Why the Same-Sex Marriage Experiment Will Not Work

[UndecidedFrog]

Just to clarify something that was discussed briefly but is off topic, I don't think there is a marriage penalty as such. Unless I am mistaken, there is a personal deduction for each spouse, and that is a tax break on that return. Where the 'penalty' comes in, is that as a married couple, you are a single financial entity. If husband earns 25k and wife earns 25k, they pay the tax rate on 50k, and that is where they get stung.

However if one person is earning 50k, and the other is earning nothing, they will pay slightly less as a couple that they would separately. It is not therefore a penalty for being married, it is the effect of a progessive tax structure, that punishes those with higher incomes. Actually, I beleive the married scenario can work greatly to there advantage (again, if I am not mistaken).

It might be that if one of the two makes a lot of money, say $250k while the other makes $30k, that the tax rate is made so that while the married couple will pay taxes on $270k, it will be adjusted as though they are making $140k each, and that would drop the tax bracket down more on the higher income, than it raises it on the lower income.

If I am mistaken, correct me (or not) and I will take you word for it.

Back to your program already in progress.

Hi Omegaman,

Your examples are correct. However, you are not comparing the full range of choices.

If you are married, you have a choice to either file:

1) Married filing jointly (as your examples demonstrate), or

2) Married filing separately (which is absent in your examples).

Compare this to a couple not married legally, (homosexual or not) who can only file as singles.

The apples to apples comparison is 2 people filing as singles vs. same 2 people filing as married filing either jointly or separately.

In most cases, 2 people married filing separately will be paying higher tax than the same 2 people filing as singles.

In most cases when these 2 people are earning like income, filing (married) jointly will incur more tax liability than if they filed as singles.

Only when the 2 people who file (married) jointly have disparate income, will they incur less tax liability, and only when the total income falls within certain brackets, as some of your examples demonstrate.

Regards,

UndecidedFrog

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Since we are talking universal law here, I find viola's flawless use of logic to be applauded. I don't believe her feelings on the bible are germaine to a discussion of universal law.

But lemming, we were talking about what the Bible says about the subject.

You were trying to demonstrate how using the Biblical precepts outlined by Paul, you believed provided the rational behind allowing homosexuals to marry.

That's what we were discussing.

It was my suggestion that you approach it from the angle of universal law (societal beneficiality) instead of from the Bible, remember?

If it is a universal law, it is a universal law regardless of what the bible says.

Sure, if the Bible's subject to an independent standare of objective truth.

However, the Bible-believing Christian submits that the Bible is that standard of objective universal truth (John 17:17), and therefore the law of non-contradiction dictates that no universal law could possibly contradict the Bible.

Where the universal law comes from is a question we could ask,

And the answer is simple: objective reality.

For the Bible-believer objective reality is founded in God and communicated perfectly according to His word.

For others it's an arbitrary set of social conventions that has no objective, ontological foundation.

but we are asking why the same-sex marriage experiement will not work, and not "why the bible says the same-sex marriage experiement will not work."

Which then begs the question of why you were trying to use the Bible to prove that it should.

I'd already provided my reasoning according to social standards earliers, and now I was simply responding to your points.

You set the standard and now seem to want to criticise me for adhering to that standard.

There are enough biblically literate people here to share biblical perspectives. It is good to also hear cogent arguments that dont' rely on the bible.

None of mine did, until you brought it up.

If you go back through the thread you'll notice that I pointed out that I don't believe in enforcing morality, so I don't think the state can regulate Biblical precepts to enforce Biblical morality. My arguments were therefore based on benefit of lack thereof to society.

I was simply responding to your assertion that Paul put for principles that, if followed to their logical conclusion, could or should allow for same-sex unions, because on those grounds no good case can be made, and viole, to my knowledge, is not trying to establish that one could.

In fact, if you ask her, I wouldn't be surprised if she'd agree with us, that the Bible forbids homosexual union - I don’t' know for sure, but you can't just claim that you and she are on the same page there just because your are elsewhere.

Again, I agree with her that redefining marriage to include same-sex unions is unprecedented in history so we can’t point to how that in particular has affected societies in the past – but of course the point others were making which is also valid is that any time a society embraced homosexual unions as good or desirable, the effect was very damaging.

My wife and I have no kids and can't reproduce. Are we abusing "the system?"

Nope. Go back and read how I've already addressed just that particular issue.

If so, would you suggest we get a divorce and simply cohabitate?

Another alternative is that could fight it out gladiator style, but that too would be totally against what I've already championed in this thread.

I think there is great advantage to society for us to stay married. We are a closer knit team, we are in it for the long haul, we are a part of something greater than ourselves; we feel more secure in our relationship and make better decisions than if we didn't have this bond. In the states we've lived in, because we are married we are legally responsible for one another's money - all of our money is communal between us by law... it means we are forced to be accountable to at least one other person in this world. Statistically speaking, married couples feel healthier and live longer healthier lives than those who simply cohabitate.

Notice here that your argument shifted back to how your union affects you and your wife personally and you've strayed from the argument from benefit to society.

Again, my argument was never that men and women shouldn't marry, regardless of their ability to reproduce, so since you now introduced the line of reasoning according to how the relationships affect the individual I will express my concern according to that line of reasoning.

As a Christian (not in terms of benefits to society here - just to be clear) I have such a great concern for same-sex couples. As far as individuals are concern, how am I as a Christian going to succeed in demonstrating that God loves someone, wants them to repent of their sin and serve Him, if that person has already committed their life to a union under which they're not free to make that kind of change?

It's a tragic predicament. If Steve loves Frank and suddenly what I'm saying about the love of the Heavenly Father strikes a real chord in his heart, what's he supposed to do with Frank, even if he could readily walk away from the sexual part of their union? He's made a commitment and will continue to love Frank.

It makes it complicated.

Since we are married, if one of us goes to the hospital and becomes incapacitated the spouse automatically has the a privileged right to visitation and treatment decisions. If one of us dies, the other automatically receives inheritance if there's no will (and in some states, even if there is a will, the right of the spouse to inherit can superceed the will). Pension plans, social security and medicare (three programs my spouse and I have paid our fair share to since we began working) benefits for each other.

This is something everyone should do.

Anyone can. Once again, if a person wears a billboard announcing they actively practice homosexuality no one is going to prevent them from getting married.

The question is, what is the benefit from expanding the definition of marriage to include same sex couple, even as was not done in Athens and Sparta where homosexuality was highly valued during some times in the ancient world?

Find someone you love and get a lawfully protected, government approved, union with them.

What if I find someone else I love, other than my wife... or in addition?

I'm a heterosexual man and physcially I'm equipped with eyeballs, ambition and an imagination. If I allowed myself to do so, I don't imagine I'd have much trouble lusting after women other than my wife, and I like people so who's to say if I through propriety to the wind that I couldn't fall in love with numerous people?

So, just because I could fall in love does that sanction the union?

Temptation is not a death sentence, it's a part of life.

Many people who claim to be homosexual later say they aren't anymore. We're not talking about physical, inalienable differences but tastes, feelings, preferences and experiences which are subject to change and choice.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Bottom-line: Simply because something may be thot to "work" doesn't mean it is within the permissive will of the Creator-God. And, of course, the terms "gay" (ask Truman Capote!) and "same-sex" invented by the UltraLibDem news media Elite are neither strong enuf nor precise enuf for this particular observer, ie, homosexual & homosexuality are the correct & fully explanatory terms re those who would decry the revealed law of God "from the beginning" (Matthew 19:4). And too, if "homosexual shacking-up," why in the interest of logical consistency denounce incest, pedophilia, necrophilia or polygamy? If two men, why not four men? If two men, why not two men & two boys? Homosexuals in all reality continue to nurse their inane rebellion against Judeo-Christianity into a galloping paralysis. Talk about social & moral Dunkirks! Bubble-gum mentality rides again....and falls off!

Hey Arthur, I'm curious about the Capote reference - could you expand please?

Thanks!

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Only consolation is that taxes are enormously smaller than in Sweden and, as official atheists, we get a substantial tax cut.

Hey viole, is this for real?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

That is why the argument that people who cannot reproduce should not marry and not love each other is untenable and it is a diversion from the real issue, as you correctly pointed out.

Ciao

- viole

This is not economically responsible.

The law of diminishing returns would suggest that you make a rule and you accept exceptions. You don't make a rule for exceptions and accept the losses.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Only consolation is that taxes are enormously smaller than in Sweden and, as official atheists, we get a substantial tax cut.

Hey viole, is this for real?

Yes, sort of. You have to declare you are not a member of the official Catholic or Protestant church. As atheist, I belong to this group. Muslims belong to this group, too, although they should pay to be Muslims, lol. The catholic church which is preminent where I live, publishes the names of the ones who left the church to discourage people from doing it (many people do not want to hurt their religious relatives or parents), but for me it was no issue, of course.

When I sent the official declaration, they told me it is my right, but, in case of need, there is nothing they can do for my soul...

And you get taxed less because of that?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Yes. It is a consequent application of the separation between state and church. Since the church needs public money to stay alive, it is not allowed by the constitution to use the money of people who do no belong to it.

Ciao

- viole

So do the extra taxes on non-atheists go to the church?

[Guest Nathan21]

They're just trying to take god out of society. I don't think anyone denies that gays and lesbians have a problem, they can't produce kids... every word of the bible is holy; if you attack bits and parts soon you have destroyed the bible. If you believe in evolution, you deny the account of the book of genesis, if you believe in same sex marriage you have just taken another part of the bible away. This is what Jesus has commanded you to follow, it is holy and proper. Marriage was created by the bible for only man and woman. If gays and lesbians want to be together let them but do not destroy the Holy Scripture and distort the meaning of the word marriage.

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

Of course. And we get a yearly report of where our money has been allocated to. Swiss people are very careful about their money and want to know exactly how it has been used. Lying on the report could be deadly.

Interesting.

I'm confused though: how could it be suggested that there is a separation between church and state if the state takes a set amount of money from citizens to maintain churches? That still puts the church within the jurisdiction of the state since the state oversees it's financing.

Why wouldnt' the independant group of believers fund the church wholly apart from the state?

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

These are interesting marketing strategies, but for me they signal a decadence of Christianity in Europe. The moderate ones are leaving, so what is left are the fundies. Europe is not turning fundie, it just exposes the disappearance of the brig intermediate layer.

Sorry, 'brig intermediate layer'?

I'm not familiar with that term - is that a typo?