0
0

Discrimination against single people ?


 invite response                
2013 Mar 27, 3:27am   21,974 views  129 comments

by chanakya4773   ➕follow (1)   💰tip   ignore  

Many people choose to be single and not marry.
Why is the GOVT discriminating against single people by giving benefits to only married people ? IS it not un constitutional to discriminate against single people just like it looks un unconstitutional to discriminate against gays?

example : Single people cannot give their inheritance ( tax free) to their "loved" ones like their sister/brother.

« First        Comments 34 - 73 of 129       Last »     Search these comments

34   drew_eckhardt   2013 Mar 27, 9:07am  

dublin hillz says

Due to roughly equal ratio between men and women in society if polygamy were legalized what would inevitably happen is that some men would have multiple wives but it would be at expense of other men who will not be able to find mates of their own.

All the poly groups I know are one woman with two men or a man with a husband and wife.

And in a span of several generations, you can end up in a situation where genetic deseases will be multipled due to inbreeding.

We already have inbreeding with the races mostly sticking to themselves. Maybe women wishing to conceive should be required to report to the nearest government facility for fertilization and men should be required to follow their donation to the national sperm bank with vasectomies to limit inbreeding? Or we could address this the old fashioned way with arranged marriages?

Four legged mutts are better pets with fewer problems like hip dysplasia and tendencies towards anti-social personalities. Two legged ones should be better people.

35   leo707   2013 Mar 27, 9:21am  

chanakya4773 says

The problem with this data is that its considering polygamy in isolation.

Polygamy along with polyandry cannot have these issues.

Polygamy/polyandry allows for those of power position and wealth to have many spouses. Yes, if we had a society where there were women of power and position equaled the number of men with power and money, and said women had a desire to marry the excess men then yes, polyandry would solve those issues.

chanakya4773 says

Also , We can get tons of such data on gay marriage as well. there is always data to support what you want to believe.

Right, that is we evaluate the data.

One can choose to accept the data presented at the Creation Museum or accept the data of paleontologists and archeologists.

When someone falls into this camp...
leo707 says

someone who would never be convinced otherwise.

...then there is little hope that they will ever honestly evaluate data let alone understand why other believe differently.

36   lostand confused   2013 Mar 27, 9:24am  

chanakya4773 says

In the end , its utter hypocrisy for gay rights activists to say that gay
marriage is OK and
polygamy/polyandry is not OK because its not good for the
society. The same people are fighting with the reasoning that "good for society"
cannot be the litmus test for restricting civil liberties.

I think gay marraige should be legal and so should polygamy/polyandry, prostitution etc. Any action between consenting adults is none of my business. The govt should get out of the divorce business. One of my colleagues who was gay got out of a 15 yr relationship. He lost nothing, kept his house and money, no alimony, no palimony. He voluntarily allowed his ex to stay in the house for a few months and then finally gave the heave -ho when things became toxic. That is how it should be. Can you imagine, if that was a "straight" marraige. They would have taken him to the cleaners. IN CA, if you are in a 10 yr marraige, the court has jurisdiction over you for life. WTF??

37   leo707   2013 Mar 27, 9:32am  

chanakya4773 says

In the end , its utter hypocrisy for gay rights activists to say that gay marriage is OK and

polygamy/polyandry is not OK because its not good for the society. The same people are fighting with the reasoning that "good for society" cannot be the litmus test for restricting civil liberties.

We have the right to freedom of speech, but you can not exercise that freedom by yelling "fire" in a crowed theater. The right to do anything we want at anytime is not a civil liberty. As a society we have chosen to put restrictions into place when there is legitimate (ideally) reason to believe that harm could result.

No, it is no it hypocrisy to place a line on what behavior is OK and what is not. It would only be hypocrisy if there was a legitimate argument that Gay marriage was not "good for society", as there is for polygamy/polyandry.

38   leo707   2013 Mar 27, 9:33am  

chanakya4773 says

leo707 says

Polygamy/polyandry allows for those of power position and wealth to have many spouses.

whats wrong with that ? This is happening all the time in real world.

People with more money and power might have many partners ( girl friends / boy friends) If there are people who want to share the money and power from that individual for their "OWN" benefit WILLINGLY, whats the problem ?

People like Hugh Hefner have multiple girlfriends ..i don't think thats illegal.

Are you now going to make it illegal for a rich and powerful to have more friends as well because they are attracted to him for his riches and want to get a bite of it.

I can see that you missed the point entirely.

Clearly you did not read the paper (or the summary) on the implications of polygamy.

39   curious2   2013 Mar 27, 9:38am  

chanakya4773 says

There are TONS and TONS of it if you research.

All of that "research" is funded by the Catholic and Mormon churches. Although they might thank you for providing free publicity for their "research," you don't help the cause of single people by joining the bigoted assault on gay couples. Small kids ridicule each other for every conceivable reason and for no reason at all, clothing is the most common, but the children of gay couples are not "tormented for life," they do as well as the children of opposite-sex couples.

40   curious2   2013 Mar 27, 9:45am  

chanakya4773 says

i just hate the hypocrisy

You hate something, but you're claiming hypocrisy where there is none. Supporting the equal protection of the laws governing marriage, for both opposite-sex and same-sex couples, does not correlate with supporting or opposing polygamy and single people. I understand they are all related to family law, but they are like different cards in the same deck: it isn't fair to assume that people who support one will support or oppose all.

41   leo707   2013 Mar 27, 9:52am  

chanakya4773 says

There are TONS and TONS of it if you research.

I am familiar with it. For the most part it is no par with the "research" at the Creation Museum. Feel free to post links to what you feel is well well founded researched on the topic.

chanakya4773 says

At least the arguments are at the same level as you have for polygamy.

Nope, clearly you have not read the arguments against polygamy.

chanakya4773 says

Its just that gay marriage has a BIG megaphone.

As big as the Republican party, FOX news, Mormons, Evangelicals and the Catholic church? It seems you have head someones megaphone loud and clear.

chanakya4773 says

Just the fact that a small kid who visits a foreign country gets ridiculed for having gay parents and gets tormented for life.

Oh, please post a link to the study that shows this. I posted a link to the study that shows children under 10 in polygamous households die at a rate 7 to 11 times than non-polygamous. Please feel free to explain why the data is faulty.

42   curious2   2013 Mar 27, 9:52am  

chanakya4773 says

If a gay couple is visiting a foreign country (like india/china/arab..etc)...i am sure the kid gets tormented for life.

Wow, you're confusing your anger and hatred with certainty. Your anger is not evidence of how other people will feel - especially over the course of their whole lives! As for children being mocked, it's usually classmates at school making fun of each other's clothes or weight or whatever, do you have studies of tourists' children getting mocked by anyone anywhere? I suppose in an Arab country Christians might get killed if they're caught up in one of the riots over cartoons ("death to those who say Islam is violent!"), but that isn't an argument against Christians getting married.

43   leo707   2013 Mar 27, 9:54am  

chanakya4773 says

If a gay couple is visiting a foreign country (like india/china/arab..etc) with a kid and when a group of adults laugh at them and ridicule them and their kid ,

Once again please feel free to post a link to the study that found this.

chanakya4773 says

i am sure the kid gets tormented for life.

Ohhhh...I see truthiness where it comes from.

44   curious2   2013 Mar 27, 10:06am  

chanakya4773 says

Common sense comes very handy most of the times... I am appalled....

Your anger and hatred are hardly common sense. They are not even sensible. Your intense emotional reaction seems to have clouded your judgment, and does not persuade.

45   curious2   2013 Mar 27, 10:08am  

chanakya4773 says

Just like your hatred and anger towards polygamists and singles.

Please provide any example where I have expressed hatred or anger? You have expressed hate (blaming it on hypocrisy, of which there is none) and you have stated that you are appalled etc. You have also falsely accused gay couples of subjecting their children to lifelong torment, contrary to all evidence. Have I shown anything like that?

46   leo707   2013 Mar 27, 10:09am  

chanakya4773 says

How can they be different cards on the same deck.

OK, for the sake of argument lets say you are right and there is a bad social consequence for gay marriage.

Gay marriage--negative impacts on society.
- Kids of gay couples will get picked on when they visit foreign countries.

Polygyny--negative impacts on society.
-Reduces women’s equality and treatment under the law
-Women 15-19 (and older) have more children
-Children less likely to receive an education
-Women get married much younger, and to men that are older
-Significant increase in maternal mortality
-Women’s lifespans are shorter
-Increase in sex trafficking
-Increase in female genital mutilation
-Much more domestic violence towards women
-Increased crime; particularly robbery, murder and rape
-In general fewer civil rights for both men and women
-Children have poorer nutrition, health and increased mortality
-“Scarce” women become viewed as commodities, and are under increased male control
-Increase in mental health problems for women

Yes, they are different.

47   curious2   2013 Mar 27, 10:11am  

chanakya4773 says

What else can be the reason to not give the same rights that gays are demanding for singles and polygamists as well ?

LOL - you leap to accusing me of hatred and anger with no basis at all, simply because you project your own feelings. Not everyone shares your hatred and anger. Have I even expressed any opinion on the rights of singles and polygamists?

48   leo707   2013 Mar 27, 10:12am  

chanakya4773 says

Just like your hatred and anger towards polygamists and singles.

We have already addressed the fact that once same sex marriage is legal then singles will have all the same marriage rights as couples.

Also, no one has expressed any hatred.

49   leo707   2013 Mar 27, 10:13am  

chanakya4773 says

I only hate hypocrisy.

How can you hate something when you don't appear to understand what it is?

50   curious2   2013 Mar 27, 10:15am  

leo707 says

no one has expressed any hatred.

chanakya4773 has expressed hatred twice: though he says he only hates hypocrisy, both times he attributes that trait to people who support equal protection of the laws for opposite-sex and same-sex couples. He also called gay couples "selfish" and accused them falsely of subjecting their children to lifelong torment, contrary to all evidence. All of this without any evidence of what their opinions about the issues he claims to care about might be, as if people who campaign for public education were being "selfish" by not devoting that time to feeding the poor. Perhaps it is merely his irrational anger, which seems obsessive in this thread, but he did use the word hate.

51   leo707   2013 Mar 27, 10:15am  

chanakya4773 says

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2012/June/Gay-Parenting-Could-Negatively-Impacts-Kids/

A news article is not a study. How can I see the methodology? Please post a link to the studies.

52   CL   2013 Mar 27, 10:17am  

The "wired" single can get married right now for all of the "benefits" that the OP prattles on about. As it is currently, they can only choose opposite sex friends to pass those benefits to. If it becomes otherwise, you can marry either sex.

You are confusing everyone. If you are "wired" to be single, there is no requirement to do anything other than marry right now and live your life as you see fit. Your friend can reap these benefits now.

Beyond that, you are conflating a whole mess of your preconceived notions.

53   curious2   2013 Mar 27, 10:22am  

chanakya4773 says

Hating Hypocrisy of activists is different than hating people ...i think you should be mature enough to understand that.

There is difference in saying i hate your dress versus i hate you. I think if you were smart enough to understand that, we would not be having this conversation.

OK so now I'm neither mature nor smart, i.e. I'm immature and stupid. Thanks.

Do you protest bake sales for public education and call those people selfish hypocrites for not devoting that time to housing the homeless? Do you accuse those parents of subjecting their children to lifelong torment, perhaps related to their cookies?

54   leo707   2013 Mar 27, 10:31am  

chanakya4773 says

leo707 :I can list thousand reasons like you listed for gay marriage as well so lets just stop this here ..OK ?

It is convenient for you to stop when you don't have the sources to back up your thousand claims, and even then I doubt your claims could equal the problems with polygyny.

chanakya4773 says

Most of the findings that you showed are prevalent as part of the backwardness of the community which practices polygamy not purely due to polygamy. anyway...we are not going to go too far.

Once again I see that you did not read the paper, or summary. There were plenty of controls used during the studies (e.g.- comparing similar "backward" countries one that allows polygamy and ones that don't, etc.) All the polygamy of types of communities and countries were analyzed. Would you care to hazard a guess on what types of communities are attracted to countries that allow polygyny?

chanakya4773 says

You don't support rights for singles ..because singles "SUPPOSEDLY" affect the society negatively.

Nope, why would you think that? It must be a feeling in your gut, because no one on this board has said anything close to supporting that idea. If I missed a post please quote it!

chanakya4773 says

same for polygamy as well.

I am not inherently opposed to polygamy and am not sure if it should be legal or not. I just understand that there are many issues with polygamy that make it very different from any monogamous marriage system. Given the problems that could arise from those differences legalizing it should take careful consideration.
chanakya4773 says

lets end it here.

OK

55   leo707   2013 Mar 27, 10:37am  

chanakya4773 says

1) Single people don't need to be forced to marry. They should get all the benefits without a marriage.

? wait....?

From reading this thread I am assuming that the marriage contract come with a lot of obligations along with any benefits.

So, you are saying that singles should get the benefits of marriage with out having to enter into the contract of marriage and also accept the obligations? Yet, couples should need to enter into the contract? Sounds like a double standard to me. Isn't that just the thing you are complaining about?

56   leo707   2013 Mar 27, 10:41am  

chanakya4773 says

Remove all the marriage benefits and get the Govt out of marriage.

Yes, yes. I understand that this is the point you really want to get across, and you could give two-shits about gays and polygamy.

You should forget the whole smokescreen of red herrings, straw-men, cherry-picked data, etc.

If you want to argue that government should get entirely out of the marriage business then argue that on its own merit. Look for some of Dan8267's posts on the topic. He does a very good job of arguing for the astonishment of government endorsed marriage.

57   leo707   2013 Mar 27, 10:42am  

leo707 says

chanakya4773 says

lets end it here.

OK

*Errr* OK, I'll stop now.

58   zzyzzx   2013 Mar 27, 11:27am  

curious2 says

BTW, zzyzzx, while divorce lawyers may see more business in the long run, the immediate commercial interest is in the wedding business. The opponents of Prop H8 in California included coastal mayors, hotel owners and hotel workers, etc

Now that you mention it, yes I do recall seeing a TV news segment about the wedding industry looking to ripoff more people yes.

59   thomaswong.1986   2013 Mar 27, 11:49am  

chanakya4773 says

Why is the GOVT discriminating against single people by giving benefits to only married people ?

no not discrimination.. its pity! so the govt provides Tax Relief laws...

60   dublin hillz   2013 Mar 28, 2:02am  

The main "discrimination" that single people face is economics not some judicial made up slight. The problem is that they face much higher living costs - they pay rent/mortgage, car payments, utilities all on their own. Unless they have a roommate which many of them do not these extra expenses could easily be in the 5 figure range per year. That can make it rather uncomfortable to live in bay area. Unless a single person makes about $100,000 a year it is hard to be comfortable around here.

61   NDrLoR   2013 Mar 28, 2:18am  

I knew this was coming!

62   leo707   2013 Mar 28, 2:26am  

chanakya4773 says

I don't think there are any other options left on the table.

So, the way you see it the only options are a straw man or the option you would really like to see happen?

*Pssst* you forgot to add incest and dogs and cats living together in your first option.

chanakya4773 says

They could encourage child rearing by giving tax incentives to people who take care of a kid irrespective of whether they are married or not.

Currently there are no child tax incentives available to married couples that are not also available to non-married couples. Are you talking about adding more tax incentives to have children?

63   CL   2013 Mar 28, 2:45am  

donjumpsuit says

Honestly, I still find it uncomfortable. Even though this seems like a fine yearly salary, it is taxed at ~33% (because of single status).

Naaah. Maybe you're confusing your bracket for your real effective tax rate. With no real deductions or anything a 100K salary is more like 20%.

leo707 says

So, you are saying that singles should get the benefits of marriage with out having to enter into the contract of marriage and also accept the obligations?

Yes! Yet, the OP also "wants" to bequest their "benefits" to a friend in the same way married people do.

So I want contractual rights without a contract! Good luck doing that in any capacity, much less a marital contract.

But as you've said, it's all really just a red herring.

64   leo707   2013 Mar 28, 2:55am  

donjumpsuit says

dublin hillz says

Unless a single person makes about $100,000 a year it is hard to be comfortable around here.

Honestly, I still find it uncomfortable. Even though this seems like a fine yearly salary, it is taxed at ~33% (because of single status).

Well good thing you are not married then or your tax rate would be even more.

Here is a quick calculator you can use to estimate federal taxes for various scenarios:
http://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/calculators/taxcaster/?priorityCode=3468337910

Play around with it for a bit. You will find that if you and a potential spouse both make $100,000 you would get taxed less if you were to remain unmarried, and getting married increases your total taxes. The only time that marriage gives a tax break is if one spouse makes significantly less than the other.

65   FortWayne   2013 Mar 28, 3:02am  

chanakya4773 says

FortWayne says

What benefits are there? In our tax bracket we pay more being married than we would if we both were single.

Tax system isn't setup to punish or reward single/married people. It's setup to take as much money as it can from everyone. So they play around with tax numbers until they find the best way to take more.

I posted a long list of benefits in a previous post for people like you.

I don't see any, where, can you post again list of tangible benefits that only married couples get? Because the only real benefit is being a stable respectable family. There are no tax benefits of any kind that I know of.

66   leo707   2013 Mar 28, 3:13am  

FortWayne says

There are no tax benefits of any kind that I know of.

There can be tax benefits if the one spouse makes zero (or close to zero), but if the spouses are equal-ish then there is a tax penalty.

FortWayne says

I don't see any, where, can you post again list of tangible benefits that only married couples get?

You are correct that chan never really articulated any list (or even one?) of specific benefits of marriage.

However, there are indeed tangible benefits for being married.

leo707 says

Here are some benefits of marriage:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/same-sex-couples-federal-marriage-benefits-30326.html

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

Primarily they are things like Social Security survivor benefits, estate taxes, visitation rights (hospital/jail), Federal and employer benefits, etc.

As stated earlier in this thread all these benefits are available to singles if they enter into a marriage contract (you don't have to have sex with or even live with your spouse) with a friend (currently has to be opposite sex friend). Dan is the only person who seems to be denied the ability to give his Social Security survivor benefits to his sister.

67   leo707   2013 Mar 28, 4:06am  

chanakya4773 says

No , i am saying that all benefits should be removed and the only benefit that should be kept is the tax incentives to have children because that's the only thing that benefits the society.

As per your own link earlier, encouraging stable nuclear families for those children to grow up in also have a very significant advantage to society.

Even the studies that who there are no negatives to gay parents show that a strong nuclear family is very beneficial.

chanakya4773 says

leo707 says

So, the way you see it the only options are a straw man or the option you would really like to see happen?

Can you give us the options please ?

First give us an options that is not a straw man.

68   zzyzzx   2013 Mar 28, 4:11am  

leo707 says

Dan is the only person who seems to be denied the ability to give his Social Security survivor benefits to his sister.

What is he marries his sister?

69   zzyzzx   2013 Mar 28, 4:11am  

dublin hillz says

The main "discrimination" that single people face is economics not some judicial made up slight. The problem is that they face much higher living costs - they pay rent/mortgage, car payments, utilities all on their own. Unless they have a roommate which many of them do not these extra expenses could easily be in the 5 figure range per year. That can make it rather uncomfortable to live in bay area. Unless a single person makes about $100,000 a year it is hard to be comfortable around here.

What's stopping you from cohabiting without getting married?

70   leo707   2013 Mar 28, 4:17am  

chanakya4773 says

The so called CONTRACT is being modified now to include same sex people.

Yes, but why "so called" it is indeed a contract.

chanakya4773 says

Why can't the CONTRACT be modified where the only clause for getting the benefits is that you JUST choose some person for benefits with no strings attached.

Can you think of any contract that is not a two way street of benefits and obligations? Any contract?

Is there any legal contract where someone does not have to give something up in order to get something?

chanakya4773 says

Why does the contract have some many clauses ? ...why should they be there ?

The short answer, "Common Law."

You really should read that paper written on polygamy that I posted. It will give you a little window into how marriage evolved into what it is today, and why democratic developed nations don't allow polygamy.

chanakya4773 says

...who determined them ?

Us.

chanakya4773 says

Are these clauses not discriminatory towards single people who don't want to sign up for those but just want a no strings attached contract ?

No. Single people are welcome to enter into the same contract with a friend of their choosing. A single person choosing not to participate in a state sanctioned marriage contract with a friend is no more discriminated against than a couple that also chooses not to enter into a marriage contract.

71   leo707   2013 Mar 28, 4:19am  

chanakya4773 says

zzyzzx says

Dan is the only person who seems to be denied the ability to give his Social Security survivor benefits to his sister.

What is he marries his sister?

This confirms my option1 in my previous post.

lets continue ....

No, it does not...

you are delusional.

72   leo707   2013 Mar 28, 4:25am  

chanakya4773 says

leo707 says

As per your own link earlier, encouraging stable nuclear families for those children to grow up in also have a very significant advantage to society.

How do make sure they are stable...How stable are families in US with more than 50% divorce rates ? you are delusional.

I suppose now we can put "delusional" right next to "hypocritical" in the list of words that don't mean what chanakya thinks they mean.

Do you also think that it would be "ironic" if it were to rain on your wedding day? (of course I am speaking of your wedding to your platonic friend)

Is your goal to devolve this conversation to ad hominem statements if you fail to adequately articulate your point?

73   dublin hillz   2013 Mar 28, 4:28am  

Being worried about estate issues via taxable amount exemption hardly qualifies as oppression in my opinion. Wouldn't it be more productive to live life to the fullest instead of questioning how to distrubute property tax free after death? I think this dilemma basically symbolizes in many ways what ails america.

« First        Comments 34 - 73 of 129       Last »     Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions