You misread the question. I did not ask what benefits there were to being married, I asked what benefits married parents get that other parents don't. This means relative to the fact that they have children, so said benefits would also have to be things that did not apply to childless marriages. All of those things apply to unmarried parents as well. Parents listed on a birth certificate automatically have parental rights, married or not. These rights can be modified by other legal actions as well, such as adoption by a step parent or a court ruling regarding custody. Again, unmarried couples are also already responsible for their children. Marital status has nothing to do with this, as shown by the fact that a step parent is not automatically granted parental rights upon marrying one of the biological parents. Again, as you admit, unmarried parents get these same benefits. The benefit has to do with the cost of raising a child, not the marital status. Marriage is not needed to clarify this, as the tax code is quite clear. It specifically defines a dependent child as one that you provide more than 50% of the support for. From the IRS web site: Gay adoptive parents can get this exact credit as well, as the credit requires only that the child be "the taxpayer’s child or stepchild (whether by blood or adoption), foster child, sibling or stepsibling, or a descendant of one of these." http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=133298,00.html Seems pretty clear to me, and it has nothing to do with marriage. That's fine, but it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. You say this benefit should be provided to married couples, but that is unrelated to the question of what benefits married parents get that single parents and childless married couples do not. This is merely your opinion on a benefit that you feel should be offered to married couples, regardless of parental status. Again, this has nothing to do with the question. This applies to childless married couples as well. My question was asked in response to your continued insistence that marriage should be restricted because it was "the idea situation to raise children". You have yet to show a single example of how the government promotes that as the ideal. In short, there are no benefits that you can only receive by being married with a child. Any benefits the government grants someone in that situation can be obtained either by having a child (regardless of marital status) or being married (regardless of parental status), depending on which benefit there is. In other words, there is a tax credit for having children which can be obtained whether you are married or not, and there is a tax advantage to be married which you can obtain whether you have children or not, but there is no tax credit (or other benefit) for being married with children.
Why should that matter? Can he not differ on this issue...or are ALL lefties expected to think in lockstep. (and ...FWIW...shoddy lockstep)
Yes, they are rights. I didn't say they were inalienable, just that they were rights. It's like the right to vote. If you are a felon you lose it. And divorce has nothing to do with what I'm discussing.
And where is divorce mentioned in any of that? As my point has been all along, you don't even need to be married to be on the birth certificate.
I have to say, I just have no clue where this discussion is going anymore. I might be interested in it. I just don't have the patience to try parsing through all these arguments, which strike me as only tangentially related to the gay marriage issue in the American system.
That's because when you force the 'challenged' to defend their argument once they've been parsed they say....'That's not what I meant' Morononthetownhallroof is now fixated on the word divorce....but that isn't where the argument lies, now is it...? PRIOR TO ME HITTING POST...He clearly does not grasp the question that is being asked.
It's hard to grasp someone's meaning when they post in disjointed fragments like some sort of brain damaged retard rather than posting complete thoughts. Especially when half their posts are unrelated to the topic at hand.
Diddlesonthetownhallroof, I can't respect your argument when you go so far as to say in response to my argument about celebrating wedding anniversaries that people celebrate anniversaries of unmarried couples, too. Just look at yourself and the ignorance that spews from you. You ought to be ashamed. LSD, Yeah, I voted for Obama. I was not thrilled about his candidacy in the primaries, and did not support him then, and was considering not voting at all in the general election. But then McCain said something about the economy being sound when it clearly wasn't, reminded people he doesn't claim to know much about economics, and then chose Palin as his running mate. So I voted for Obama. I think on balance he's been different than I expected. He's been more effective in getting legislation passed, albeit some of it is flawed, and less effetive at politicking and getting his message out than I expected. Ftr, when he ran for office, he was not a supporter of gay marriage, either.
You know, ordinarily when someone completely ignores the valid content of a post and focuses on an insignificant error in wording, I find that to be pretty weak. Something of a white flag. However, when someone ignores the valid content of a post to focus on an insignificant error that doesn't even exist, I find that to be a sign that I should stop the discussion because they are a complete baffoon. I never said people celebrate the anniversary of an unmarried couple in the same way as a married couple. What I DID say was that people celebrate the anniversary of a childless marriage in the same way. If you are trying to dodge valid arguments, try to at least make sure you have SOME sort of reading comprehension. If you respond, admit your mistake and address the actual arguments, otherwise I will accept it as you withdrawing from your losing battle. You ought to be ashamed.
"I did not ask what benefits there were to being married, I asked what benefits married parents get that other parents don't." OMG, they get the benefits of being married, dumbass. Are you fing kidding me? You have yet to make a valid argument. As I said it is preposterous that you question the benefit of being married at the same time you support the fight for gay marriage, waged by people who want the benefits of being married. I know on the anniversary thing you referred to childless couples, but you also referre to unmarried ones. Try to be more clear. "I never said people celebrate the anniversary of an unmarried couple in the same way as a married couple. What I DID say was that people celebrate the anniversary of a childless marriage in the same way." The same way? Not in my experience. First of all there's a lot more people if they have kids. But seriously, I went to my uncle's fiftieth last year, and the talk very much was about their children and grandchildren, meaning what in that respect they did with their marriage. It most certainly not would have been the same if they had had no children. Those in attendance were honoring not only the length of time but also their having raised children and had grandchildren in that time. It was different. But get your position straight about the benefits thing before continuing, please.
I'm done here. You are either too stupid or too stubborn to see the point and I don't have the patience for either. Obviously there are benefits to being married. That's not what I'm talking about. I am solely addressing your continued argument of marriage being restricted to straight couples based on trying to promote it as the "ideal" for children. I am asking you to name specific examples of benefits that the government uses to promote this that are ONLY AVAILABLE THROUGH BEING MARRIED WITH CHILDREN. I've explained this more than once, in several different ways and anyone who isn't a total moron should be able to understand it. Apparently you fall outside of this category.
Your edit confirmed your stupidity. You really don't think the 50th wedding anniversary of a couple without children would be a big occasion? Pure ridiculousness.
The answer is that married couples with children are able to combine benefits available to parents with those available to married people. Only they can qualify for both. I don't know why you have to even ask this question. What is your point?
I said it would be different. Do you deny it would be? You are being ridiculous. Why do you take this issue so personally, btw?
