So it's about taking things from society....

I haven't looked this up, but there used to be a tax penalty for being married. Filing "head of household" was better.

Usually I agree on this kind of subject, but this time I don't.

The reason tax breaks exist for married couples is that married couples bear the cost burden of creating and raising new tax paying citizens, otherwise known as children. Will some couples fail to reproduce? Yes. But the tax breaks are meant to provide incentive, not DICTATE.

A gay couple has a 0% chance of creating a new taxpayer by either accident or by intent.

Now an exception to this policy that might be considered reasonable, gay couples should be allowed to adopt jointly as parents, and then file taxes the same way their straight counterparts do.

So then by the same token, married couples with no children should not get the tax breaks, yes?

Whatever you all think the intent of the marriage laws are as far as children are concerned, there is nothing on the books that states in order to marry you must create children biologically nor does it state you are only entitled to any benefit by having children. Let the gays marry. Let them share the same benefits that their taxes pay for.

Not all gay couples regard themselves as married or engage in marriage-like relationships. Why should they be categorically eligible for benefits? I don't receive any benefits for living with my girlfriend. Does that mean that I'm being discriminated against as well?

Hak, at any time you can get a marriage license and marry your girlfriend if you choose to. A gay couple cannot do that. Do you not see the difference? Not all gay couples would choose to marry. I have a close friend who lives with a man for 7 years. He does not want to marry his partner. But that's a moot point because if he did, he can't.

There is no societial interest in allowing gays to marry so why should they get tax breaks for it?

The reason tax breaks exist for married couples is that married couples bear the cost burden of creating and raising new tax paying citizens, otherwise known as children. Will some couples fail to reproduce? Yes. But the tax breaks are meant to provide incentive, not DICTATE.

Untrue; the tax deduction for married couples and the tax breaks for having kids are separate things.

For married couples, I think the deduction is $10,700 per year. But there's also a Child Tax Credit for every child you have. For 2011, that's $1,000 per kid.

If the government is incentivizing reproduction, it's doing it at least twice over.

Robert, many same-sex couples raise children. There are various ways to do this, including adoption. I don't see what difference it makes whether a child is adopted by a same-sex or opposite-sex couple.

If you only want to extend marriage to couples who are biologically capable of conceiving a child together, would you be in favor of a law against women age 60 or older getting married?

@Kristen the article does not distinguish between gays who wish to marry and those who are simply couples. It's arguing that gay couples should be treated as married regardless of their status. I'm not opposed to enabling homosexuals to marry and that those who do should be entitled to the same treatment as heterosexuals. But there's no reason to privilege gay couples categorically.

> if straight people get to "take" from society,
> gay people should be treated the same.

Will they be required to "give" to society as straights are? That would be a tough thing for them to do.

Same-sex couples reportedly pay as much as $6,000 more a year in taxes because they aren't allowed to file jointly.

I'm not sure I trust these numbers. There is not a lot of benefit to filing jointly under many circumstances; a $6000 difference in taxes is a large amount when you consider that median household income in the U.S. is around $50,000.

Will they be required to "give" to society as straights are?

What are straights obliged to give?

You're not through in the earlier thread, buttercup. Be tidy.

Doesn't sound like discrimination against gays, but rather discrimination against single people. Or against married people, in the certain tax brackets cases. Unfortunately people only seem to care if it is affecting a minority, in this case gay people.
Simple solution eliminate the marriage tax benifit and penalty.

The whole tax code is a bunch of gov't busybodies, pushing their social designs on people incentivising certain activities disincentivising others. In this case it is disincentivising being single, not being gay.

cry me a frelling river. As a divorced guy, I get nailed to a cross bent over by the IRS, while my ex gets to claim so many credits and such, her tax burden is zero. Does the IRS wonder how it is she can deduct mortgage payments in excess of her gross wages? It does not.

IMPORTANTLY. I'd wager that there are a LOT more people in my position than there are gays who could possibly be in a marriage penalty position.

This is certainly not the way to fight for what they want, and it just pisses people off.

I thought I was finished in the earlier thread. You told us we were all wrong and I gave up.

Ok, really.....Hak, read my comment again. The discrimination part comes in the form of prohibiting gays to marry each other and where it is legal, they don't get some of the financial benefits because of federal law. If you marry your girlfriend, you will get financial benefits that gays will not or as Crid would say, you get to take from society whereas gays do not.

Tidy enough?

I'd also like to point out as the resident heathen single mother here that I had the opportunity to royally screw up a marriage and I have the opportunity to do it again and get a tax benefit again. All because I I prefer penis to vagina.

> as the resident heathen single mother here

By all means, be cute 'n cynical both at once. It's more convincing that way.

What is the real tax schedule now?

By all means, be cute 'n cynical both at once. It's more convincing that way.

Thanks for recognizing my efforts!

"Will they be required to "give" to society as straights are?" You mean like welfare mothers give burdens to society? I'm good they can keep them.

"Will they be required to "give" to society as straights are?" You mean like welfare mothers give burdens to society? I'm good they can keep them."

Where are all the fathers? I guess the welfare mothers got there all by their lonesomes.
What Vlad, I hope, was getting at is that a gay couple looking to become parents usually has the means and is not the demographic ending up supported by the taxpayers.