I disagree with homosexuals couples getting economic benefits from marriage. The societal purpose of those benefits is to encourage production of future generations, of which homosexual couples, as a unit, are incapable.
I disagree with homosexuals couples getting economic benefits from marriage. The societal purpose of those benefits is to encourage production of future generations, of which homosexual couples, as a unit, are incapable.
Do people really need encouraging? It's not like there's a shortage of babies.
And many same-sex couples provide (or at least, desire to provide) the valuable service of fostering or adopting children who have no families. Why not further encourage them to do so by extending them the same legal benefits?
Um... if one spouse dies, the other spouse inherits all of his/ her assets without incuring inheritance tax. However, if his/ her assets are willed to any children he has, it IS subject to inheritance tax. Wait - how is that about the children again???!!!
This is not relevant to people-production.
Exactly. So marriage is not all about 'people production', is it?
You misunderstand. Inheritance has nothing to do with people-production.
From the point of view of the SOCIETY, marriage is about people production.
No it's not... 0.o
Inheritance rights have nothing to do with people production, visitation rights have nothing to do with people production and tax breaks have nothing to do with people production. People just say that society views marriage as people production to cover up their own heterosexist prejudices.
Society has no use for marriage aside from people-production, and certainly no need to give tax-breaks for an association that doesn't give anything back.
You are correct in that inheritance rights and visitation rights have nothing or at least little to do with peopleproduction, which is why I said so in an earlier answer.
...So why can't we get married for visitation rights and inheritance rights?
Society has no use for marriage aside from people-production, and certainly no need to give tax-breaks for an association that doesn't give anything back.
You are correct in that inheritance rights and visitation rights have nothing or at least little to do with peopleproduction, which is why I said so in an earlier answer.
Quoting my original opinion: 'I disagree with homosexual couples getting economic benefits from marriage.'
I disagree with homosexuals couples getting economic benefits from marriage. The societal purpose of those benefits is to encourage production of future generations, of which homosexual couples, as a unit, are incapable.
By "people production," you mean "having children," correct? If so, then what about infertile couples, elderly couples, and couples that want to remain child-free? Are you saying that those couples should be denied marriage rights, too?From the point of view of the SOCIETY, marriage is about people production.
That doesn't make sense. I can understand you thinking marriages which 'produce people' should get economic benefits, but then if a homosexual couple adopts a near infant from somewhere else, they have in essence produced a person for America, while at the same time if a man/woman get married, but decide not to have kids, they have not produced a person for America. Also, what happens which said people who are produced are negatives (criminals, thieves, drug addicts, drains on welfare system), should the union which produced them get economic benefits? Would it not be best to say that any group (and no need to limit it to marriage, why not single or polygamous) which 'produces' contributing members of society get economic benefits?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?