Your message to homosexuals about their prospects for love and companionship

[Rau]

Frankly, I can’t see how denying such benefits to ANYONE is constitutional.
Government (the State) has no business defining “marriage”…that’s the job of churches.
There ought to be a legal category for people to designate their civil partner for legal issues (inheritance, benefits, taxation, etc).
And the State should be blind to their reasons (whether they are sisters living together, husbands and wives in the traditional sense, or simply any two people who decide to partner in life for mutual support). None of the government’s business what they’re doing inside their bedrooms. I would hasten to add that neither should the state interfere with churches about how they confer their sacraments of matrimony.

Maybe. But the government should cease offering benefits (eg. Tax) that are in support of family formation for families that don’t have children. The benefits of that kind should come after the children, not in anticipation of them.

 

[MacQ]

Maybe. But the government should cease offering benefits (eg. Tax) that are in support of family formation for families that don’t have children. The benefits of that kind should come after the children, not in anticipation of them.

I don’t think I understand what you’re getting at…
I don’t know of any child-related tax credits in the current tax code you can take before a child is born.

 

[Rau]

I don’t think I understand what you’re getting at…
I don’t know of any child-related tax credits in the current tax code you can take before a child is born.

Some in the US get a better tax deal because they are married. Why on earth? I am told it relates to helping with the coming costs of kids. I say, wait for the kids, rather than unjustly discriminate against single people.

 

[estesbob]

Some in the US get a better tax deal because they are married. Why on earth? I am told it relates to helping with the coming costs of kids. I say, wait for the kids, rather than unjustly discriminate against single people.

Actually for lower income people they are much better off not getting married and just living together-especially if they have more than one child.

The only deduction available before a kid was born would be for fertility treatments and/or Drs expenses related the on ongoing pregnancy.

 

[MacQ]

Some in the US get a better tax deal because they are married. Why on earth? I am told it relates to helping with the coming costs of kids. I say, wait for the kids, rather than unjustly discriminate against single people.

Well, I never heard of that and don’t know what they are referring to. Many (most?) married couples would pay less tax if they could file singly instead of being required to file jointly. People euphemistically refer to it as the “marriage penalty”.

 

[Rau]

Actually for lower income people they are much better off not getting married and just living together-especially if they have more than one child.

The only deduction available before a kid was born would be for fertility treatments and/or Drs expenses related the on ongoing pregnancy.

Perhaps it is a state by state thing. Some posters have been clear that their married friends pay less tax, because they are married! Do you do income splitting in the US for married people?

 

[Rau]

Well, I never heard of that and don’t know what they are referring to. Many (most?) married couples would pay less tax if they could file singly instead of being required to file jointly. People euphemistically refer to it as the “marriage penalty”.

How does joint filing work ?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I wouldn’t eliminate health risks of any kind from health education.

But you seemed to be proposing this information as a deterrent to homosexual behavior.(Perhaps a better word than scare tactic).

Yes! I am proposing this information as a deterrent.

In keeping with the subject of the thread, I believe this information to be a serious consideration for homosexuals who are considering prospects for love and companionship. In other words, if one loves another, one would not not want to infect the other with a deadly disease.

Others have pointed out the logical flaws in that argument and how easily it is refuted (that the risks you cite aren’t true for women (in fact they are safer in many ways)…and that any risks gay women DO have (such as a higher incidence of breast cancers) are not related to sexual acts, and are the same risks nuns have…which kind of undoes your argument).

Actually the others have misinterpreted my argument and taken it off on a tangent.

I originally stated that health risks are higher for homosexuals. A very true and accurate statement that has not been refuted.

Joie was quick to point out: “Given that lesbian sex is safer than heterosexual sex for women”. While that may be true, it does not counter the fact that health risks for lesbians are higher than heterosexual women.

Your use of nuns as a point of argument is laughable. Today, most nuns are lesbian so we are not comparing “apples and oranges” are we?.

I hate to be the one to tell you this too, but the tonsillar “herpes” you cited is every bit as prevalent among heterosexual males… HPV related oral cancers are cropping up now in fairly young men who were exposed via oral relations with… women.

Just pointing out that heterosexuals have quite a few “health risks” too…do you leave those out of the curriculum?

I know heterosexuals have health risks, and if we were talking about heterosexuals I would be the first to point out the risks.

What is the point of including the heterosexual majority in this discussion? I only see the word “homosexual” in the title of this thread.

Is it a matter of justification…straight guys get herpes too…so its OK for gays to get herpes??? Straight men & women get AIDS…OK it’s acceptable for gays to contract the disease and die? Is this the point of including heterosexuals???

When you infer that heterosexuals do the same things and contract the same diseases… you are not arguing logically since two wrongs don’t make a right. However, it is an argument for treating homosexuality equally with heterosexuality if the two were truly equivalent. But they are not.

.

 

[MacQ]

How does joint filing work ?

You combine everything, and pay tax on it.
It is required if you’re married.
Whoever told you married people get a tax break in the US had it wrong by 180 degrees.
(Maybe they meant deductions for kids…but hey, that’s not much compared to the cost of the kid!)

 

[Rau]

You combine everything, and pay tax on it.
It is required if you’re married.
Whoever told you married people get a tax break in the US had it wrong by 180 degrees.
(Maybe they meant deductions for kids…but hey, that’s not much compared to the cost of the kid!)

Ok, so the two incomes of, say 50k each get combined into a 100k income. I assume a special tax scale applies to a joint income - if you applied the single person scale to the combined income, you’d pay a lot more tax as a couple!

 

[MacQ]

Yes! I am proposing this information as a deterrent.

In keeping with the subject of the thread, I believe this information to be a serious consideration for homosexuals who are considering prospects for love and companionship. In other words, if one loves another, one would not not want to infect the other with a deadly disease…

That is equally true of heterosexuals, which is why your arguments are NOT a deterrent.
I rather doubt that trying to scare people with health risks isn’t very effective anyway, but that’s a side issue.

Actually the others have misinterpreted my argument and taken it off on a tangent.
I originally stated that health risks are higher for homosexuals. A very true and accurate statement that has not been refuted

Joie was quick to point out: “Given that lesbian sex is safer than heterosexual sex for women”. While that may be true, it does not counter the fact that health risks for lesbians are higher than heterosexual women…

Those weren’t tangents. Your blanket statement about health risks being higher for homosexuals was indeed refuted by Joie’s point of fact that it’s not true of homosexual women. You made a blanket general statement, and a specific was given to refute it.

An accurate statement about health risks must include more than just “being homosexual”, and would specify WHICH health risks, and compared to whom…

For example:.

A monogamous homosexual would be at lower risk for STD’s than a homosexual or heterosexual with multiple partners.

Or:
Sexually active people of either sex with multiple partners have a higher risk of STD’s than those who are monogamous.

Your use of nuns as a point of argument is laughable. Today, most nuns are lesbian so we are not comparing “apples and oranges” are we?.
…

That’s kind of ridiculous. Here is the fact:
The only “health risks” that are higher for lesbian women are those that come from not being pregnant or using birth control to suppress ovulation. So, leaving nuns and your assumptions about them aside, ANY woman would have that risk…your heterosexual married but barren aunt…your spinster sister…
And by risk we are not talking about “you’re going to get breast cancer if you’re gay”. We’re talking about a slightly higher lifetime risk than other women (who are ALL at risk for breast cancer).

Meanwhile, gay women are at lower risk than heterosexual women for STD’s, pregnancy complications, cervical cancer. Will you include that in your curriculum?

I know heterosexuals have health risks, and if we were talking about heterosexuals I would be the first to point out the risks.

What is the point of including the heterosexual majority in this discussion? I only see the word “homosexual” in the title of this thread.

Is it a matter of justification…straight guys get herpes too…so its OK for gays to get herpes??? Straight men & women get AIDS…OK it’s acceptable for gays to contract the disease and die? Is this the point of including heterosexuals???..

When you infer that heterosexuals do the same things and contract the same diseases… you are not arguing logically since two wrongs don’t make a right. However, it is an argument for treating homosexuality equally with heterosexuality if the two were truly equivalent. But they are not.

.

Boy, you kinda went off the deep end there logic wise. No one tried to justify behaviors or said anything about wrongs and rights.
Only that your arguments don’t hold water.
The point of including heterosexuals is simply this: if you assert that one group has a higher risk…compared to what? To another group.

Perhaps you don’t understand health statistics. When you say health risks, it doesn’t mean “You will get this disease”. it means that one persons risk is higher or lower than another group, or than the norm based on some quality that they have different from the control group.
Oh…and that risk…that can be 4% versus 2% (oh wow…twice as high!).

I suggest you find another way to conduct your crusade to convert homosexuals. I don’t think it’s possible anyway, and I live and let live.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

That is equally true of heterosexuals, which is why your arguments are NOT a deterrent.
I rather doubt that trying to scare people with health risks isn’t very effective anyway, but that’s a side issue.

It is not equally true of heterosexuals.

A minute minority (less than 2%) of the population (homosexual) was responsible for 63% of new HIV infections in 2010. The heterosexual community accounted for 25%.

If a group of people that numbers less than all the Methodists in the U.S. and is spreading 63% of a deadly disease…simple logic would indicate an enormous difference in health risk rates between groups. NOT equal.

Of course the rate of HIV is only one problem.

Those weren’t tangents. Your blanket statement about health risks being higher for homosexuals was indeed refuted by Joie’s point of fact that it’s not true of homosexual women.

My “blanket” statement was directly in line with title of this thread.

Joie was quick to bring lesbians into the discussion but she didn’t include pedophiles,or sadists…how far off topic should we go?

An accurate statement about health risks must include more than just “being homosexual”, and would specify WHICH health risks, and compared to whom…

For example:.

A monogamous homosexual would be at lower risk for STD’s than a homosexual or heterosexual with multiple partners.

Or:
Sexually active people of either sex with multiple partners have a higher risk of STD’s than those who are monogamous

.

Fine but then we would have to point out that homosexuals tend to have multiple partners at a much higher rate than heterosexuals.

Again you are trying for equivalency.

That’s kind of ridiculous. Here is the fact:
The only “health risks” that are higher for lesbian women are those that come from not being pregnant or using birth control to suppress ovulation. So, leaving nuns and your assumptions about them aside, ANY woman would have that risk…your heterosexual married but barren aunt…your spinster sister…
And by risk we are not talking about “you’re going to get breast cancer if you’re gay”. We’re talking about a slightly higher lifetime risk than other women (who are ALL at risk for breast cancer).

Meanwhile, gay women are at lower risk than heterosexual women for STD’s, pregnancy complications, cervical cancer. Will you include that in your curriculum?

The Dept of Health & Human Services lists more risks other than STD’s. Yes, one could say that lesbian sex is safer than normal sex as far as transmission of STDs is concerned but there are more problems for lesbians to face. Mental health problems are higher than heterosexual women. Suicide rates higher. A new study shows mortality rates for lesbian couples on the increase.

Of course many of these problems are not related to lesbian sex but they are dangers.

Perhaps you don’t understand health statistics. When you say health risks, it doesn’t mean “You will get this disease”. it means that one persons risk is higher or lower than another group, or than the norm based on some quality that they have different from the control group.
Oh…and that risk…that can be 4% versus 2% (oh wow…twice as high!).

I suggest you find another way to conduct your crusade to convert homosexuals. I don’t think it’s possible anyway, and I live and let live.

I do understand health stats and I agree with your statement.

Oh…and 2% of the population accounting for 63% of new HIV infections…WOW!

 

[Havard]

Whoever told you married people get a tax break in the US had it wrong by 180 degrees.

Whoah there, that’s simply not true. Single income families, which account for a third of families, almost always benefit from the MFJ brackets. And dual-income families do not necessarily face the marriage penalty (as with my response below).

Ok, so the two incomes of, say 50k each get combined into a 100k income. I assume a special tax scale applies to a joint income - if you applied the single person scale to the combined income, you’d pay a lot more tax as a couple!

For 2014, in both scenarios (filing single or MFJ) the tax rate is 25%.

See the announced 2014 tables in this link:

forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/10/31/irs-announces-2014-tax-brackets-standard-deduction-amounts-and-more/

 

[MacQ]

Whoah there, that’s simply not true. Single income families, which account for a third of families, almost always benefit from the MFJ brackets. And dual-income families do not necessarily face the marriage penalty (as with my response below).

For 2014, in both scenarios (filing single or MFJ) the tax rate is 25%.

See the announced 2014 tables in this link:

forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/10/31/irs-announces-2014-tax-brackets-standard-deduction-amounts-and-more/

Yes. A single income family would benefit from having a dependent deduction for the spouse with no income.
But there are situations where even a small income on the part of one spouse can push the combined income into a higher tax bracket overall.

 

[NotAllHere]

I see the health problems as a function of common sense like smoking, not sin. But, they are a valid reason, not to do such.

catholic.com/tracts/early-teachings-on-homosexuality

When you consider that the early church was against homosexuality, it is likely that Jesus did teach against such and culturally speaking Judaism of his day was also against it.

The burden that the early church and Judaism of Jesus day was pro same sex marriage is on those who are pro same sex marriage since that link above clearly shows the church which started out as Jewish was against it.

 

[NotAllHere]

None of the government’s business what they’re doing inside their bedrooms. I would hasten to add that neither should the state interfere with churches about how they confer their sacraments of matrimony.

When something does effect the health of citizens, it is in fact their business in the area of preventing disease.

 

[MacQ]

When something does effect the health of citizens, it is in fact their business in the area of preventing disease.

So…should the govt cut off the food supply for our obese?
Send in the police when you have a cigar in your back yard?
Be careful what you ask for.

 

[RGCheek]

The most intimate love has nothing sexual about it. IF it were then the priesthood’s marriage to God would be a shallow lie.

That even Catholics would assume that a person has to have sex with another to fully know love and intimacy with another person just goes to show how corrupting the pagan age we live in truly is.

A person with homosexual inclinations can fully love another person just as Jesus loves us, as we love our siblings, parents and children and none of it has a drop of sexual intimacy to any of it.

 

[MacQ]

QUOTE=RGCheek;12335723]The most intimate love has nothing sexual about it. IF it were then the priesthood’s marriage to God would be a shallow lie.

That even Catholics would assume that a person has to have sex with another to fully know love and intimacy with another person just goes to show how corrupting the pagan age we live in truly is.

A person with homosexual inclinations can fully love another person just as Jesus loves us, as we love our siblings, parents and children and none of it has a drop of sexual intimacy to any of it.

:clapping:
Well said!!!

 

[signit]

You combine everything, and pay tax on it.
It is required if you’re married.

Just to add, it isn’t required. Married couples can elect to file as “married filing separately.” Some couples who want to keep their finances separate do that. However, it’s usually disadvantageous.