patrick.net

Limiting social security payouts based on "need" will result in people not saving enough in their 401K and IRAs so that they can demonstrate the "need" to receive SS.

leo707 says

mell says

if you want to incentivize the upbringing of children then provide financial assistance per proven child currently being brought up, regardless whether the person is married or not.

This is the current system. I have never heard of any incentive for raising children that is only available to married people.

That's not accurate - you get a lot of changes in your rights, duties, taxes etc. just for getting married, even if you never will have kids.

Dan8267 says

mell says

if you want to incentivize the upbringing of children then provide financial assistance per proven child currently being brought up

Shouldn't we be incentivizing not bringing up children? Like there's a job shortage in our country.

That point can be made, I wasn't arguing either way, just stating that if the government truly wants to incentivize the upbringing of offspring, marriage status is not of much relevance if any.

socal2 says

mell says

This can be very easily solved - if you want to incentivize the upbringing of children then provide financial assistance per proven child currently being brought up, regardless whether the person is married or not. Other than that the government should completely keep out of marriage, at least on the federal level.

They already do that. Why do you think we have so many welfare babies and children being born out of wedlock? I personally have a couple co-workers who have kids who have kids who don't want to get married because they will lose their government subsidy.

Raising children to single parents is a guarantee to a life in poverty, dependency and even crime. Regardless of how much government assistance they get.

Better to have policies that keep the married couples together who are raising kids.

Of course they also do that but there is no reason to change your status in any way just for getting married and they also do that right now which is giving out incentives - or discriminating if you want to take the negative view - just for getting married - doesn't make much sense.

dublin hillz says

Limiting social security payouts based on "need" will result in people not saving enough in their 401K and IRAs so that they can demonstrate the "need" to receive SS.

A valid point. It would be hard to design the system so that it cannot be gamed.

chanakya4773 says

look at this family which is raising a happy kid in a polyamourous relationship. Heck its much better than foster care !

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070634/Polyamorous-woman-Jaiya-Ma-baby-lover-living-boyfriend.html

Your anecdotal evidence fails to convince me.

chanakya4773 says

If you want to just pass the "better than foster care" litmus test

? who said that? It was not me.

I was talking about both the foster and adoption system.

chanakya4773 says

almost every union will qualify including polygamous, polyandry,Polyamorous, single parents and many other forms of union.

Did you entirely miss our conversation on polyandry?

Children under 10 raised in polyandry are 7-11 times more likely to die. I don't see how you could think this compares to any couple or single parent adoption. Also, it would be extremely difficult to place boy children/babies in families practicing polyandry, but I am sure they will take all the girls that you would give them.

I am beginning to tire with the way you seem to keep rehashing, seemingly with selective amnesia, points already discussed. It makes the conversation feel pointless.

chanakya4773 says

why should even state be involved in marriage then ?

You already made that argument in your own post, are you changing your mind?

chanakya4773 says

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

The findings of the study you quoted here to show the negative effects of gay marriage, also showed that the best situation for kids to grow up in is a nuclear family. State involvement in marriage promotes a nuclear family.

...So, what is it? Do, you agree with your own source or not? Or, are you just not reading your own sources? I know you don't read the ones that I cite for you.

chanakya4773 says

leo707 says

But, I am sure there are many couples where the man is immeasurably more qualified to give advice on any matter, including female, to his daughter; and vice versa.

WOW...looks like you are certain about many things without any "studies" to prove it.LOL

SO how exactly, a man can experience ( not learn about ) periods ?

Maybe a blind person can teach a kid about painting by learning about it on internet. or a deaf person can teach a kid piano lessons.

Funny, because this seems to be a rare instance where anecdotal evidence is actually valid.

So you postulate that a woman teaching a boy about what it means to be a boy is akin to a blind person teaching a kid about colors.

let's say you are dieing and you have a choice as to who is going to teach your son how to be a man and about his body. You can pick either Dr. Ruth Westheimer, a woman, or Dr. Karl Pilkington, a man (and a totally nice guy). Who do you choose? Who is better qualified to give advice to your son? In the next round of elimination I will feel free to add criminals and mental defectives.

mell says

leo707 says

mell says

if you want to incentivize the upbringing of children then provide financial assistance per proven child currently being brought up, regardless whether the person is married or not.

This is the current system. I have never heard of any incentive for raising children that is only available to married people.

That's not accurate - you get a lot of changes in your rights, duties, taxes etc. just for getting married, even if you never will have kids.

Uh, yeah, but I was only referring to the benefits given to caregivers of children. Is there any specific right given to a married couple over their child that is not available to a single parent?

leo707 says

Is there any specific right given to a married couple over their child that is not available to a single parent?

I don't think specifically regarding their child. But for example you cannot double your deductions, inheritance is taxed and such. Seems unfair although there are pitfalls of being married if you are the main breadwinner for example ;)

chanakya4773 look at US tax code. Married people pay a lot more in taxes than single people do. Because US tax code assumes a wife makes 25% of husbands income, and increases taxes if she makes more.

Get over it already, you are not a victim. Taxes are not singling out single people, they are structured to take most they can from everyone who makes anything in order to fund government and everything around it.

robertoaribas says

I pay taxes to support schools, and I don't have and never will have kids... so screw you.

I also think that parents should pay much higher taxes just for this reason alone.

chanakya4773 says

What i mean is that statistically if you take thousand women and thousand men. The thousand women will on "average" be better teachers than the thousand men when it comes to teaching about the female body and experiences to a girl child. We can Safely conclude this based on the fact that women have an edge over men due to their experiences and this will show up when large numbers are involved.

...when we use large numbers (people) , this difference is guaranteed.

Well, then I am glad that we agree that amongst the population of 1000 that there are women who are better and more qualified to teach boys about their bodies than many of the men.

chanakya4773 says

Also its pretty ridiculous for many on this forum to suggest that the only recourse for a single man to give his inheritances ( including SS) without getting taxed to his sister is to marry her.

I agree that would be totally ridiculous. Who in this thread suggested that? I must have missed it. Please quote it.

Is it not also pretty ridiculous for someone to think that Social Security is an inheritance? I have heard lots of absurd misconceptions about SSI, but that is a new one.

leo707 says

Well, then I am glad that we agree that amongst the population of 1000 that there are women who are better and more qualified to teach boys about their bodies than many of the men.

Isn't that what gets all these female teachers in trouble?

chanakya4773 says

leo707 : this is for you..since you love studies.

Thank you, I do love studies, but I see here that you are using the term very loosely.

:(

chanakya4773 says

This study is as good as the study you posted on polygamy. Either we can discredit both or accept both.

Accepting one and discrediting another just for allowing rights for gays and excluding other unions is what is wrong.

I am not sure if you are trying to rack-up another logical fallacy to add to the list of fallacies you already committed in this thread; or perhaps your knowledge of scientific process is just so limited that you don't realize what you are saying.

In either case, you are mistaken. Not all studies are considered equal. The study you cite (or rather the article you cited that cites a study)--and probably did not actually bother to read--is as good as the studies cited by the Creation Museum.

If you had bothered to even read the article that cited the study you would know that this was not a "study" about gay marriage, and apparently close to zero of the subjects in the study were kids from stable same-sex married parents.

robertoaribas says

I pay taxes to support schools, and I don't have and never will have kids... so screw you.

Welcome to society, general welfare is in the constitution. My taxes pay for a lot of stuff you use too, yeah buddy!

And educated populace benefits everyone, not just the parents.

leo707 says

If you had bothered to even read the article that cited the study you would know that this was not a "study" about gay marriage, and apparently close to zero of the subjects in the study were kids from stable same-sex married parents.

The thing I noticed about Chan's linked article was, for the reason you've pointed out, it seemed to show the opposite of what he was trying to say. The heterosexual divorcees, who could get re-married, were less likely to require public assistance. That's the point I tried to make days ago, that a major government purpose of marriage is to keep people off public assistance. That is particularly true for single parents, especially unwed or divorced mothers: when moms are allowed to get married or re-married, they are less likely to go on welfare or Medicaid, and the children have more security. Denying lesbian couples the equal protection of the marriage laws imposes a measurable cost on them and their children in the short run, and a measurable cost on the public in the long run, with no benefit to anyone.

marriage is slavery and should be abolished.