Should homosexuals be entitled to tax breaks?

[Tiassa]

"don't ask don't tell" probably isn't 100% fair, but the army should have the right to order someone to be quiet.

As a broad consideration, I agree with you entirely on this point, Okinrus. However, a practical issue:

• Several guys are sitting around the barracks talking about women. Who they want, who they've done, the best they've had ... whatever. Should the Army, then, take away this banter that seems to aid morale inasmuch as it at least distracts soldiers from certain amounts of detrimental stress, or should the Army continue to threaten morale by forcefully excluding some of its soldiers from discussing their desires, memories, aspirations, &c.? So Joe talks about the house he's going to build with his wife Mary when he gets home. I mean ... Dave can't even let his fellows see pictures of his family. What's the morale effect? If a weak link comes about in the unit because of morale, do you want it to be the guy next to you?

The armed services need to think about who should shut up when. The flight from equality only hurts this country, whether it is on the battlefield abroad, at home in our communities, or abroad in our business dealings.

 

[genteel]

As the topic suggests I am proposing that homosexuals be entitled to tax breaks in the United States.

Same sex marriages: I personally feel that marriage is a commitment between a man and a woman with intent to procreate.
If a couple of same sex should want to be recognized as a committed couple, a new term should be created for their unity.

Same sex raising children: Acceptance is very important to children when dealing with their peers. Acceptance is hard to get when dealing with a lifestyle considered to be norm, therefore, this situation would not be in the best interest of a child. As some of us may remember what it was like to not be accepted and the type of damage it had done to our self esteem.

Tax Break: Well, I do admit that this one is a bit of a dilemma. I do believe that a certain amount of recognition should be considered. The question is as to what amount. Seeing that both are same sex, it would be wrong to grant a certain liberty that a woman who is child bearing or giving child care to her family is allowed. At the same time, some liberty should be granted to the same sex couple.

 

[Persol]

The army is a public funded organization using our money to do what we think it should do (in theory).

It does NOT have any 'rights' which we do not give it. That includes the right to discriminate.

 

[Persol]

Seeing that both are same sex, it would be wrong to grant a certain liberty that a woman who is child bearing or giving child care to her family is allowed.

Infertile women also get tax breaks, as do couples on birth control.

We already have tax breaks for after you have the kid. We have disability for while your having it (in most states). As far as I can tell, the marriage tax break is simple to support marriages.

 

[cyberia]

Hey I have a foot fetish and a strange and obscure attraction to goats milk and red wallpaper. People think I'm strange and try and stear clear of me. I should get a tax break to. -.-

I'm sorry but I think it's a little silly. And I may be one of the few people on earth. But we (I live in Canada just to differentiate) don't need tax breaks and really our tax dollars go to services we need (health care/education) and a load of other services that don't get the recognition and funds that they need. We also have some of the lowest and most regulated (ie: we pay more or less and equal percent, taking into account our earnings bracket etc.) taxes in the world.

Tax breaks should not be given out just left right and center. Especially for something as intangible as being gay. Heck! I HAVE AN UNNATURAL ATTRACTION TO RED WALLPAPER! WHERE'S MY TAX BREAK!

Just a side note to Ireth2690. Look I know your trying to stand up for the right noble reputation of the american military, particularily the independent and intelligent free thought there-of. But hey if you're trying to defend the afore-mentioned free-thought and intelligence, perhaps grammer and punctuation might help your case. Just a thought. *shrugs* (Maybe that amuses only me) I personally have a very high opinion of marines (or Jarheads, as they will call themselves) They are incredibly hard working and intelligent people. That on the whole do not need those of your ilk standing up for them. But to be completely fair the military does tend to be a bit of a boy's club (gender not nec. discriminated). And men's clubs do not on the whole of history have the best record for being the smartest of organizations.

 

[Mystech]

Hey I have a foot fetish and a strange and obscure attraction to goats milk and red wallpaper. People think I'm strange and try and stear clear of me. I should get a tax break to. -.-

I think you're missing the point here. If your government began writing specific legislation against people who like red wallpaper, barring them from taking advantage to many publicly funded programs which nearly all other people are allowed to take part in, then perhaps your obligation to help fund those programs should be lessened.

Cut me out of society, fine, but don't put the same financial burden on me as you would everyone else to fund these things which I am not entitled too. Or better yet, as the HRC put it, "Tax me the same, Treat me the same" which I find to be a much better solution.

 

[mountainhare]

Have you been kind of out of it for the past decade and a half or so? Women are allowed in the military, and if there's a draft then they are quite likely to be included (there's even proposed legislation floating around which would make this a certainty, I believe).

I'm not referring to America/Australia/Britain. There are many 'third world' countries where women are still not allowed to fight. It was on some Muslim show on SBS, where women wanted to be allowed to fight alongside the men for freedom, or some nonsense like that.

 

[dr.p]

I believe the current tax laws for married couples originated in a day and age where women were considered dependents of their husbands, and never vice versa (as was the case up until the last several decades in most places in the US.) Based on some of the tax information I've seen, I believe the tax laws are still geared in this direction... i.e., I believe men file as head of household, married or un-... but women can only file as HH if they've been separated from their husband for 6 months prior to filing (or haven't had a husband.)

Second point: according to the article linked to below, 21 states have some form of anti-discrimination legislation, as well as a number of regions in the remaining states. I'm sure the rest will follow as the topic grows due to activism, commonality, lawsuits, and governmental regime change.
http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/...1B3/catID/57153B2E-F39E-48DA-830ADA31F5A23325

I, btw, am neither pro nor anti gay-marriage... I could really care less. I am a conservative Christian, and I honestly doubt that the quiet majority of us are hell-bent on keeping you from anything. I do think you need to read something other than propaganda tho, cause you seem to use a lot of buzzwords.

I believe that marriage and other civil rights protections are essential to making all families safer and more secure.
http://www.hrc.org/millionformarriage/index.shtml

I found this amusing considering the most common quote in the campaign for gay marriage that I've heard is "50% of marriages end in divorce, so how is marriage so sanctified." (Naturally, that is in response to the "keeping marriage sanctified" argument by the anti side.)

 

[genteel]

Infertile women also get tax breaks, as do couples on birth control.

Couples can also adopt or use fertility drugs.

 

[Persol]

But that doesn't mean they do, or intend to. In some cases just can't.

If you're going to pay someone to help them raise a kid, then do so. As Dr. P explained very well, that isn't the reason this law exists, and is a bad reason for wanting it to continue, and an even worse reason for discriminating.

 

[okinrus]

• Several guys are sitting around the barracks talking about women. Who they want, who they've done, the best they've had ... whatever. Should the Army, then, take away this banter that seems to aid morale inasmuch as it at least distracts soldiers from certain amounts of detrimental stress, or should the Army continue to threaten morale by forcefully excluding some of its soldiers from discussing their desires, memories, aspirations, &c.? So Joe talks about the house he's going to build with his wife Mary when he gets home. I mean ... Dave can't even let his fellows see pictures of his family. What's the morale effect? If a weak link comes about in the unit because of morale, do you want it to be the guy next to you?

The armed services need to think about who should shut up when. The flight from equality only hurts this country, whether it is on the battlefield abroad, at home in our communities, or abroad in our business dealings.

This seems reasonable, but it's likely that a gay person will have a difficult time showing the pictures anyhow. Most gays would not have these problems in the work force, but then most jobs are not like the military. Really the same people, but because each is placed in a different situation, the reaction towards gays will be different.

 

[zanket]

Same sex raising children: Acceptance is very important to children when dealing with their peers. Acceptance is hard to get when dealing with a lifestyle considered to be norm, therefore, this situation would not be in the best interest of a child. As some of us may remember what it was like to not be accepted and the type of damage it had done to our self esteem.

I think this cannot be a viable factor, otherwise by the same logic we'd still have segregated schools so that kids can feel accepted there. Here your opinion is the conservative viewpoint: maintain the status quo, because change is too uncomfortable.

Tax Break: Well, I do admit that this one is a bit of a dilemma. I do believe that a certain amount of recognition should be considered.

Why do you think taxes should be linked to marriage?

Actually the married in the US get a tax penalty, presumably because a couple sharing expenses can afford to pay more tax. In return the married get state-sponsored benefits, like upon the death of one spouse the surviving spouse retains all assets tax free. If married gays get those benefits then they should certainly pay a higher tax rate to compensate. But it would be a lot more efficient if the government got out of the marriage business entirely; less paperwork that way and no chance of discrimination.

 

[cyberia]

Zan- By that reasoning so should the church, which I think wouldn't be a half bad idea. No discrimination, and alot less twisted relationships because of it.

It makes me sick. There should be no discrimination, especially among those that have gaul to bring religion into the argument. Where does it end? What was it before this? Interracial couples shouldn't have children? and before that? People shouldn't wed outside their class.

People are people. There is no difference and we should not treat eachother as such. If a man being gay is such a social boundary that it inhibits his ability to live his life. Then we might as well revert back to the dark ages or primeevil days where angering the gods makes our children sick or the weather patterns change.