On Oct 12, 4:10 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Which ones Michael? And, perhaps your reasons too?
I don't know what all of the benefits received by married couples are. I have never been married. I think as it stands now, married couples receive a break when filing a joint income tax return. If this is true this should be reserved for people who are or have raised children. They have lost time and money in a task that is essential for the continuance of our nation and species. The best way to actually do this would be eliminate the joint filling break and tie this in with the credit received for dependents. That credit should continue in reduced form after the children are on their own. The amount should be proportional to the number of years that the children were taken care of. For example if someone adopts a ten year old foster child and the child is independent at eighteen they would receive less than someone who had their child from birth to eighteen. I would also like to see this credit apply for only two natural children. There would be no credit for the third and a loss for the forth and fifth setting the parent(s) back to zero. Adopted children would have a higher limit depending on the number of children in need of adoption and other factors. Feel free to attack or improve this off the top of my head plan. On Oct 12, 4:10 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "...I do think that some of the benefits that married couples get > should be reserved for those who are raising children. That goes for > both straight and gay couples." - Michael > > Which ones Michael? And, perhaps your reasons too? > > On Oct 12, 12:36 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Steve, > > > While I don't think that marriage is based in biology, I do think that > > some of the benefits that married couples get should be reserved for > > those who are raising children. That goes for both straight and gay > > couples. As far as gays adopting, I don't I haven't done the reseach. > > Something tells me though that this is a less than ideal situation for > > the children. Even so a happy, stable gay couple probably make better > > parents than many other straight couples. As for a reserving the term > > marriage for straight couples, I am only for it in order to quell the > > storm of another harmful wedge issue. > > > On Oct 12, 10:19 am, Clogtowner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/12/nyregion/12marriage.html?em-Hide quoted > > >text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
