OT: Gay Marriage

[Aecetia]

TG- Glad to know you escaped. We were thinking about starting a poll to see if Piggingtons wanted to pay your ransom. Here is the update on your list of Commandments:

“According to Torah tradition, God gave Noah and his family seven commandments to observe when he saved them from the flood. These commandments, referred to as the Noahic or Noahide commandments, are learned by tradition but also suggested in Genesis Chapter 9, and are as follows:

1. not to commit idolatry
2. not to commit blasphemy
3. not to commit murder
4. not to have forbidden sexual relations
5. not to commit theft
6. not to eat flesh cut from a living animal
7. to establish courts of justice to punish violators of the other six laws.”

I think the porn might be under number 1. or perhaps number 4.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/jewfaq/gentiles.htm

[Fletch]

[quote=briansd1]
That is not true.

Marriage is a carry over from the past, as an estate planning tool.

People had many mistresses and many children. But under feudal laws, only the legitimate issue could inherit property.

In other societies, such a China, people had many wives and the father would choose whom of his children would inherit.

Marriage is now obsolete in a modern society, so I do support the “TG option”.

But still, if people want to get married, let them be.[/quote]
There is some truth in each of your broad historical generalizations, but I’m speaking specifically about the US tax code of which it is most definitely true. In the US, the intent of affording benefits to married couples was to provide an incentive for people to raise law-abiding, productive, citizens. It was thought to be a benefit to society and the economy. You (and Rich and a few others) are clearly of the opinion that it is neither.

If gay marriage has no socio-economic impact (specifically regarding child rearing), the logical conclusion is, as Rich said, that this is a big non-issue.

[Fletch]

[quote=briansd1]
That is not true.

Marriage is a carry over from the past, as an estate planning tool.

People had many mistresses and many children. But under feudal laws, only the legitimate issue could inherit property.

In other societies, such a China, people had many wives and the father would choose whom of his children would inherit.

Marriage is now obsolete in a modern society, so I do support the “TG option”.

But still, if people want to get married, let them be.[/quote]
There is some truth in each of your broad historical generalizations, but I’m speaking specifically about the US tax code of which it is most definitely true. In the US, the intent of affording benefits to married couples was to provide an incentive for people to raise law-abiding, productive, citizens. It was thought to be a benefit to society and the economy. You (and Rich and a few others) are clearly of the opinion that it is neither.

If gay marriage has no socio-economic impact (specifically regarding child rearing), the logical conclusion is, as Rich said, that this is a big non-issue.

[Fletch]

[quote=briansd1]
That is not true.

Marriage is a carry over from the past, as an estate planning tool.

People had many mistresses and many children. But under feudal laws, only the legitimate issue could inherit property.

In other societies, such a China, people had many wives and the father would choose whom of his children would inherit.

Marriage is now obsolete in a modern society, so I do support the “TG option”.

But still, if people want to get married, let them be.[/quote]
There is some truth in each of your broad historical generalizations, but I’m speaking specifically about the US tax code of which it is most definitely true. In the US, the intent of affording benefits to married couples was to provide an incentive for people to raise law-abiding, productive, citizens. It was thought to be a benefit to society and the economy. You (and Rich and a few others) are clearly of the opinion that it is neither.

If gay marriage has no socio-economic impact (specifically regarding child rearing), the logical conclusion is, as Rich said, that this is a big non-issue.

[Fletch]

[quote=briansd1]
That is not true.

Marriage is a carry over from the past, as an estate planning tool.

People had many mistresses and many children. But under feudal laws, only the legitimate issue could inherit property.

In other societies, such a China, people had many wives and the father would choose whom of his children would inherit.

Marriage is now obsolete in a modern society, so I do support the “TG option”.

But still, if people want to get married, let them be.[/quote]
There is some truth in each of your broad historical generalizations, but I’m speaking specifically about the US tax code of which it is most definitely true. In the US, the intent of affording benefits to married couples was to provide an incentive for people to raise law-abiding, productive, citizens. It was thought to be a benefit to society and the economy. You (and Rich and a few others) are clearly of the opinion that it is neither.

If gay marriage has no socio-economic impact (specifically regarding child rearing), the logical conclusion is, as Rich said, that this is a big non-issue.

[Fletch]

[quote=briansd1]
That is not true.

Marriage is a carry over from the past, as an estate planning tool.

People had many mistresses and many children. But under feudal laws, only the legitimate issue could inherit property.

In other societies, such a China, people had many wives and the father would choose whom of his children would inherit.

Marriage is now obsolete in a modern society, so I do support the “TG option”.

But still, if people want to get married, let them be.[/quote]
There is some truth in each of your broad historical generalizations, but I’m speaking specifically about the US tax code of which it is most definitely true. In the US, the intent of affording benefits to married couples was to provide an incentive for people to raise law-abiding, productive, citizens. It was thought to be a benefit to society and the economy. You (and Rich and a few others) are clearly of the opinion that it is neither.

If gay marriage has no socio-economic impact (specifically regarding child rearing), the logical conclusion is, as Rich said, that this is a big non-issue.

[Fletch]

[quote=UCGal]
The tax codes are a mess and confuse things.
[/quote]
Very true. But inefficient implementation does not detract from my point which is the intent.

[quote]
There are many people who are single parents – some are widows/widowers (no moral issue of why they’re single). Are you saying the tax code makes an exception for them?
[/quote]
Of course not. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn’t. The code was merely supposed to incentivize a lifestyle which on average, the government thought (perhaps naively or ignorantly) would better society.

[quote]
As to your question… I can see making the taxcodes based on members of households, but not marital status. I don’t see any reason why a 5 person family (2 adults, 3 kids) should pay different tax rates based on whether the adults are married. Tax rates should be based on household income and number of people in the household. But… it will never happen.[/quote]
The thinking was that the children of the married couples will on average have better societal outcomes than those with single parents. Anyway, at least the federal child tax credit is blind to marital status.

[Fletch]

[quote=UCGal]
The tax codes are a mess and confuse things.
[/quote]
Very true. But inefficient implementation does not detract from my point which is the intent.

[quote]
There are many people who are single parents – some are widows/widowers (no moral issue of why they’re single). Are you saying the tax code makes an exception for them?
[/quote]
Of course not. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn’t. The code was merely supposed to incentivize a lifestyle which on average, the government thought (perhaps naively or ignorantly) would better society.

[quote]
As to your question… I can see making the taxcodes based on members of households, but not marital status. I don’t see any reason why a 5 person family (2 adults, 3 kids) should pay different tax rates based on whether the adults are married. Tax rates should be based on household income and number of people in the household. But… it will never happen.[/quote]
The thinking was that the children of the married couples will on average have better societal outcomes than those with single parents. Anyway, at least the federal child tax credit is blind to marital status.

[Fletch]

[quote=UCGal]
The tax codes are a mess and confuse things.
[/quote]
Very true. But inefficient implementation does not detract from my point which is the intent.

[quote]
There are many people who are single parents – some are widows/widowers (no moral issue of why they’re single). Are you saying the tax code makes an exception for them?
[/quote]
Of course not. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn’t. The code was merely supposed to incentivize a lifestyle which on average, the government thought (perhaps naively or ignorantly) would better society.

[quote]
As to your question… I can see making the taxcodes based on members of households, but not marital status. I don’t see any reason why a 5 person family (2 adults, 3 kids) should pay different tax rates based on whether the adults are married. Tax rates should be based on household income and number of people in the household. But… it will never happen.[/quote]
The thinking was that the children of the married couples will on average have better societal outcomes than those with single parents. Anyway, at least the federal child tax credit is blind to marital status.

[Fletch]

[quote=UCGal]
The tax codes are a mess and confuse things.
[/quote]
Very true. But inefficient implementation does not detract from my point which is the intent.

[quote]
There are many people who are single parents – some are widows/widowers (no moral issue of why they’re single). Are you saying the tax code makes an exception for them?
[/quote]
Of course not. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn’t. The code was merely supposed to incentivize a lifestyle which on average, the government thought (perhaps naively or ignorantly) would better society.

[quote]
As to your question… I can see making the taxcodes based on members of households, but not marital status. I don’t see any reason why a 5 person family (2 adults, 3 kids) should pay different tax rates based on whether the adults are married. Tax rates should be based on household income and number of people in the household. But… it will never happen.[/quote]
The thinking was that the children of the married couples will on average have better societal outcomes than those with single parents. Anyway, at least the federal child tax credit is blind to marital status.

[Fletch]

[quote=UCGal]
The tax codes are a mess and confuse things.
[/quote]
Very true. But inefficient implementation does not detract from my point which is the intent.

[quote]
There are many people who are single parents – some are widows/widowers (no moral issue of why they’re single). Are you saying the tax code makes an exception for them?
[/quote]
Of course not. Maybe it should, maybe it shouldn’t. The code was merely supposed to incentivize a lifestyle which on average, the government thought (perhaps naively or ignorantly) would better society.

[quote]
As to your question… I can see making the taxcodes based on members of households, but not marital status. I don’t see any reason why a 5 person family (2 adults, 3 kids) should pay different tax rates based on whether the adults are married. Tax rates should be based on household income and number of people in the household. But… it will never happen.[/quote]
The thinking was that the children of the married couples will on average have better societal outcomes than those with single parents. Anyway, at least the federal child tax credit is blind to marital status.

[bearishgurl]

It’s already happened, and

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6744YW20100805

. . . obviously, plaintiff’s had their Notice of Appeal “ready to go” before the court’s ruling.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0515996820100805

PLAINTIFFS WILL OPPOSE STAY

The deadline for each side to issue legal briefs is Friday, and Walker could rule on an extension at any time after that.

Theodore Boutrous Jr. of the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, which represents same-sex couples in the case, told Reuters that “our plan is to oppose a stay.”

Even if Walker decides to lift the stay, an appeal to the 9th Circuit by the measure’s supporters would put the judge’s ruling on hold, meaning the battle is expected to continue for months to come, experts said.

Boutrous said plaintiffs intend to ask the appeals court to hear the case on a fast schedule.

Meanwhile, the issue is certain to make the agenda of many congressional and state elections in the fall, which is exactly what the Democrats and President Barack Obama, who has said he opposes legalizing gay marriage, had hoped to avoid.

Already in California, Republican Meg Whitman and Democrat Jerry Brown, who are running for governor, released statements staking out essentially opposite sides of the issue, with Brown in favor of the ruling and Whitman opposed. . .

Status quo, for now, but . . . onward and upward.

[bearishgurl]

It’s already happened, and

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6744YW20100805

. . . obviously, plaintiff’s had their Notice of Appeal “ready to go” before the court’s ruling.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0515996820100805

PLAINTIFFS WILL OPPOSE STAY

The deadline for each side to issue legal briefs is Friday, and Walker could rule on an extension at any time after that.

Theodore Boutrous Jr. of the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, which represents same-sex couples in the case, told Reuters that “our plan is to oppose a stay.”

Even if Walker decides to lift the stay, an appeal to the 9th Circuit by the measure’s supporters would put the judge’s ruling on hold, meaning the battle is expected to continue for months to come, experts said.

Boutrous said plaintiffs intend to ask the appeals court to hear the case on a fast schedule.

Meanwhile, the issue is certain to make the agenda of many congressional and state elections in the fall, which is exactly what the Democrats and President Barack Obama, who has said he opposes legalizing gay marriage, had hoped to avoid.

Already in California, Republican Meg Whitman and Democrat Jerry Brown, who are running for governor, released statements staking out essentially opposite sides of the issue, with Brown in favor of the ruling and Whitman opposed. . .

Status quo, for now, but . . . onward and upward.

[bearishgurl]

It’s already happened, and

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6744YW20100805

. . . obviously, plaintiff’s had their Notice of Appeal “ready to go” before the court’s ruling.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0515996820100805

PLAINTIFFS WILL OPPOSE STAY

The deadline for each side to issue legal briefs is Friday, and Walker could rule on an extension at any time after that.

Theodore Boutrous Jr. of the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, which represents same-sex couples in the case, told Reuters that “our plan is to oppose a stay.”

Even if Walker decides to lift the stay, an appeal to the 9th Circuit by the measure’s supporters would put the judge’s ruling on hold, meaning the battle is expected to continue for months to come, experts said.

Boutrous said plaintiffs intend to ask the appeals court to hear the case on a fast schedule.

Meanwhile, the issue is certain to make the agenda of many congressional and state elections in the fall, which is exactly what the Democrats and President Barack Obama, who has said he opposes legalizing gay marriage, had hoped to avoid.

Already in California, Republican Meg Whitman and Democrat Jerry Brown, who are running for governor, released statements staking out essentially opposite sides of the issue, with Brown in favor of the ruling and Whitman opposed. . .

Status quo, for now, but . . . onward and upward.

[bearishgurl]

It’s already happened, and

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6744YW20100805

. . . obviously, plaintiff’s had their Notice of Appeal “ready to go” before the court’s ruling.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0515996820100805

PLAINTIFFS WILL OPPOSE STAY

The deadline for each side to issue legal briefs is Friday, and Walker could rule on an extension at any time after that.

Theodore Boutrous Jr. of the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, which represents same-sex couples in the case, told Reuters that “our plan is to oppose a stay.”

Even if Walker decides to lift the stay, an appeal to the 9th Circuit by the measure’s supporters would put the judge’s ruling on hold, meaning the battle is expected to continue for months to come, experts said.

Boutrous said plaintiffs intend to ask the appeals court to hear the case on a fast schedule.

Meanwhile, the issue is certain to make the agenda of many congressional and state elections in the fall, which is exactly what the Democrats and President Barack Obama, who has said he opposes legalizing gay marriage, had hoped to avoid.

Already in California, Republican Meg Whitman and Democrat Jerry Brown, who are running for governor, released statements staking out essentially opposite sides of the issue, with Brown in favor of the ruling and Whitman opposed. . .

Status quo, for now, but . . . onward and upward.

[Author]

Posts