As the topic suggests I am proposing that homosexuals be entitled to tax breaks in the United States. The reasoning for this is fairly simple: as it stands homosexuals are paying the same taxes as everyone else, but unlike everyone else we're not entitled to the same rights. For instance, we can not marry in this country, nor can we join the military, nor are there any penalties in most places for discriminating against us solely on the basis of our sexual orientation in selection for a job, housing, or anything else really.

So we're paying the same amount into society, but we're not getting the same benefits out of it. In my mind this is a bit unfair. If conservative Christians are hell bent on ensuring that we never have the same rights as everyone else, I think that we should then at least get a tax break to compensate for all the things we're missing out on and being denied by this wonderful society of ours.

This thread was inspired mostly by a news letter I got from HRC, with a cute little tax-day activism theme. They have a nifty poster to go along with it, feel free to print it out and post it wherever you like!
http://www.hrc.org/millionformarriage/tax/hrctax1.pdf

move to canada.

I don't think homosexuals should get a tax break (Now take that out of context and paint me to be anti-gay). I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry, should not be discriminated against and there should be a pink brigade in the military. Just kidding! Just kidding!

move to canada.

Well, perhaps that's a conservatives favorite way out, love it or leave it, but personally I enjoy America far too much to abandon it. I also hold it's shining ideals far too much to allow this nation to betray them in the ways that it is. No, I wouldn't move to Canada unless they declared open season on homosexuals, until then I'll be right here, doing by best to drum up support for a society where we truly believe that all of the people are entitled to the same rights, and equal protection under the law. And if that concept disturbs you, Neurocomp, then I suggest you move to Saudi Arabia.

I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry, should not be discriminated against and there should be a pink brigade in the military.

A point well made, Jinchilla, even if it was the obvious implied one. Tax breaks aren't really a valid option in this fight, but I think the idea is to emphasize the disenfranchisement of homosexuals in this nation. If you aren't going to let us come to your party, then we don't want to pay for it; That's the general sentiment here. The obvious choice is to just let us into the damn party already :p Hehe and also I'm not so sure about the Pink berets. . . can you say tacky? No, but seriously, if straight women and men can work side by side in the military without jumping each other’s bones all the damned time, then I don't see what the problem with allowing homosexuals to serve would be.

The only problem I see is that any lesbians that want into the marine corps would probably kick the guys' asses.

No offense to the Marine Corps. I've had several brainwashed, jarhead friends. Again, no offense.

The only problem I see is that any lesbians that want into the marine corps would probably kick the guys' asses.

Haha I've got a gal pal who went to Parris island (eventually she was sent home due to a wrist injury! doh!) and she assures me that more than half of the girls on that island are dykes anyway :p As always it's mostly Gay men that people have a problem with.

I have heard that most of the women in the marine corps are lesbians anyway, and not too shy about it. When people say no gays in the military they really mean no male homosexuals. When they say let women into the military, they mean strait and gay. Thats my take on the issue anyway.

Indeed, my oversight. The issue brought to mind a story about some local male "hotshots" (the elite forest service firefighters) that were shown up by their female teammates in a race back to their station. Then again, Women in general have some strong friggin legs.

Liberal attack dog? Whats one of them?

Surely you could start a campaign along the same lines as the no taxation without representation. ie no taxation without equal rights.

"move to canada"
it's absurd to tell someone to move from their country of birth just because their government is jerking them over.

"The only problem I see is that any lesbians that want into the marine corps would probably kick the guys' asses."
aaand why is this a problem? the marine corp are known for being tougher, faster, and more efficient than any other branch. what's wrong with keeping with that? that's a biiiig stereotype anyway. my best friend who is gay is all about flowy summer skirts and i could totally whoop her weak ass.

"Then again, Women in general have some strong friggin legs."
this is true. women's strength is in the legs making us natural rockclimbers (my outdoor passion). arms, not so much. i can't even undo the little latch lock on the backdoor. my male roommate has to do that. but i sure as hell could kick it open.

I like the idea, but in all honesty I don't know if it could really work. I mean there's no real way of proving you're homosexual or not - so lots of people could cheat the government. Plus, what about bisexuals? Would they get the same tax breaks? And to what extent of bisexuality? Being attracted to members of both sexes, having sexual relations with members of both genders, having commited relationships with members of both genders?

I just don't see where the line would be drawn and people would take advantage of it.

and how one would prove to be gay? ;)
if this "positive" discrimination (tax policy) against non-gays would be applied I suspect an immediate official gay percentage climb in the american society simply because bubba would want to pay less.

I just don't see where the line would be drawn and people would take advantage of it.

You're right, it would be a rather impractical and cumbersome policy. Which brings me to the obvious point which anyone familiar with either wit or satire (though I admit the full effect is only realized when one is well accustomed to both) we should simply eliminate the discriminatory polices all together, and grant homosexuals full and equal rights rather than try to make a system of "Positive discrimination" to counter-balance it.

Well if you don't like it move to Sweden.

I believe that gays should recieve all the benefits of the general public. Though I don't believe that they should recieve tax breaks just because they are gay. Homosexuality is not a disability, it is a choice, they do not need financial assistance from the general public.

P.S.- Someone earlier had mentioned pink uniforms. Well, there not pink but the airforce is going to be issuing baby blue camoflauge. Gross.

Wouldn't it be best if nobody got tax breaks due to their romantic relationships?

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

I'm really surprised I was under the impression that the only differance between a heterasexual and homosexuals was the choice of sexual partners
everything else is the same your allowed to live together as are most couples
you cant join the armed forces but can you wonder at it and would you want to so why should that be tax deductable a lot of people out of choice live alone they dont complain I think you have a cheek to even suggest it you cost a lot more to the countries resources by having all your so call gay rights marches we dont do we and I've as much right to complain

I still favor eliminating the legal institution of marriage entirely. The government does not need to recognize personal relationships at all, while things like inheritance and power of attorney can be granted independently.

So yes, the answer is to remove all rights associated with legal marriage, and stop granting marriage licenses to anybody. If you want to devote your life to somebody, that's great, but the government doesn't need to take a role in it.

I was sitting here and debating whether or not to post a reply to Fahrenheit, however he seems to have done a better job of insulting himself than I could have managed.

I still favor eliminating the legal institution of marriage entirely.

Well that's certainly a point of view that has it's own legs to stand on. However it's really more suitable as a topic unto itself. Would you agree that while the government provides a form of civil marriage to heterosexual couples that homosexual couples should also have those same rights. I don’t think that civil marriage is going anywhere any time soon, so in the interim (the time between now and your destruction of civil marriage) what do you think should be done?

I was sitting here and debating whether or not to post a reply to Fahrenheit, however he seems to have done a better job of insulting himself than I could have managed.

i'm puzzled by you statement as i cant see how he insulted himself
could you please elaborate thankyou

I don’t think that civil marriage is going anywhere any time soon, so in the interim (the time between now and your destruction of civil marriage) what do you think should be done?

Some sort of solution needs to be reached, and, to state the obvious, things stay the same until they change. Whether you fight for the legislation of gay marriage or the elimination of civil marriage, in the interim, things stay the way they are now until you succeed in changing them.

Eliminating civil marriage and legislating gay marriage are mutually exclusive goals. I can only advocate one of them. Obviously, I think my solution is the best. :cool:

Yes, gay marriage in the interim would be nice from an equal rights perspective, but I'm not convinced that the fight for blanket legislation of gay marriage will be any easier than the fight to eliminate marriage.

http://www.adequacy.org/public/stories/2001.6.29.101547.295.html

The article at the other end of that link has got to be the single most stupid and inflamatory thing that I have ever read. Thank you for posting it with entirely no comentary of your own, you are a boon to these sciforusm.

Wouldn't it be best if nobody got tax breaks due to their romantic relationships?
Absolutely. Nothing says equality more than, you know, equality.

No offense to the Marine Corps. I've had several brainwashed, jarhead friends. Again, no offense.


TO jinchilla AND ENYONE WITH THE SAME THOUGHT
OK THE MARINE CORPS. ARENOT BRAINWASHED JARHEADS. YOU DONT KNOW THAT UNTILL YOU HAVE SERVED THE CONTRY. AND IF YOU THINK SO F******
LOW OF THIS CONTRY THEN GET OUT. ILL EVEN HOLD THE DOOR OPEN FOR YOU.

GOOD TO KNOW I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE WITH A BROKEN CAPSLOCK!


i'm puzzled by you statement as i cant see how he insulted himself
could you please elaborate thankyou

You are joking, right?

Mystake:

As the topic suggests I am proposing that homosexuals be entitled to tax breaks in the United States. The reasoning for this is fairly simple: as it stands homosexuals are paying the same taxes as everyone else, but unlike everyone else we're not entitled to the same rights. For instance, we can not marry in this country, nor can we join the military, nor are there any penalties in most places for discriminating against us solely on the basis of our sexual orientation in selection for a job, housing, or anything else really.

Does anyone else see the irony here?

Stick to the equality fight and avoid the special status fight AT ALL COSTS, for the sake of your own cause. If you fight for 'entitlement' of special status you'll push the 'equality' movement back to the closets.

I support equal rights for gays.
However, sometimes I watch women battling for the 'right' to join the military.
I have NEVER heard of anything so idiotic. If the draft system does come back, and least women won't be forced to risk having their heads shot off in a pointless war (eg. Vietnam).

If I were a woman, I'd fight for equality in EVERY area except the right to have my head shot off. :P

TO jinchilla AND ENYONE WITH THE SAME THOUGHT
OK THE MARINE CORPS. ARENOT BRAINWASHED JARHEADS. YOU DONT KNOW THAT UNTILL YOU HAVE SERVED THE CONTRY. AND IF YOU THINK SO F******
LOW OF THIS CONTRY THEN GET OUT. ILL EVEN HOLD THE DOOR OPEN FOR YOU.

As one poster to another, do you realize how unamerican that is?

It might just be that the only Marines Jinchilla has ever met are complete idiots. Jinchilla may thus be mistaken in general or not.

One might wonder why you think so low of this country as to wish those who would want to make it better to leave?

Does anyone else see the irony here?

Well I should hope so, that's kind of the point of this thread.


I support equal rights for gays.
However, sometimes I watch women battling for the 'right' to join the military.
I have NEVER heard of anything so idiotic. If the draft system does come back, and least women won't be forced to risk having their heads shot off in a pointless war (eg. Vietnam).

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).

The whole thing seems to work in circles.

I agree that if you're not granted the full privileges of citizenship, you ought to be exempt from part of your share of taxes.

Of course, what this creates, as Fireguy demonstrates, is a perception of "special" status among those who seem to think that equality is whatever as long as they're not the ones being screwed.

So that we once again come back to Equal Protection, and that's the whole point: it's easier to just get the heck over it and stop making gays have the "special" status as society's scapegoat.

Should being openly gay be a way to dodge the draft?

Would you take it in the ass in order to escape the draft?

Given the state of warfare in America, we would face the possibility, at least, of sudden mass acceptance of homosexuality, if it came down to that.

Would you take it in the ass in order to escape the draft?If it's between dying or having myself violated, i choose being violated. I can at least live and deak with that. I can't live and deal with being dead.

As for the topic, I think that a gay couple should have the same rights... btu that isn't really the answer. Married people shouldn't get tax breaks just for being married. Taking care of a kid may be an option, but not just because you're married. All that is doing is trying to reinfornce somebodies opinion that 'marriage is good'.

Would you take it in the ass in order to escape the draft?
*A whole new thread could be started on that* :D

Hmmm, I suppose it'd have to do with what the fight was for and how big the dudes dick is... A lot of variables to consider...

Would you take it in the ass in order to escape the draft?

Given the state of warfare in America, we would face the possibility, at least, of sudden mass acceptance of homosexuality, if it came down to that.

No, never, but that's not what I mean. The consequence of "don't ask don't tell" *should be* that openly gay persons could not be drafted. Whether this policy is beneficial to homosexuals is really dependent on their own personal view and whether we have a draft or not.

The consequence of "don't ask don't tell" *should be* that openly gay persons could not be drafted.

Agreed. But how many people will "become openly gay"? I mean, people put on "sham marriages" for years. Queer chic is in. Faking it shouldn't be too hard. So how, then, does one establish their gayness?

Does the man who has known his homosexuality since age 13 get an exemption while the young man who's just discovering why he never got along well with his high school girlfriends does not?

So then we reach a point where we can look at two "new" homosexuals. One is struggling with his homosexuality and the prospect of the draft demands a resolution of the issue perhaps before he is ready to understand that choice. The other is just someone who doesn't want to go to war, and he thinks, "Maybe sucking c@ck a couple times wouldn't be so bad." (There's always that scene from Waters' Pecker when the guy appeals to his father--the whole, "I'm not gay; they suck me off but I don't do them ...," argument.)

It creates an awful lot of confusion and unnecessary bad sentiment, and invokes the possibility of myriad ill-conceived notions for avoiding service. And all because the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution as amended is simply intolerable to a monied, influential minority.

Think of Joe Parent, whose son has died in Iraq. As "President Kerry" grimly announces conscription, Joe is walking down the street and sees a protester decrying the war. "My son died in that war," says Joe. "You shouldn't speak of what you don't know. I don't see you over in Iraq!"

And the protester shrugs and says, "Hey ... I'm not allowed to go to Iraq."

Joe asks, "Why?"

And the protester shrugs again and says, "It has something to do with someone else entirely."

Joe shakes his head, confused. "What?"

"Well, my wife is of the wrong gender. Even if I wanted to take your son's place in the line, I'm not allowed to."

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

"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.

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. :eek:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/article.cfm/ObjectID/0F606661-EF27-4560-9191693C7FFA61B3/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.)

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

Couples can also adopt or use fertility drugs.

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.

• 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.

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.

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.