whats wrong with gay married couples wanting their adopted kids to be gay

OK, do not infertile heterosexual couples do the same? Will you deny them marriage rights? Show me in any marriage law in the US a requirement to be married is a promise to reproduce. Where does it say in any marriage law that the two parties involved have to, or be able to reproduce?

 

Do you really want me to go here? I will if you want. You're not gonna be happy with the results, but I will go there. I'm giving you a chance right now...but if you insist...

 

And who are you to say the purpose for which it was created... and more importantly, the continuing purpose for while it is maintained?

And I call bull on that. Marriage rights have been defended legally for prison inmates, both incapable of reproducing in prison and not particularly desired by society to "encourage" their reproduction. A child rapist can marry an axe murderer, legally. A couple that has had their children taken from them by the state for neglect and abuse can be and stay married. Also, I'm not sure if you know what you're talking about regarding "tax brackets". Income tax brackets sometimes favor joint filings, sometimes not, it just depends. If the government was trying specifically to benefit married couples simply for being married, that would not have been done through tax brackets - it would most likely be done through a tax credit.

... if that's all it came down to, then wouldn't they still have to deal with straight single people faking straight marriages for the same reason?

Straight people have done that quite well on their own for thousands of years . Nobody marries for the potential tax benefits anyway, that makes absolutely no sense.

 

First off. It is a tax benefit, not a right. Even heterosexual couples can be denied the benefit under certain circumstances. Secondly, law is not encouragement. There is no law. It is simply an encouragement. A fertile married couple does not have to have children. It is just encouraged. You never answered why you deserve a tax benefit while a single parent doesnt? What makes you so much better than them? It must be just because you cry louder. Thats the only reason I can think of.

 

What benefits are you talking about? Practically all the benefits have to do with "dividing" and "sharing" of somethign across the couple or family, so talking about equal treatment of a single person who doesn't have another person to share or divide something with doesn't even make sense. As soon as that single person finds someone they wish to "share and divide" with, they can marry them - if they're of the opposite sex of course (depending on the state). So there is no unequal treatment of single people.

 

Marriage is not simply a tax benefit, it's a family bond. It involves much more than taxes. It involves hospital visitation, rights to make medical decisions for spouses and child custody. You seriously think marriage is only a tax benefit? Are you serious?

Is that why you would get married? Money?

 

I'm trying to find those examples you speak of. I know that single parents can qualify for a fair amount of financial support that has nothing to do with marriage, but we won't get into that. I'm trying to find examples of tax benefits that single people are denied... lets see..

Providing my employers health insurance to my spouse that a single person doesn't have?
Passing on my estate after I pass away tax free to my spouse that a single person doesn't have?
Passing on my pension and social security to my spouse that a single person doesn't have?
Gift tax exemption from my spouse that a single person doesn't have?
Taking family medical leave to help a spouse that a single person doesn't have?

And that's just the benefits that are are arguably financial, the vast majority of the rights granted by marriage are not - they're more designed to facilitate the union logistically, allowing the couple to speak for each other in medical decisions, to own property, adopt children and perform other transactions jointly, immigration, visitation rights, the rights and responsibilities of step-parents etc.

None of those rights even make sense to talk about in the context of a single person, because the nature of these benefits have to do with the sharing and relationship between a couple. If there is no couple, if the person is single, there is nobody to share with and thus no unequal treatment. And as soon as that single person finds someone that they DO wish to create such a relationship with, they can marry - or one would hope they could.

 

Considering I work in tax and I literally quoted the code a few posts ago. You are right that sometimes a separate filing is better than joint and thats if one person makes so much more than the other. There is a problem with straight couples that fake marriages. Now imagine how hard it will be to audit fake gay marriages on top of that.And deal with the other tax fraud that has to be audited with it. No they wouldnt offer a tax credit because deductions are counted after Gross income which would put them into a higher tax bracket. They instead change the rates to reflect their GI. There are several reasons for it. We were examining the one related to social contexts. There's also administrative, wherewithal to pay, etc. People will marry for a variety of reasons. Taxes are a reason in some cases.

If you know more than me how about you explain why?

 

I see this quote of yours:

"Federal Taxation 2014 ed. Section 1 page 15 'Objectives of the Federal Income Tax Law' "The tax law attempts to encourage or discourage certain socially desirable or undesirable activities."

But I don't see where that says what the specific motive was. And how often are straight marriages audited as you suggest? I don't think I've ever heard of such a thing. I mean hell, it is legal to marry in exchange for a business transaction, to marry on contract for ownership and transfer of property, literally selling yourself. What is there to audit? It's been many years since I took my accounting, tax and business law classes, but I remember enough.

 

More often than not, it will cost you more than you've gained if that's the only reason.

 

you just listed some of things which are wrong with govt. Creating more sub groups will not fix govt over reach

The core issue needs to be addressed and that is a govt which is too big

maybe you should try conservatism or libertarianism if the above issues really do bother you.

 

All very true.

 

I'm not even going to waste my time. What you're saying is homophobic, because it is antipathetic to homosexual people/couples.

Of course, homosexual couples should receive the exact same benefits as heterosexual couples; anything else is arbitrary and discriminatory.

 

heterosexuals get the same tax breaks if they have no children, if you want the tax laws changed that is a separate issue

 

I'll consider that advice from someone who is not married.

 

Of course they do. Married lesbians can go to a sperm bank, and gays can hire a surrogate.

Are you against straight married couples with children from previous marriages getting the tax break?

 

Not trying to discourage normalguy because we want everybody to be able to express opinions, plus, we welcome him to the forum......but.......I feel like we're having to start all over. We've spent so much time getting people like Dixon and Churchmouse past this part of the issue. They might not know that...but we did.

 

Nobody thinks gay parents should encourage their kids to be gay, because it wouldn't work if they tried, and nobody is trying anyway.

Your assertion is wrong in so very many ways

 

Yes, indeed. You are 100% correct.

 

If you've had any education past high school, and somehow managed to avoid any biology, genetics, and anthropology courses...it would still be hard for anyone to support the notion that you can "catch the gay", or be taught to be gay.

Unless of course you're willing to believe the pseudo scientists that those goose-stepping "so called" Family Values groups put up to generating ridiculous crap about gay parents being different, or Dinosaurs/Jesus crap.

I'm trying to have pity, but that kind of intellectually replusive swill is toxic and harmfull.

 

Yes indeed!!

 

The premise of this thread is interesting; I didn't respond to the poll because I think the question is unanswerable. My partner and I adopted my nephew when he was born, and I will not teach my son what to be as far as his sexuality goes at all. I will teach him about sex as a parent should, safe practices of it, etc. But to actually teach him to be actively straight or gay? I don't think that it can be done.

 

Read the poll? Im pretty sure that it says "should gay parents be encouraged to teach their adopted to be gay"
So I dont see how that is wrong... Plus there are 2 votes for yes so not everybody thinks that way about your assertion...

 

No it doesnt. Do you have any knowledge of filing status at all? You actually combine your income for joint status. The difference is the rates that are applied for different levels of income. 2 single people of 25k income a piece have a higher taxation rate than a joint filing of 50k income. There is no "dividing"anything.

 

"Providing my employers health insurance to my spouse that a single person doesn't have?
Passing on my estate after I pass away tax free to my spouse that a single person doesn't have?
Passing on my pension and social security to my spouse that a single person doesn't have?
Gift tax exemption from my spouse that a single person doesn't have?
Taking family medical leave to help a spouse that a single person doesn't have?"

1- Has nothing to do with tax law. Even if it was, my proposal of not allowing a gay married couple into the 15% tax bracket does not have anything to do with it.
2- Umm you mean inheritance under tax law? Which falls under transfer tax categories and by the way even single people have a right to these.
3- Again this isnt tax law. The IRS cant prevent you from passing things onto your spouse. For tax purposes it would again be a transfer tax and as long as it isnt above the exclusion amount you wouldnt pay tax on it.
4- Thats bull crap. Anybody is allowed a gift exclusion as long as it is a gift single or not.
5- Tax law doesnt tell you when or how your allowed to take medical leave.

Bottom line, none of the things you are talking about even relate to my proposal.