Civil Unions for ALL, and to all a good night.

[FlameFlash]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ned,

You mean instead of whatever benifits married people get now, replace it with a child deduction credit?

Yes, I would be for that, although I think I'd like to see it capped at a certain number of children. Say... 3 or 4. I'm not sure about that last bit at all, though.

-Arrian

No cap, if they can afford the kids then why not be allowed to have them?

If they can prove they can afford the kids within, say the time it takes for the kids to enter public school ~5 years, then also allow them.

[Arrian]

No cap, if they can afford the kids then why not be allowed to have them?

If they can prove they can afford the kids within, say the time it takes for the kids to enter public school ~5 years, then also allow them.

I meant a possible cap on the DEDUCTIONS for the kids - the benifits. You seem to think I'm trying to restrict childbirth.

-Arrian

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Ned
Just to test the anti-Ben "consensus" which seems to endorse the view that marriage and discrimination in favor of man-woman childrearing are separate issues, how would you feel about a child deduction or credit that could only be taken by a man and a woman filing a joint tax return?

I have no problem at all for a child deduction or credit - in fact, I think it's a pretty good idea. I have a problem with the rest of it, though.

[Boris Godunov]

Any child deduction credits should be given regardless of the genders of the parents, since it is ultimately for the benefit of the kids. Just don't give it to people above a certain annual income level.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Any child deduction credits should be given regardless of the genders of the parents, since it is ultimately for the benefit of the kids. Just don't give it to people above a certain annual income level.

I disagree... people above a "certain annual income level" are already paying higher taxes because of it.
They deserve the same break as everybody else that has kids.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Any child deduction credits should be given regardless of the genders of the parents, since it is ultimately for the benefit of the kids. Just don't give it to people above a certain annual income level.

Boris, but the point I am trying to make is whether society can judge that it is best for kids that they be raised in traditional families. Even if you disagree and would be in the minority on this issue if it were to come to a vote, would it be constitutional?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned



Boris, but the point I am trying to make is whether society can judge that it is best for kids that they be raised in traditional families. Even if you disagree and would be in the minority on this issue if it were to come to a vote, would it be constitutional?

Neddy poops- what is a traditional family?

And by this I mean, not what do you think a 'traditional family' is, nor what do the people who bang on about 'the traditional family' define it to be, but rather, what has constituted a family in the various different human cultures on the planet?

[Ned]

Molly, if you keep the issue of gay marriage focused on the right of two people to bond together and obtain the same rights to property and privileges that married folk normally have and keep the matter of kids completely out of the picture, you will get sympathy and support. Poo-pooing the family issue and contending that kids are not best raised with mom and dads in a stable, loving relationships can only alienate people otherwise inclined to support you. Almost everyone is convinced (at least here in America) that raising kids in traditional familes is best.

[MrFun]

And the arrogant, narrow-minded belief that kids raised by two parents are somehow superior to kids raised by single parents will alienate adults who were raised as children, by single parents -- not to mention alientating people who have the common decency to respect those who are different from them.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned

Poo-pooing the family issue and contending that kids are not best raised with mom and dads in a stable, loving relationships can only alienate people otherwise inclined to support you. Almost everyone is convinced (at least here in America) that raising kids in traditional familes is best.

Ned- none of what you have said has gone towards defining what constitutes a ‘traditional family’, nor does it show that such a concept represents either the majority of families in the United States, or indeed outside of the United States.

‘Traditional family’ is one of those vague and meaningless terms such as Obi Gyn’s ‘gay lifestyle’, which is readily used, yet on further investigation is revealed to have no useful definition, save that wished by the user at the time.

A specific American cultural ideal does not represent all of humanity, nor does it even accurately reflect the whole of contemporary or past American history and experience.

Consider that the ‘traditional family’ in American history has differed from rural locales to urbanized areas, where industrialization and large scale manufacturing meant the dislocation and breaking up of family groups. Men and women might be separated after marriage, or necessity required that children be brought up by grandparents, or neighbours, or lodged with childminders, or abandoned.

One definition of family included servants- would you consider that a traditional American family?

In any case, lesbians and gay men, however much we may wish to be, are not immaculate conceptions: I have parents, a brother, and my partner has parents, brothers, a sister, nieces, nephews, cousins, and so on.

The notion that gays and lesbians exist outside society is erroneous, as is the idea that we are not families.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

1. Are there any benefits that society derives from keeping marriage as one man and one woman?

No. At least I've never seen even one valid benefit articulated (I don't count "keeping bigots happy" as a benefit to society).

Again, just because we do not know the effects of an action, does not justify the action. One would anticipate that a good reason should be put forth to do the action in the first place.

Well, many posters have put forth quite a few reasons, but you just choose to repeatedly ignore them.

For starters, ending pointless legal discrimination seems like quite a good reason in and of itself.

So does allowing people currently barred from marriage to officially celebrate their unions. Their happiness should count for something (I know you don't care about their happiness, but many do). After all, they are tax-paying members of society, too.

Moving some of the 100,000 kids stuck in institutions awaiting adoption into loving families strikes me as an obvious benefit to society as well.

Why am writing this? In the next thread, you will just ignore this reponse (and any other relevant response), as is your practice.

[mindseye]

Originally posted by Ned
Molly, if you keep the issue of gay marriage focused on the right of two people to bond together and obtain the same rights to property and privileges that married folk normally have and keep the matter of kids completely out of the picture, you will get sympathy and support. Poo-pooing the family issue and contending that kids are not best raised with mom and dads in a stable, loving relationships can only alienate people otherwise inclined to support you. Almost everyone is convinced (at least here in America) that raising kids in traditional familes is best.

Ned, I am repeatedly struck by your indifference toward children being raised in institutions. It makes me wonder how much you really care about children on our society.

How many children have you adopted? Why are you so intent on stopping others who want to give them loving homes?

Shame on you, Ned.

And shame on you for declaring that gay families are somehow not families. Gay people are loving humans, just like everyone else.

[Elok]

In Ned's sort-of defense, it's hard to argue that two parents aren't better for a child than one, MrFun. I don't think it makes them "superior" to single-parented kids, but it's certainly a more stable environment. With that said, I don't see why two gay guys shouldn't be allowed to adopt-I've never heard of any studies done that suggest being raised by gays screws kids up.

[Rogan Josh]

Who were the 3 that voted no? I know Ming did, but who were the others? (I voted yes of course.)

[Ming]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
Who were the 3 that voted no? I know Ming did, but who were the others? (I voted yes of course.)

Please remember that my no vote is based on that I don't think we need to rename things to "civil unions" just to keep the religious people happy.

I believe gays have the right to get "married" and aquire the same rights and benefits as other married people. If certain religions have no wish to perform such ceremonies... fine.. but that they shouldn't be allowed to stop people from doing so... and that religions don't have monopoly on the term marriage.