

This is why it matters when the US says that gay people have the same status and rights as everyone else; there is a chance it might lead other countries to stop behaving like ignorant barbarians and murdering innocent people.

... it's not worth the risk, there are far more downsides with a still pretty general move like the one being discussed here: the possible tax reliefs for married homosexual couples. There's a great risk that such tax policy greatly escalates a culture which is already too escalated in the U.S. and many countries that I know of, over here too.
All development is not progress!!

 

[Marius27]

They can't start a family themselves.

So heterosexuals who adopt or use IVF to start a family aren't actually a family?

 

[Jan Volkes]

One can be against things while being aware of reality, it's not a contradiction.

Only a fool thinks they can be against nature, it's like being against the rain or the wind.
Homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality, we can no more change our sexuality than we can change our heads,
we can supress it but we can't change it, in an enlightened society we should not even make people try?