3 ms·
Perhaps then the discussion should be about why tax breaks are erroneously associated with marriage, which in many heterosexual unions doesn't produce children
by tomlock 10y ago
Perhaps then the discussion should be about why tax breaks are erroneously associated with marriage, which in many heterosexual unions doesn't produce children (should we ban marrying a post-menopausal woman?), than about why homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed. Marriage has many other benefits that aren't directly related to bearing children.
- lostmsu 10y agoI agree. We should instead disallow non-bearing children couples from being married, or remove tax benefits. IMHO, we could have made it all very clear, however, most people would not understand if government would try to redefine 'family' to require kids, because common understanding of family is a deeply conservative thing, and even most liberals would not feel that change good. I would go even further, and would provide tax credits for anyone planning to have kids in, say, the next 5 years, and I would take money back after 5 years, if no kid is out.
- tomlock 10y agoThis is entirely unrelated to marriage, so brendan eich should be spending his money on other lobbying efforts if that was his goal.