If States Defined Why They Give Tax Breaks to Marrieds....

[Silhouette]

How about nobody gets a tax break for simply getting married?

How about everybody does?

For once Unkotare and I agree. For that matter, single parents should at least get the same tax breaks as gay-marrieds because unlike gay-marrieds, single hetero parents at least give their children hope that one day they may have a father (or mother)... Gay marrieds get monitary incentives to strip that hope clean out of a little boy's hope for a father (in the case of lesbians) or little girls (rare, but gay men do occasionally adopt girl orphans over their vast preference for little orphaned boys..) hope for a mother..

Why not singles also? What are the tax breaks for anyway if they no longer serve to entice a mother & father for children? To entice adults to shack up just for the sake of shacking up? Seriously? What does a state get out of that? Let's say gays can marry, just not qualify for tax breaks. Let's say the states rearrange law to say that "only people who will display the legal bonding of provision of both a mother and father to children" may claim "child-sensitive parental-bonded tax breaks." Just remove the word "married" from the tax forms and require a legal bond of hetero man/woman to claim the child-sensitive qualifiers.

Children who have both a mother and father grow up to be the best adjusted adults statistically. Otherwise prison rolls, indigency, drug addiction and crime go up. That's why marriage was invented over a thousand years ago. Anything less a state will statistically lose money on. That's why states incentivized normal marriage with tax breaks. Now that normal marriage doesn't exist, the tax code has to be rethought... It is wholly-ludicrous that states should be required by the federal government to invest in a situation statistically prognosticated to result in their fiscal demise: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

...I think I read case law once in USSC Opinions where there was a similar case where the fed's mandate caused an excessive fiscal burden to states and states won and the fed mandate lost.

 

[Arianrhod]

Sunshine, beaming young men, beauty, clean pressed suits and smiles...

..that aside at the end of the day, which one of those men is the children's mother for life?

Beautiful dykes kissing! What a joy! That aside, at the end of the day, which one of those women is the children's father for life?

Why are labels the only thing that matter to you?

Why do you believe the only reason people marry is to breed?

 

[Skylar]

How about nobody gets a tax break for simply getting married?

How about everybody does?

For once Unkotare and I agree. For that matter, single parents should at least get the same tax breaks as gay-marrieds because unlike gay-marrieds, single hetero parents at least give their children hope that one day they may have a father (or mother)... Gay marrieds get monitary incentives to strip that hope clean out of a little boy's hope for a father (in the case of lesbians) or little girls (rare, but gay men do occasionally adopt girl orphans) hope for a mother..

Single parents do get the same tax breaks. As the tax breaks follow the children. Not the sexual orientation of the parents.

Next fallacy please.

 

[Silhouette]

Why do you believe the only reason people marry is to breed?

That's what the contract was invented in anticipation of, yes, absolutely. That some don't is irrelevant. A rare exception doesn't govern the Rule.

The only reason states were involved in incentivizing marriage was to entice the traditional arrangement for the best statistical benefit of children...tried and true...over a thousand years of repetitive "experimental results". Now that "marriage" no longer means what it originated for, states should not have to incentivize it at all. A state may rewrite tax code to incentivize man/woman father/mother bonds for the sake of children in some other way.

 

[mdk]

How about nobody gets a tax break for simply getting married?

How about everybody does?

For once Unkotare and I agree. For that matter, single parents should at least get the same tax breaks as gay-marrieds because unlike gay-marrieds, single hetero parents at least give their children hope that one day they may have a father (or mother)... Gay marrieds get monitary incentives to strip that hope clean out of a little boy's hope for a father (in the case of lesbians) or little girls (rare, but gay men do occasionally adopt girl orphans) hope for a mother..

Why not singles also? What are the tax breaks for anyway if they no longer serve to entice a mother & father for children? To entice adults to shack up just for the sake of shacking up? Seriously? What does a state get out of that? Let's say gays can marry, just not qualify for tax breaks. Let's say the states rearrange law to say that "only people who will display the legal bonding of provision of both a mother and father to children" may claim "child-sensitive parental-bonded tax breaks." Just remove the word "married" from the tax forms and require a legal bond of hetero man/woman to claim the child-sensitive qualifiers.

Children who have both a mother and father grow up to be the best adjusted adults statistically. Otherwise prison rolls, indigency, drug addiction and crime go up. That's why marriage was invented over a thousand years ago. Anything less a state will statistically lose money on. That's why states incentivized normal marriage with tax breaks. Now that normal marriage doesn't exist, the tax code has to be rethought... It is wholly-ludicrous that states should be required by the federal government to invest in a situation statistically prognosticated to result in their fiscal demise: PRINCE'S TRUST 2010 YOUTH INDEX SURVEY

...I think I read case law once in USSC Opinions where there was a similar case where the fed's mandate caused an excessive burden to states and states won and the fed mandate lost.

Boy oh boy. You sure are going to a lot of trouble just to harm gay families.

This court case of yours is likely just another one of your cockamamie interpretations that bares little resemblance to the actual finding of the court.

 

[Skylar]

Why do you believe the only reason people marry is to breed?

That's what the contract was invented in anticipation of, yes, absolutely. That some don't is irrelevant. A rare exception doesn't govern the Rule.

The Supreme Court found otherwise:

That is not to say the right to marry is less meaningful for those who do not or cannot have children. An ability, desire, or promise to procreate is not and has not been a prerequisite for a valid marriage in any State. In light of precedent protecting the right of a married couple not to procreate, it cannot be said the Court or the States have conditioned the right to marry on the capacity or commitment to procreate. The constitutional marriage right has many aspects, of which childbearing is only one.

Killing your entire argument. Remember, you have no idea what you're talking about.

The only reason states were involved in incentivizing marriage was to entice the traditional arrangement for the best statistical benefit of children...tried and true...over a thousand years of repetitive "experimental results". Now that "marriage" no longer means what it originated for, states should not have to incentivize it at all. A state may rewrite tax code to incentivize man/woman father/mother bonds for the sake of children in some other way.

The courts already found that denying marriage to same sex couples hurts children. And recognizing same sex marriage benefits children.

You disagree with the court's findings. So what? The authority of their ruling has nothing to do with your agreement. As you're nobody.

 

[Syriusly]

What are these 'tax breaks' that you imagine?

Income tax breaks...head of household...married vs single. Are you attempting a strawman here?
Y

No- unlike you- I am actually married and file my taxes.

Of the 20 plus years my wife and I have been married, we have paid more taxes for being married about 1/4 of the time- than if we were single filing separetely.

There is no real tax advantage or benefit for two people filing taxes as a married couple, and often we get penalized.

And here is a fun fact- the majority of income taxes we all pay are federal income taxes- which States have no say on.

Just another stupid anti-gay thread from you.

 

[Silhouette]

The courts already found that denying marriage to same sex couples hurts children. And recognizing same sex marriage benefits children.

You disagree with the court's findings. So what? The authority of their ruling has nothing to do with your agreement...

The Court Found without deliberation about the no mother/no father FOR LIFE issue (unlike single parents who still hold promise) that "gay marriage doesnt' harm children, it helps them". And I told you they did this without a dissenting voice or representation for those children who spoke up in amicus briefs in federal court. Not one whit of discussion addressed their deep concerns and feelings of despair for being raised in otherwise "perfect" gay homes but feeling the vacuum in their life of the missing parent of the opposite gender.

And because children did not have representation, and instead the court cherry picked "studies" done by the LGBT-promotional APA sources, the Finding was illegitimate and must be challenged using New York v Ferber, Fawcett and other case law protecting children from the unchecked/harmful exercise of adult constitutional rights. The Court cherrypicking APA studies and prohibiting any dissenting input on an area they know little about (the deep and nuanced practice and study of child psychology), would be like the Court hearing a case about fracking and only taking studies from BP-funded sources as "the word of God" on environmental impacts of fracking...barring any other entity opposing like the Sierra Club or Union of Concerned Scientists; and then finding that "Fracking causes no harm to the environment" and "lack of fracking hurts people who could otherwise have had those jobs" (as they drink the tainted groundwater when they get home and wake in the night from swarms of earthquakes every other week)...

A situation that, frankly, just plain common sense tells us will result in harm to kids...we've thousands of studies for instance on what happens when boys in particular lack a father...is something that states cannot tolerate being forced to incentivize with tax breaks. They need to rewrite their tax laws accordingly. Gays can perhaps marry; they just can't get tax breaks or adopt. They can have the hospital visitation, survivorship rights and so on. Just no "rights" that are dominant to a child's right to have both a mother and father in a married home.

 

[Skylar]

The courts already found that denying marriage to same sex couples hurts children. And recognizing same sex marriage benefits children.

You disagree with the court's findings. So what? The authority of their ruling has nothing to do with your agreement...

The Court Found without deliberation about the no mother/no father FOR LIFE issue (unlike single parents who still hold promise) that "gay marriage doesnt' harm children, it helps them".

Says you, citing yourself. And your opinion on the court's deliberation process is meaningless gibberish, as you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Court's findings explicitly contradict you. They found that same sex marraige helps children and denying same sex marriage hurts children. They found that the right to marriage isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. Those who can't have kids or choose not to have the same right to marry as those who do.

Destroying your every claim. That you disagree with the Court's findings is irrelevant. Their judgment is authoritative. And applies to 'all levels of law', as you yourself have already admitted.

 

[Silhouette]

How the Court regarded the deliberation (or lack thereof) of how gay marriage might harm children in their Obergefell Decision is most certainly not gibberish. It is absolutely germane to the points I've been making all along here.

 

[Silhouette]

The courts already found that denying marriage to same sex couples hurts children. And recognizing same sex marriage benefits children.

You disagree with the court's findings. So what? The authority of their ruling has nothing to do with your agreement...

The Court Found without deliberation about the no mother/no father FOR LIFE issue (unlike single parents who still hold promise) that "gay marriage doesnt' harm children, it helps them".

Says you, citing yourself. And your opinion on the court's deliberation process is meaningless gibberish, as you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Court's findings explicitly contradict you. They found that same sex marraige helps children and denying same sex marriage hurts children. They found that the right to marriage isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. Those who can't have kids or choose not to have the same right to marry as those who do.
.

By using what testimony? Did that testimony include anything besides the APA-funded "studies"; remembering that the APA now openly and aggressively advocates for promoting the LGBT agenda? Did that testimony call into the Hearing any of the children who wrote the amicus briefs linked in my signature below?

Or was their "Finding" derived from prejudice and armchair child psychology? Where did Kennedy, Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer get their degrees in child developmental psychology? Stanford? Harvard? Yale?

 

[AmericanFirst1]

That picture must be like garlic to Vampire for Sil. lol

Love won, Sil lost. Love, like society, is moving on.

God wins in the end, gays will cry like babies. Good luck baby.

 

[Skylar]

The courts already found that denying marriage to same sex couples hurts children. And recognizing same sex marriage benefits children.

You disagree with the court's findings. So what? The authority of their ruling has nothing to do with your agreement...

The Court Found without deliberation about the no mother/no father FOR LIFE issue (unlike single parents who still hold promise) that "gay marriage doesnt' harm children, it helps them".

Says you, citing yourself. And your opinion on the court's deliberation process is meaningless gibberish, as you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Court's findings explicitly contradict you. They found that same sex marraige helps children and denying same sex marriage hurts children. They found that the right to marriage isn't predicated on children or the ability to have them. Those who can't have kids or choose not to have the same right to marry as those who do.
.

By using what testimony? Did that testimony include anything besides the APA-funded "studies"; remembering that the APA now openly and aggressively advocates for promoting the LGBT agenda? Did that testimony call into the Hearing any of the children who wrote the amicus briefs linked in my signature below?

They've cited their sources. You simply refuse to read the Obergefell ruling. And then refusing to read it, start making up conspiracy batshit in your ignorance.

You refusing to read the ruling doesn't invalidate it. You disagreeing with the findings of the court doesn't invalidate them. Neither your willful ignorance nor your disagreement have a thing to do with our system of laws.

And this is where your argument always breaks: You are insisting that whatever you make up is authoritative and legally binding. While the Supreme Court's findings are 'illegal', 'invalid', 'void', a 'mistrial' and all manner of other pseudo-legal gibberish if it disagrees with you.

With an obvious problem negating your entire argument: you're nobody.

The validity of no court ruling is based on its agreement with you. And none of your claims have the slightest relevance to the actual law. This is why you're *always* wrong in your legal predictions. Always. Because you keep citing your imagination as the law. While ignoring what the actual law and court rulings have to say.

 

[Arianrhod]

Why do you believe the only reason people marry is to breed?

That's what the contract was invented in anticipation of, yes, absolutely.

So you're advocating a return to arranged marriages? Child marriage? Marriage solely for property rights? Dowries?

Would you deny people who can't conceive the right to marry?

 

[Silhouette]

So you're advocating a return to arranged marriages? Child marriage? Marriage solely for property rights? Dowries?

Would you deny people who can't conceive the right to marry?

I'm pointing out that marriage was about children and that it still is. Various attempts over the thousand years or so it's been in place to make it "about something else"...the latest of which is Obergefell, are irrelevant to the original sustained predominant purpose: to provide both a mother and father for children in their daily lives.

 

[Skylar]

So you're advocating a return to arranged marriages? Child marriage? Marriage solely for property rights? Dowries?

Would you deny people who can't conceive the right to marry?

I'm pointing out that marriage was about children and that it still is.

Two problems with your analysis.

First, the court found that same sex marriage helps children. And denying same sex marriage harms children. Thus, by your own logic the courts should have done exactly what they did: recognize same sex marriage.

Second, the courts have found that the right to marry isn't predicted on children or the ability to have them. Killing your argument a second time.

 

[Arianrhod]

So you're advocating a return to arranged marriages? Child marriage? Marriage solely for property rights? Dowries?

Would you deny people who can't conceive the right to marry?

I'm pointing out that marriage was about children and that it still is.

Says who? You said yourself it used to be about property.

Make up your mind.

 

[AmericanFirst1]

[QU

Beautiful dykes kissing! What a joy! That aside, at the end of the day, which one of those women is the children's father for life?

What makes you think they have children?

And if they do have children- why do you insist on harming those children by preventing them from having married parents?

Man married to woman is the only legitimate marriage, period. Gay is stupid and a mental disorder.

 

[jillian]

The idea of witholding tax breaks is new. Though I will look forward to you and your group spamming single-lined posts one after the other, as is your custom, liberally using ad hominems and beating up anyone who opposes your dogma. So maybe your post warning of "spam" is accurate after all..

this must be your 100th thread on this subject.

and the law is still the law and you still need to get over it.

 

[Syriusly]

How the Court regarded the deliberation (or lack thereof) of how gay marriage might harm children in their Obergefell Decision is most certainly not gibberish. It is absolutely germane to the points I've been making all along here.

Actually everything you have been posting here is sheer gibberish.

There are no points you have been making here other than you want harm to come to the children of gay couples.