Gay Marriage and Tax Benefits

I have no issue with the structure of the debate. Interpretations and Definitions: Marriage: (1) The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractural relationship recognized by law. (2) The state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage. (Note: The 2nd definition was added after the first, it is fair to conclude that at one point in time the 2nd definition did not exist, but for argument purposes, I will base my debate on the entire definition.) Gay: Sexually attracted to someone who is the same sex. Tax: Require someone to pay a tax. Benefit: A good or helpful result or effect. Argument points: 1. Tax benefits should be geared to those who have the ability to procreate. 2. Many women choose to stay at home to care for their children. Husbands in these households are usually the only source of income. Much of that income is diverted to caring and providing for the spouse and children who are not part of the work force. 3. Women who give birth have every right to chose to stay home and care for their children. This pulls them away from the workforce, and can create a financial burden on a family. 4. The government understands that a great way to provide financial aid to these procreating families is through tax credits and benefits. The government allows for deductions in marriages, and provides tax credits for families with children. Logic and Deductive Reasoning: It is logical to assume that the government encourages a union between a man and a women. The government invests in itself by encouraging men and women to partake in a relationship recognized by law. This investment is fulfilled when married couples have children. Children will eventually join the workforce and also contribute to the government through taxation. Constitutional Rights: I concur with the definition you provided of the 14th Amendment. "The Equal Protection clause of the Amendment affirms that people shall not be denied equality in laws, protection, etc, regardless of race, creed, sexuality, etc." You are taking the definition out of context. The 14th Amendment states: nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. You flipped around the words and created your own definition. If its alright with you, I would like to use the verbiage from the 14th Amendment. The 5th Amendment has nothing to do with same-sex marriage. The 5th Amendment covers the constitutional rights of a criminal. As for the United States V. Windsor supreme court ruling: I hope you understand this happened under the Administration of President Obama. The president appoints Supreme Court Judges. Under this notion it is fair to conclude he will appoint like minded individuals that will share his point of view. The president agrees with same-sex unions. Just because a panel of supreme court judges ruled in the favor of Windsor, it does not properly justify why Gay Married couples should receive any type of tax benefit. If conservatives held office during the United States V. Windsor, the ruling would have likely been different. I hope you can understand the process of a supreme court ruling, and how an individual bias can change a ruling. Would you agree that the ruling may have been different during the Bush Administration? "Same-sex relationships deserve to have the same financial support from society as any other legally recognized society". There is major differences between same-sex marriages and traditional marriages which is the ability to procreate. Children born out of wedlock are at a higher risk to; commit a crime, drop out from high school, not go to college, and also birth children out of wedlock. The government understands that children born within a traditional family are more likely to succeed and be a positive contribution to the workforce. References: http://www.law.cornell.edu...