quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

But, if the government sees some particular type of action as generally good, why can’t it encourage that while not discouraging or making illegal other types of actions?

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Drew:

Procreation wasn't the motivation for the tax incentives. It had a lot more to do with recognizing the particular cultural norms of the time. Traditionally, there was only one income earner per family. Because that income earner had more people to support than an unmarried individual, the government decided to create the "married" and "head of household" tax rates to ease the burden, with respectively adjusted tax rates, standard deductions, and personal exemptions. Times however, have changed - it seems there's hardly a family anymore that doesn't have two income earners, and therefore, two taxpayers. As such, the marriage categorization became a "penalty," since the standard deductions of two individuals together filing seperately were greater than the single marital deduction they would receive filing jointly. The tax code has since been adjusted to at least restore balance, but times and understandings have changed.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

All your argument did was express [/]how[/I] the government encouraged marriage, not why. A lot of families in our culture get together during the Christmas-New Year holidays, but I don’t see the government subsidizing airline tickets or fuel for road trips. There are a lot of cultural norms, why subsidize marriage unless it’s viewed as beneficial?

And by the way, you keep talking about what people can do and still take advantage of the benefits. Governments can’t afford to micromanage, though. They have to be big-picture oriented. You’re always going to have some people who don’t do exactly as you hope. Let’s say that a stabilizing, civilizing, and sustaining influence is the basis for recognition of marriage. Of course you’ll have people marry that will never contribute to this effect, but if the majority do, it’s worth it. And then, maybe some of those that do not now, will. Maybe your wife keep getting sick and hurt and insist that you all do it the normal way and some of your little soldiers will get through the tube tying (it happens) and you all get pregnant.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Drew:

I can imagine the whole thing would be very troubling to people who are fairly evangelical yet nevertheless intelligent. Because if homosexuality is something more that just the way someone decides to act (i.e., a decision derrived from the individual - not from God - which could therefore qualify as a sin) but is actually something inherent to a person, then that would mean that God made someone that way - and yet there're all those rigid prohibitions in the Bible allegedly *against* homosexuality. Oh noes! Just what is this God trying to do? Or maybe there really is a fly in the ointment, and now they need to deal with all these unsettling questions.

I think homosexuality is an inherent characteristic in a person; perhaps repressible, like other personality traits, but ever present. If that's the case, then it wouldn't be that individual's choice to "sin." For people who believe in God, this leaves two alternatives: either God is cruel for creating a person with inherent sin, or people are misinterpreting God (the likely answer). Of course, the easiest thing to do is to avoid this uncomfortable consideration and just assume that since one isn't gay and can't understand what it means to be gay, then those people who are just aren't controlling themselves enough ("I mean, it's so disgusting, right?"), and so are in fact choosing to sin. That, or God is "testing" their souls or some crap. Best not to question, though! That upsets the apple cart of comfort.

---

quote:

---

Originally from PubMed:
Infections associated with homosexual activity

Sexually transmitted diseases are common in all gay people with a high number of different partners.Their management is the same as in the heterosexual communityThe transmission of infection through vaginal and anal intercourse is no different, apart from HIVHepatitis A and Giardia are spread through oro-anal contactThe greater incidence of hepatitis B is an indicator of a large number of partners, not of specific sexual practices

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

Most states have similar requirements, as you can see from
this page.

---

quote:

---

It was deemed inappropriate to tax a 4 person house at the same rate as a 1 person house. So to reiterate, government recognizes marriage (in a legal sense) because the tax code used to impoverish middle and low income families with only one income.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

It's the "substantially different" business that we're having a problem with. I say that same-sex intercourse is essentially equivalent to opposite-sex intercourse (which is why the Lawrence v. Texas ruling is the logical descendant of the Griswold v. Connecticut ruling).

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

It doesn’t even have to be substantially different. If you’re one step outside the development zone the government is fair in not giving you the grant.

---

quote:

---

You all will have to explain how you think Lawrence v. Texas relates to this issue, because I’m not seeing the connection.

---

quote:

---

But it [a same-sex couple parenting] is certainly not the ideal.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Frozen Feet:

Technically, in this case meaning "in the context of evolutionary biology and chaos theory", what your ancestors were and what they did are still reflected in your being. Your basic desires and mental workings are quite similar to those humans had tens of thousands of years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Aloreal:

To Gizmo: Frankly, that's one of the reasons I can't quite stomach Christianity. My mythical ancestors from hundreds of generations ago do not affect the state of my soul. I was not created with terrible urges that can never be reconciled to righteousness. God isn't playing some sadistic shell game with humanity. When we sin, it's our fault, and we atone, but it's a personal error, not some systematic flaw in humanity.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:

---

Originally written by Kelandon:

A thing that one ancestor did way back in the distant past probably won't have any genetic impact on me today. It's only if gazillions of ancestors did it that it matters.

---

Do watch the way you phrase that: you're confusing cause and effect. I'm sure we both know what you meant to say, but I don't think any of us here are Lamarckians.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by VCH:

quote:

---

Originally written by Stillness:

Let’s explore this. You may have a point, but I’m not getting it yet. Why can’t the other three people get a job? Children can do productive labor at a fairly young age. Women can do work that doesn’t require heavy lifting like a man can. So why make this allowance? I think a person can claim dependants until they reach age 25. Why?

---

LOL. Women can do work that doesn't require heavy lifting and the children should go work down in thar coal mine. Man, you have archaic opinions. lol.

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Jewelz:

As I said earlier, we can be reconciled, anyone can be reconciled to righteousness but not of any atonement by our hand.

---