Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Neil N. Blowme]

No, I don't want gays to be able to No it doesnt. Same set marriages weren't permitted at the inception of the 14th Amendment. So the idea equality under the law mandates a man must be allowed to marry a man. This is not in the spirit of the amendment. Even though I disagree with it. It cannot be construed this way legitimately. No American is denied the ability to marry, meaning join in a union with someone of the opposite sex. so equal protection isn't violated

The law does.

But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.

Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. But its a standard that no one is held to. With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.

The second problem: many gays and lesbians have children. And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.

It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.

No, I don't want gays to be able to adopt to begin with. I don't believe in equal treatment.

The law does.

But to suggest that the government as of right now doesn't incentivize procreation and stable families, and thus traditional marriage can't be defend on these grounds, is false.

Here's the problem: the exclusion of those who can't procreate. If the State applied that standard on infertile straights, it would be a perfectly legitimate basis for excluding gays. But its a standard that no one is held to. With millions of infertile straight couples married or allowed to marry, there's clearly a valid basis of marriage that has nothing with children or the ability to have them.

The second problem: many gays and lesbians have children. And refusing to allow the parents of these children to be married harms them on multiple levels. It humiliates these childrenbeing raised by same-sex couples. Gay marriage bans makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family. Its also makes it harder to understand similar closeness with other families in their community.

It also restricts their parents access to rights and privileges that may have a dramatic impact on their lives. Like say, medical decisions for their spouse. Or healthcare benefits for their spouse or the children. Or raises the cost of healthcare for these children. In the case of the death of one of their parents, it may deny these children access to survivors benefits or other resources. All of this is completely unnecessary, unjust, and in my opinion, ultimately invalid.

I disagree, the law isn't set in stone as you suggest at all. It certainly wasn't the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment to allow interracial marriage, much less same sex marriage. So you can make your appeal based on equality, but you can't make it on the law as you claim. Also, the whole question where homosexuals are protected class is an issue. Than the question arises, are homosexuals denied the right to marry(enter a union with someone of the opposite sex)? No, there is nothing stopping someone based on their orientation from entering into a marriage contract. So even if we accept your premise, which I disagree with, that homosexuals are a protected class under the 14th Amendment, your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow..

The legal claim has been successfully made multiple times now.

You may disagree with it- but your disagreement doesn't change the fact that thousands of people in love now are legally able to get married.

The idea that has come about in post-modern secular society that marriage is based on two people "loving each other", is flawed, and one of the primary reasons the institution is falling apart. Marriage the the moral context to pursue romantic sex and love, not vice versa.

The goal of these filthy creatures is to destroy, not build.

My team pointing out the hypocrisy of the gay mafia. Cool.

Your team is terrified of an imaginary gay mafia with pink tommyguns and rainbow cadillacs.....

Nope. Your team is targeting Christian businesses. Gay mafia fits.

Hmmm see, you and I have different images of the mafia.

To me, the mafia are criminals working outside the law, breaking legs, running prostitution rings, selling drugs.

But to you- gay citizens who have the temerity to claim protection under the law are the real mafia.

And you are terrified of them.

I think the gay mafia is just the same. Passing unjust laws and then targeting Christians who will not give in to threats, thereby losing their business. Piss on the queers.

Yeah- I imagine you do go around watching over your shoulders in fear of the 'gay mafia' with their pink tommy guns and rainbow cadillacs.

Whatever. I'm not the freak. The filth you support are.

 

[Steinlight]

I disagree, you both represent the foundation of the nuclear family as husband and wife, and could potentially still procreate or adopt and thus provide a traditional structure to children. But the reality is, your situation doesn't represent the majority, and policy shouldn't be based on your exception to the rule.

Your disagreement has nothing to do with my point.

The State didn't care whether or not my wife and I intended to procreate or not when we got married. Nor was the reason for our marriage because we intended to procreate.

Our marriage served a societal purpose regardless of procreation.

IF marriage was only about procreation we wouldn't be allowing 80 year old couples to marry. We wouldn't have states requiring some couples to prove that they cannot have children before they are allowed to marry.

You aren't making any sense. 80 year old people getting married doesn't negate the fact the government provides tax cuts to married couples who have children. Just because not everyone takes advantage of the incentive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And on that point, marriage as an institution proceeds the US Government, it existed long before and will exist long after. The purpose of marriage traditionally speaking is for men and women coming together to build a family. I don't really see a convincing argument for why this should be redefined

Just a bit of a correction.

Anyone gets tax breaks for their children. Or more specifically- you can only claim dependents. If two parents are not married one of them can claim their child as a dependent. If two parents are married- but filing seperately- one can declare the child as a dependent.

The tax break is for the children. Not the marriage. As someone who has been married for over 20 years, I can say that at least twice I paid more taxes because we are married.

If you take two 80 year olds who want to get married- Bob and Edna and Bob and Edward- neither couple will ever reproduce with each other- but states have never had a legal issue with 80 year olds getting married.

As long as they are the opposite gender.

My wife and I didn't come together to create a family- we did do so- but we came together because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives.

The tax break incentivizes procreation within marriage is what I mean. It is true, one parent can claim the child as the dependent and the other parent theoretically couldn't, but the system incentivizes both parents to claim the child as a dependent to get more tax credits..

No.

You are just wrong.

You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.

Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done.

Now you are changing the goal posts and being dishonest. I am talking about married couples, not divorced couples. I am saying the tax structure incentivizes married couples to have children. Married couples, both father and mother, can claim the child as a dependent.

The State does, and they should incentivize procreation and marriage if they didn't. I actually think they should provide more subsidies, and maternity leave as well, as long as they are not on welfare and can provide for the child. Procreation is necessary for the continuity of society and having a married father and mother provides the most stable and ideal environment for this child to grow up in.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .

Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?

Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?

And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?

And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?

Curious minds would like to know.

A homosexual couple can't give birth to children. I don't need to make it illegal. I think what you mean is should it be illegal for homosexual couples to use surrogates or in vitro fertilization? Correct me if I am wrong. Yes, I think it should be illegal. It isn't the purview of the Federal Government, but yes, if it were a state initiative or I were a state representative and a law came to vote, I would support it..

Why am I not surprised that you would intrude the government into decisions on child bearing?

Long before modern techniques, lesbians would get sperm donations from male friends and get impregnated.

Now is it a specific Conservative doctrine to remove a child from its mother simply because she is queer- or is that your own particular cry for Big Brother?

And who raises those children then- does Big Brother choose what fine I mean straight families would be required to raise these children? Or just dump them on foster homes?

 

[Syriusly]

[
Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .

Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?

Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?

And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?

And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?

Curious minds would like to know.

Gays don't just adopt children from foster care, they adopt them from single moms, unmarried couples, from overseas. So no, I reject your premise that they will all languish in US foster care. It simply isn't true.

Every American child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.

Facts and Statistics

In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

Three years is the average length of time a child in foster care waits to be adopted. Roughly 55% of these children have had three or more placements. An earlier study found that 33% of children had changed elementary schools five or more times, losing relationships and falling behind educationally.

Yet to you- all of that is better than letting a single child be adopted by a loving gay couple.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

[
Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .

Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?

Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?

And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?

And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?

Curious minds would like to know.

A homosexual couple can't give birth to children. I don't need to make it illegal. I think what you mean is should it be illegal for homosexual couples to use surrogates or in vitro fertilization? Correct me if I am wrong. Yes, I think it should be illegal. It isn't the purview of the Federal Government, but yes, if it were a state initiative or I were a state representative and a law came to vote, I would support it..

Why am I not surprised that you would intrude the government into decisions on child bearing?

Long before modern techniques, lesbians would get sperm donations from male friends and get impregnated.

Now is it a specific Conservative doctrine to remove a child from its mother simply because she is queer- or is that your own particular cry for Big Brother?

And who raises those children then- does Big Brother choose what fine I mean straight families would be required to raise these children? Or just dump them on foster homes?

But you don't mind using big brother to enforce your corrupt laws when you target Christian businesses. You have a glaring hypocrisy problem.

 

[Syriusly]

Your disagreement has nothing to do with my point.

The State didn't care whether or not my wife and I intended to procreate or not when we got married. Nor was the reason for our marriage because we intended to procreate.

Our marriage served a societal purpose regardless of procreation.

IF marriage was only about procreation we wouldn't be allowing 80 year old couples to marry. We wouldn't have states requiring some couples to prove that they cannot have children before they are allowed to marry.

You aren't making any sense. 80 year old people getting married doesn't negate the fact the government provides tax cuts to married couples who have children. Just because not everyone takes advantage of the incentive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And on that point, marriage as an institution proceeds the US Government, it existed long before and will exist long after. The purpose of marriage traditionally speaking is for men and women coming together to build a family. I don't really see a convincing argument for why this should be redefined

Just a bit of a correction.

Anyone gets tax breaks for their children. Or more specifically- you can only claim dependents. If two parents are not married one of them can claim their child as a dependent. If two parents are married- but filing seperately- one can declare the child as a dependent.

The tax break is for the children. Not the marriage. As someone who has been married for over 20 years, I can say that at least twice I paid more taxes because we are married.

If you take two 80 year olds who want to get married- Bob and Edna and Bob and Edward- neither couple will ever reproduce with each other- but states have never had a legal issue with 80 year olds getting married.

As long as they are the opposite gender.

My wife and I didn't come together to create a family- we did do so- but we came together because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives.

The tax break incentivizes procreation within marriage is what I mean. It is true, one parent can claim the child as the dependent and the other parent theoretically couldn't, but the system incentivizes both parents to claim the child as a dependent to get more tax credits..

No.

You are just wrong.

You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.

Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done.

Now you are changing the goal posts and being dishonest. I am talking about married couples, not divorced couples. I am saying the tax structure incentivizes married couples to have children. Married couples, both father and mother, can claim the child as a dependent.

I didn't mention divorce or move any goal posts.

As I said:

You are just wrong.

You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.

Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done

 

[Syriusly]

[
Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .

Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?

Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?

And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?

And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?

Curious minds would like to know.

A homosexual couple can't give birth to children. I don't need to make it illegal. I think what you mean is should it be illegal for homosexual couples to use surrogates or in vitro fertilization? Correct me if I am wrong. Yes, I think it should be illegal. It isn't the purview of the Federal Government, but yes, if it were a state initiative or I were a state representative and a law came to vote, I would support it..

Why am I not surprised that you would intrude the government into decisions on child bearing?

Long before modern techniques, lesbians would get sperm donations from male friends and get impregnated.

Now is it a specific Conservative doctrine to remove a child from its mother simply because she is queer- or is that your own particular cry for Big Brother?

And who raises those children then- does Big Brother choose what fine I mean straight families would be required to raise these children? Or just dump them on foster homes?

But you don't mind using big brother to enforce your corrupt laws when you target Christian businesses. You have a glaring hypocrisy problem.

The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms.

 

[Steinlight]

[
Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .

Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?

Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?

And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?

And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?

Curious minds would like to know.

A homosexual couple can't give birth to children. I don't need to make it illegal. I think what you mean is should it be illegal for homosexual couples to use surrogates or in vitro fertilization? Correct me if I am wrong. Yes, I think it should be illegal. It isn't the purview of the Federal Government, but yes, if it were a state initiative or I were a state representative and a law came to vote, I would support it..

Why am I not surprised that you would intrude the government into decisions on child bearing?

Long before modern techniques, lesbians would get sperm donations from male friends and get impregnated.

Now is it a specific Conservative doctrine to remove a child from its mother simply because she is queer- or is that your own particular cry for Big Brother?

And who raises those children then- does Big Brother choose what fine I mean straight families would be required to raise these children? Or just dump them on foster homes?

I don't think a women(homosexual or single and unmarried) should be allowed to get impregnated from a sperm bank, period. A woman should not be allowed to recklessly bring a child into a single parent environment and deny the child their father. This is morally sick and is detrimental to the child.

I am not going to remove children form their mothers at this point. Just because we cannot stop it now doesn't mean we shouldn't look to curb it in the future, that is a logical fallacy. Obviously, we cannot stop a lesbian from from hypothetically having sex with a man to bear her a child. Obviously there is no way for the law to get involved there. Doesn't mean it is a good thing though. You are creating strawman arguments.

 

[Steinlight]

You aren't making any sense. 80 year old people getting married doesn't negate the fact the government provides tax cuts to married couples who have children. Just because not everyone takes advantage of the incentive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And on that point, marriage as an institution proceeds the US Government, it existed long before and will exist long after. The purpose of marriage traditionally speaking is for men and women coming together to build a family. I don't really see a convincing argument for why this should be redefined

Just a bit of a correction.

Anyone gets tax breaks for their children. Or more specifically- you can only claim dependents. If two parents are not married one of them can claim their child as a dependent. If two parents are married- but filing seperately- one can declare the child as a dependent.

The tax break is for the children. Not the marriage. As someone who has been married for over 20 years, I can say that at least twice I paid more taxes because we are married.

If you take two 80 year olds who want to get married- Bob and Edna and Bob and Edward- neither couple will ever reproduce with each other- but states have never had a legal issue with 80 year olds getting married.

As long as they are the opposite gender.

My wife and I didn't come together to create a family- we did do so- but we came together because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives.

The tax break incentivizes procreation within marriage is what I mean. It is true, one parent can claim the child as the dependent and the other parent theoretically couldn't, but the system incentivizes both parents to claim the child as a dependent to get more tax credits..

No.

You are just wrong.

You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.

Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done.

Now you are changing the goal posts and being dishonest. I am talking about married couples, not divorced couples. I am saying the tax structure incentivizes married couples to have children. Married couples, both father and mother, can claim the child as a dependent.

I didn't mention divorce or move any goal posts.

As I said:

You are just wrong.

You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.

Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done

You just said when the mother and father are separated, again!

Sorry, you are simply wrong, dependent exemptions and for that matter child tax credits are given, whether the married couples, whether they file jointly, with a single head of household, or the mother and father do so on separate forms. In this way they incentivize married couples to have children.

Even if they didn't, they should, as it is smart policy.

 

[Steinlight]

[
Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .

Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?

Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?

And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?

And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?

Curious minds would like to know.

Gays don't just adopt children from foster care, they adopt them from single moms, unmarried couples, from overseas. So no, I reject your premise that they will all languish in US foster care. It simply isn't true.

Every American child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.

Well one, not every child adopted is American. Two, that is simply wrong, many children are adopted privately.

The Differences Between Private and Foster Care Adoption

 

[Steinlight]

You aren't making any sense. 80 year old people getting married doesn't negate the fact the government provides tax cuts to married couples who have children. Just because not everyone takes advantage of the incentive doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And on that point, marriage as an institution proceeds the US Government, it existed long before and will exist long after. The purpose of marriage traditionally speaking is for men and women coming together to build a family. I don't really see a convincing argument for why this should be redefined

Just a bit of a correction.

Anyone gets tax breaks for their children. Or more specifically- you can only claim dependents. If two parents are not married one of them can claim their child as a dependent. If two parents are married- but filing seperately- one can declare the child as a dependent.

The tax break is for the children. Not the marriage. As someone who has been married for over 20 years, I can say that at least twice I paid more taxes because we are married.

If you take two 80 year olds who want to get married- Bob and Edna and Bob and Edward- neither couple will ever reproduce with each other- but states have never had a legal issue with 80 year olds getting married.

As long as they are the opposite gender.

My wife and I didn't come together to create a family- we did do so- but we came together because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives.

The tax break incentivizes procreation within marriage is what I mean. It is true, one parent can claim the child as the dependent and the other parent theoretically couldn't, but the system incentivizes both parents to claim the child as a dependent to get more tax credits..

No.

You are just wrong.

You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.

Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done.

Now you are changing the goal posts and being dishonest. I am talking about married couples, not divorced couples. I am saying the tax structure incentivizes married couples to have children. Married couples, both father and mother, can claim the child as a dependent.

for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done

That is a problem, part of the rise in single motherhood is the incenvization through tax credits of such anti-social behavior.

 

[Syriusly]

Just a bit of a correction.

Anyone gets tax breaks for their children. Or more specifically- you can only claim dependents. If two parents are not married one of them can claim their child as a dependent. If two parents are married- but filing seperately- one can declare the child as a dependent.

The tax break is for the children. Not the marriage. As someone who has been married for over 20 years, I can say that at least twice I paid more taxes because we are married.

If you take two 80 year olds who want to get married- Bob and Edna and Bob and Edward- neither couple will ever reproduce with each other- but states have never had a legal issue with 80 year olds getting married.

As long as they are the opposite gender.

My wife and I didn't come together to create a family- we did do so- but we came together because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives.

The tax break incentivizes procreation within marriage is what I mean. It is true, one parent can claim the child as the dependent and the other parent theoretically couldn't, but the system incentivizes both parents to claim the child as a dependent to get more tax credits..

No.

You are just wrong.

You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.

Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done.

Now you are changing the goal posts and being dishonest. I am talking about married couples, not divorced couples. I am saying the tax structure incentivizes married couples to have children. Married couples, both father and mother, can claim the child as a dependent.

for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done

That is a problem, part of the rise in single motherhood is the incenvization through tax credits of such anti-social behavior.

Appears then that you have an issue with heterosexuals then.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .

Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?

Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?

And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?

And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?

Curious minds would like to know.

Gays don't just adopt children from foster care, they adopt them from single moms, unmarried couples, from overseas. So no, I reject your premise that they will all languish in US foster care. It simply isn't true.

Every American child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.

Well one, not every child adopted is American. Two, that is simply wrong, many children are adopted privately.

The Differences Between Private and Foster Care Adoption

And you conveniently ignore my post.

Every American child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.

Facts and Statistics

In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

Three years is the average length of time a child in foster care waits to be adopted. Roughly 55% of these children have had three or more placements. An earlier study found that 33% of children had changed elementary schools five or more times, losing relationships and falling behind educationally.

Yet to you- all of that is better than letting a single child be adopted by a loving gay couple.

 

[Neil N. Blowme]

[
Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .

Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?

Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?

And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?

And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?

Curious minds would like to know.

A homosexual couple can't give birth to children. I don't need to make it illegal. I think what you mean is should it be illegal for homosexual couples to use surrogates or in vitro fertilization? Correct me if I am wrong. Yes, I think it should be illegal. It isn't the purview of the Federal Government, but yes, if it were a state initiative or I were a state representative and a law came to vote, I would support it..

Why am I not surprised that you would intrude the government into decisions on child bearing?

Long before modern techniques, lesbians would get sperm donations from male friends and get impregnated.

Now is it a specific Conservative doctrine to remove a child from its mother simply because she is queer- or is that your own particular cry for Big Brother?

And who raises those children then- does Big Brother choose what fine I mean straight families would be required to raise these children? Or just dump them on foster homes?

But you don't mind using big brother to enforce your corrupt laws when you target Christian businesses. You have a glaring hypocrisy problem.

The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms.

Oh, bullshit. If you didn't have a bag full of false narratives and straw men you wouldn't have anything.

 

[Syriusly]

Just a bit of a correction.

Anyone gets tax breaks for their children. Or more specifically- you can only claim dependents. If two parents are not married one of them can claim their child as a dependent. If two parents are married- but filing seperately- one can declare the child as a dependent.

The tax break is for the children. Not the marriage. As someone who has been married for over 20 years, I can say that at least twice I paid more taxes because we are married.

If you take two 80 year olds who want to get married- Bob and Edna and Bob and Edward- neither couple will ever reproduce with each other- but states have never had a legal issue with 80 year olds getting married.

As long as they are the opposite gender.

My wife and I didn't come together to create a family- we did do so- but we came together because we wanted to be partners for the rest of our lives.

The tax break incentivizes procreation within marriage is what I mean. It is true, one parent can claim the child as the dependent and the other parent theoretically couldn't, but the system incentivizes both parents to claim the child as a dependent to get more tax credits..

No.

You are just wrong.

You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.

Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done.

Now you are changing the goal posts and being dishonest. I am talking about married couples, not divorced couples. I am saying the tax structure incentivizes married couples to have children. Married couples, both father and mother, can claim the child as a dependent.

I didn't mention divorce or move any goal posts.

As I said:

You are just wrong.

You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.

Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done

You just said when the mother and father are separated, again!

Sorry, you are simply wrong, dependent exemptions and for that matter child tax credits are given, whether the married couples, whether they file jointly, with a single head of household, or the mother and father do so on separate forms. In this way they incentivize married couples to have children.

Even if they didn't, they should, as it is smart policy.

I am pointing out that parents get the same credit for a dependent whether they are married- even if they are seperated. We only get to claim claim our dependents on one tax return.

There is no tax incentive for me to have children.

I agree that marriage helps protect my child and I would always prefer parents do marry.

Which is why I think you are wrong when you want to deny marriage to the children of gay couples.

 

[Steinlight]

The tax break incentivizes procreation within marriage is what I mean. It is true, one parent can claim the child as the dependent and the other parent theoretically couldn't, but the system incentivizes both parents to claim the child as a dependent to get more tax credits..

No.

You are just wrong.

You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.

Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done.

Now you are changing the goal posts and being dishonest. I am talking about married couples, not divorced couples. I am saying the tax structure incentivizes married couples to have children. Married couples, both father and mother, can claim the child as a dependent.

for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done

That is a problem, part of the rise in single motherhood is the incenvization through tax credits of such anti-social behavior.

Appears then that you have an issue with heterosexuals then.

No, I have a problem with birth out of wedlock. What a dumb thing to say. But you know that.

 

[Syriusly]

Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?

Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?

And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?

And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?

Curious minds would like to know.

A homosexual couple can't give birth to children. I don't need to make it illegal. I think what you mean is should it be illegal for homosexual couples to use surrogates or in vitro fertilization? Correct me if I am wrong. Yes, I think it should be illegal. It isn't the purview of the Federal Government, but yes, if it were a state initiative or I were a state representative and a law came to vote, I would support it..

Why am I not surprised that you would intrude the government into decisions on child bearing?

Long before modern techniques, lesbians would get sperm donations from male friends and get impregnated.

Now is it a specific Conservative doctrine to remove a child from its mother simply because she is queer- or is that your own particular cry for Big Brother?

And who raises those children then- does Big Brother choose what fine I mean straight families would be required to raise these children? Or just dump them on foster homes?

But you don't mind using big brother to enforce your corrupt laws when you target Christian businesses. You have a glaring hypocrisy problem.

The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms.

Oh, bullshit. If you didn't have a bag full of false narratives and straw men you wouldn't have anything.

The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms

 

[Syriusly]

No.

You are just wrong.

You can only claim a child as a dependent once. If the mother and father are separated, only one gets to claim the child as a dependent.

Marriage- as it is currently- does not 'incentivize' having children at all. I could come up with ways to make marriage incentivize having children- for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done.

Now you are changing the goal posts and being dishonest. I am talking about married couples, not divorced couples. I am saying the tax structure incentivizes married couples to have children. Married couples, both father and mother, can claim the child as a dependent.

for instance married couples with children could get cash bonuses from the State that unmarried parents of children don't get- but that has never been done

That is a problem, part of the rise in single motherhood is the incenvization through tax credits of such anti-social behavior.

Appears then that you have an issue with heterosexuals then.

No, I have a problem with birth out of wedlock. What a dumb thing to say. But you know that.

And who is responsible for most birth out of wedlock- heterosexuals or homosexuals?

 

[Steinlight]

[
Just because we have already let the rabbit out of the hat and allowed homosexuals to care for children, doesn't mean we have to sanction these unions through state license. I agree, children generally are more harmed growing up with same sex parents than with biological parents or adopted heterosexual parents. .

Hmmm so you would make it illegal for homosexuals to give birth to children?

Or would you have the government remove them from their homes if they did give birth? And add them to the list of children in foster care?

And all of those unadopted. children? You know- the children who are available for adoption, but languish for an average of 3 years in foster care before being adopted? You prefer them in foster care rather than 'risk' them with a gay couple who wants to bring them in with their family?

And the thousands of children who age out of foster care- with no family for financial or emotional support? You prefer that they get aged out of the system to live on the street rather than have a family that wants to be part of their lives for the rest of their lives?

Curious minds would like to know.

Gays don't just adopt children from foster care, they adopt them from single moms, unmarried couples, from overseas. So no, I reject your premise that they will all languish in US foster care. It simply isn't true.

Every American child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.

Well one, not every child adopted is American. Two, that is simply wrong, many children are adopted privately.

The Differences Between Private and Foster Care Adoption

And you conveniently ignore my post.

Every American child that is adopted by anyone in the United States is a child that is out of foster care- and not going to be aged out of the system onto the streets.

Facts and Statistics

In the U.S. 397,122 children are living without permanent families in the foster care system. 101,666 of these children are eligible for adoption, but nearly 32% of these children will wait over three years in foster care before being adopted.

In 2012, 23,396 youth aged out of the U.S. foster care system without the emotional and financial support necessary to succeed. Nearly 40% had been homeless or couch surfed, nearly 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime, and only 48% were employed. 75% of women and 33% of men receive government benefits to meet basic needs. 50% of all youth who aged out were involved in substance use and 17% of the females were pregnant.

Three years is the average length of time a child in foster care waits to be adopted. Roughly 55% of these children have had three or more placements. An earlier study found that 33% of children had changed elementary schools five or more times, losing relationships and falling behind educationally.

Yet to you- all of that is better than letting a single child be adopted by a loving gay couple.

I didn't ignore your post, what you said simply isn't true. not every child adopted by an American couple is American, and not every American child is adopted through foster care. So you are the one ignoring my post, not me ignoring you. As far as your numbers. If the government wanted to encourage adoption, they could do it without putting children in vulnerable situations with homosexuals who are on average, poorer, more likely to molest, suicidal, and mentally ill in general. Provide tax credits like they do for people who have children. There are several ways to remedy this if this is an issue.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

A homosexual couple can't give birth to children. I don't need to make it illegal. I think what you mean is should it be illegal for homosexual couples to use surrogates or in vitro fertilization? Correct me if I am wrong. Yes, I think it should be illegal. It isn't the purview of the Federal Government, but yes, if it were a state initiative or I were a state representative and a law came to vote, I would support it..

Why am I not surprised that you would intrude the government into decisions on child bearing?

Long before modern techniques, lesbians would get sperm donations from male friends and get impregnated.

Now is it a specific Conservative doctrine to remove a child from its mother simply because she is queer- or is that your own particular cry for Big Brother?

And who raises those children then- does Big Brother choose what fine I mean straight families would be required to raise these children? Or just dump them on foster homes?

But you don't mind using big brother to enforce your corrupt laws when you target Christian businesses. You have a glaring hypocrisy problem.

The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms.

Oh, bullshit. If you didn't have a bag full of false narratives and straw men you wouldn't have anything.

The difference between you and I is that I ask "Big Brother" to enforce public accomodation laws- you want Big Brother to police Americans bedrooms

Your both fascist fags , I see no difference in the two stances.