Why does the Government discriminate against SINGLE people?

First of all, I'm a straight female and I'm married to a man....YES! SHOCKING! I KNOW!

Second, I support 100% the right of gay people to get married....to each other.

But, really why is so much emphasis put on marriage in the first place, I mean why does the government push marriage as THE option?

Why do married couples get added benefits, that co-habiting but not married couples don't?

Seems to me, that not only are gays discriminated against, but SINGLE people living together are equally discriminated against.

:sarcasm:

I don't understand why married people should get a tax break simply for being married when there are so many single people with children out there.

married people without children.

I can't believe it passed. In some ways it's worse than Prop. 8. I only wish it had gotten as much press.


Obviously the point was to harm gay couples. But to punish singles as well makes this even more despicable. I'm sure foster children everywhere are celebrating this week. Go Arkansas!

expects the same-sex couples. . .and "single" people - to pay for the care of foster children. That state needs a major tax revolt - and even more important - a movement to remove "married" legislators from the state house in the next election. "Married" people are disproportionately represented in the legislatures. When more than half the adult population of Arkansas is not legally married, they shouldn't be held hostage by the Baptist Church.

that some insurance companies won't cover people who are co-habitating. My (now ex) s.o. was sick once and my insurance company said since we were not legally married, she wasn't covered under my policy. Her job didn't cover her, so she took out a loan to help pay for treatment and medicine she needed. Funny thing, the bank she got the loan from didn't care about the fact we weren't married, they just wanted to make sure that at least one of us could pay. The story has a happy ending, she got well and paid the loan back, but it just seemed like the insurance co. could have covered her, especially since we had a child together and Kelly, my daughter, was covered.

Whether it is successful on this count (or should be modified) is another question entirely.

But the intention is crystal clear.

Which is the same stupid reason that the anti-gay marriage crowd use to DISCRIMINATE against gays getting married.

I have friends who are not married and have *gasp* procreated, and they're excellant parents and the kids are happy and healthy.

The marriage as a reason for procreation and child-rearing, it's just a bunch of horsecrap.

And we KNOW it.

Also what about people who get married and choose NOT to have children? Where does that leave the idiotic notion of marriage as a reason for procreation and child-rearing?

It leaves it on it's ass, where it belongs.

On Edit: Added comment

"I have friends who are not married and have *gasp* procreated, and they're excellant parents and the kids are happy and healthy.

The marriage as a reason for procreation and child-rearing, it's just a bunch of horsecrap."

You're battling a straw man. I am not saying that marriage is the most efficacious way of achieving the aforementioned societal goals.

to get married?

as its defender. :hi:

Whose intent? Are you looking for a person's name?

It is obviously that the functional purpose of marriage is to promote procreation and child rearing. Whether it is successful on this count, or whether the institution in its current form makes sense in the modern world is a separate subject.

I don't think there is intent - pair bonding is an ordinary function in our species.

So if we want to talk about marriage in terms of instinct, the law is not a matter.

If we want to talk about it as a legal matter, what is relevant is the legal justification.

Not trying to be difficult - I just don't see the value in ascribing intent if we're not going to be clear on how it follows through logically.

People have an instinct to engage in the procreative act, no doubt.

But the optimal male reproductive strategy is to couple with as many mates as possible. Rearing children for 18+ years is contrary to this strategy.

So there is some unseen hand promoting long-term pairing at play.

and people wonder what is wrong with you since you are single.

people date back to the 19th century - and some haven't been updated since that time. Moreover, the shabby, complicated web of legal documents provided for those not recognized as legally "married" is an abomination. "Single" adults - who are the majority in this country, are told that, unless we marry, we are essentially perpetual minors - with little say in who runs our affairs. In other words, as a SINGLE person over 50 years old, my 80 year old parents have more say in what happens to me (if I can't myself) than anyone else.

Worse, most states have special laws which allow the STATE to take control of a "single" persons property - if they are not married and there is no legally recognized "family" around. The State has more power than an unrecognized partner and they can use it to annex property and dictate your funeral. Essentially, if you don't get married and have no legally recognized family, you become perpetually a ward of the State. It's an outrage.

And yet one of the arguments opponents of same-sex marriage have used is that gay couples can just use the myriad of legal documents available to SINGLE people - an inadequate collection of expensive paperwork. Of course, they can't explain why "married" couples can't do the same thing. . .isn't that strange?

There is nothing sacred about special rights for married people only. And there is nothing sacred about married people "protecting" special rights for themselves when they repeatedly claim that the rights reserved for unmarried people are adequate for same-sex couples. Frankly, I think single people should be suing the state to have those special rights removed. After all, if marriage is so sanctimonious, they shouldn't need a set of privileges and special rights attached.

debate over the last few years is the refusal of the media - and the public - to discuss ANY of the thousands of special rights/responsibilities statutes on the books in different states and the federal government. And yet, as a gay person looking in, it is blatantly obvious that most Americans - including their representatives - don't know much about the marriage laws, why they were instituted, and why they must be protected.

To me, the fact that this nation refused to even engage in a dialogue about those statutes indicates the most obscene level of bigotry. They don't even know the damned statutes they are "protecting" - or why they were instituted in the first place.

And the entire tax system of this country discriminates against me.

I regularly pay taxes that are used to fund programs (social security) and tax deductions (mortage interest, children) that there is absolutely no assurance that I will ever be able to take advantage of. Every time a parent in my office brags about their tax refund, and the deductions they get to claim, it pisses me off, because that is MY money that is going into their pockets.

If I ever complain about it, I am told to shut up about it because it is for the good of the children, the community, etc. I can't help thinking about how that extra cash could help me achieve my goals.

It seems like "married" conservatives only believe "it takes a village" when it comes to taking our tax dollars. Worse, they exclude any of us from participating in decisions about HOW to raise those children in a multitude of ways. And they are disproportionately represented on city councils and in state legislatures.

I get sick and tired of them telling ME what is good for the "children" and then legislating higher tax rates to ME without any representation. Then they tell us that we have to file a multitude of legal documents just to make basic decisions about our lives, while they just pay $15 and get a special rights license.

I'm a single white woman slightly over the age of 50, and I have no immediate family as well. I am so tired of being treated like a freaking tenth-class citizen because I have no husband, no children, and no family. In the last twenty years, you aren't worth crap if you don't have any or all of those. And of course, like you said, you can't bring it up, because you're just a whiner if you do.

This is one of the reasons I quit going to church--you were only fit for kitchen and bathroom duty as a single woman with no family. I got tired of being taken advantage of.

I wouldn't want to, personally, because it's complicated enough to manage the mutual obligation with someone you're committed to.

They should get the same rights regardless of whether they are married or not.

in a more or less standard contractual arrangement.

If you want them, get the marriage.

Or am I understanding you wrong?

it less optional.

I consider marriage a contractual partnership, with rights and responsibilities.

For example - if my spouse gets sick and is hospitalized, his bills are my bills. That's part of my non-optional responsibility.

If we split up, the monetary value of our partnership will have to be split, regardless of which of us earned more or contributed more in building it up. That's part of our responsibility.

To be sure, there are rights that go along with those responsibilities.

Community property issues notwithstanding, married persons may have individual property and debts in most (all) states...

:-)

The abolition of personal property is neither one of the rights nor one of the responsibilities associated with civil marriage.

The law may provide for separate personal property, but we also know this is all subject to evolving interpretation.

That's not intended to counter your post. :-)

The law is clear as to the property rights of third party creditors as to each spouse's individual property.

It is (mostly) clear as to the theory of property division upon divorce, but the application frequently becomes quite messy.

Besides, you're being unclear. What rights do you mean anyway? Rights of inheritance?, medical authorization?, taxation benefits?, couples discounts at your favorite restaurants?

especially single women

I'm convinced that many of the tax changes that favored married folks over singles stem from this, ESPECIALLY the changes passed during the Reagan and Bush administrations

As a single employed person, my taxes went up during Reagan

I see no valid public policy reason why the tax code should favor singles vs. childless married couples

Bush administrations that favored married folks over singles.

One of the reasons that marital inequality discriminates so strongly against gay people is that marriage in the United States confers over a thousand rights to married people that are denied to single people. This is ridiculous and an obvious discrimination against single people.

The reason for this, as far as I can tell, is that the U.S. laws are intent on forcing a patriarchal capitalist property-based system on everybody.

And I am really happy being single. I have no desire to get married at all.

a single break. It's really not fair at all.

It's absurd that in the 21st century our ideas about marriage are still driven by old patriarchal attitudes toward women as property. In the not very recent past women weren't allowed to own property, inherit property from their families, or have jobs. They were forced into marriage as chattel because marriage was the only way for women to obtain wealth, property, and social status. Even then, those things were only "loaned" through the husband.

We're beyond that now. There's no reason for these old stereotypes to perpetuate. A lot of the anti-gay rhetoric and hateful legislation is really part of an overall effort to shore up the institution of male-dominant family structures. The same fundamentalists who vote against gay rights and screech about "family values" are really talking about protecting male-dominated institutions - marriages that follow supposed "biblical" tenets in which women are subordinate to their husbands.

People who ignore gay rights are perpetuating a system that mimics the Taliban or Sharia law. Gay rights are human rights. Single's rights are human rights. Women's rights are human rights. The right of men to live freely, outside the bounds of narrow gender-defined roles are human rights. Children's rights to be raised in families of loving adults are human rights.

Animals have rights too but that's another thread.

When two incomes combine for sake of marriage, they shouldn't be penalized by being put into such a higher tax bracket. Is isn't so much a benefit as it is avoidance of a penalty. It is actually quite a fair structure when looked at objectively.

Though many of the same 'shared income' and other tax complications/implications could arise from two single people living together, there is NO way to regulate that or have any proof whatsoever that the two single people are actually combining income or living a 'singular' life.

Think about it: If single people living together prior to marriage were to receive tax benefits, every roommate in the country would try and get one over on the government. There would be no way to tell who is legitimate and who isn't, and it would be highly taken advantage of. That's why it can't really exist that way.

But there is no discrimination against single people whatsoever. A declaration of such is really quite absurd.

Tax benefits are a very, very small portion of those.

One of the most pressing benefits is the sharing of health insurance. Married people can opt into their spouse's corporate plans; single people in most states don't have this option.

then I'm not sure you'd be able to understand any of the other logical and sensible reasons for some other things either.

If you have a leg to stand on, then stand. If you have an argument to make, make it. If you can justify your grandiose assertion that there are a thousand rights not given to single people, than do so.

Each and every single one you can list I can all but guarantee there is a logical, sensible and reasonable reason for existing, NONE of which would have to do with discrimination whatsoever.

No, single people are in no way discriminated against.

Why should two single people living together and paying taxes on their comnined incomes incomes pay less that than each of them would pay if they were living apart? What's the state's interest in encouraging two people to live a 'singular' life?

I'm single and have no childen. Neither of those things are likely to change. What interest does it serve for me to support others who wish to form 'singular' relationships and perhaps parent offspring?

It's not clear to me why I am not being discriminated against unless the state has some interest in support the 'singular' partnership status and encouraging people in that status to have children. I pay a higher proportion of my income in taxes so that such people who make such choices can have thier partnerships and their children, and it's not clear to me why I should have to do that.

Sorry about the 'Bullshit...' lead, but I just got 'Total Compensation Review' in which I am not eligible for thousands of dollars worth of benefits that are offered to couples with kids.

the doctor who will save you from certain death after that potential heart attack at age 75 will be someone's offspring, along with the kid who changes your diaper at the elder abuse center when you're 80. :) The reason we pay property taxes, even if we don't have any of our own, is so that hopefully the neighborhood children will become educated doctors and not the criminal vermin who jack your car.

Although the population is currently burgeoning under its weight, each new generation has thus far been needed to ensure a continuing prospering society. That's why everyone contributes.

Fraud and system abuse is why not everyone may claim the same benefits as married people do, but as far as taxes go, single people are not penalized, as was explained earlier.

So what? I'm not suggesting that singles get the same breaks as married folks, I'm suggesting that married folks not get the breaks. If kids need the breaks in order to become doctors or whatever then great, give the breaks to the kids, just not their parents.

Classic "muddy the waters" technique. And my cursory glance at the thread seems to indicate you folks are taking it at face value. Yikes.

Is the government in charge of finding people a mate? Frack I hope I never have to pay taxes to fund a government run e-harmony! Or is it you think single people should get extra tax credits for therapy?

Health clubs and other assorted businesses do give discount for bulk business, and it makes sense to do so. However, in most cases they don't care if you join with a friend, so what's the big deal? There's no particular prejudice against single people, just an incentive for people to bring others in. But that's business and has nothing to do with government benefits.

me I'd run screaming into the distance. I don't care to waste the energy, I've got better things to do! I'm some epsilon greater than zero more happy living alone that I would be living with someone else (except may a really good dog), so why do I need a mate?

the point being that government and business give benefits to married couples - benefits that single people are effectively subsidizing.

Here's another example. My employer pays $486.05 a month for a single person's health care. For a couple, they pay $743.39, and for a family they pay $837.48. So a person with a family is effectively making #351.43 a month than me for doing the same job.

Personally I think it would be nice if families stopped getting extra tax credits for their kids. But it sells as a middle class tax cut to keep increasing the child tax credit and getting rid of the marriage penalty, etc.

is not a single person.

This is the 4th time I've agreed with you in less than a week. I'm starting to get worried :scared:

Not going to get into the muckety muck - as I belong to a site/message board for single women and we rant and rave about it enough there.

Honestly though? I'd rather be single then miserable like 98% of the women I know who are married. Sorry guys at DU - but your wives are relishing thier single girlfriends Saturday night out stories! :rofl: But she'll never, ever, admit it to YOU! ;-)

why do people with children get tax breaks? I'd like to turn that upside down.

People with no children get a hefty deduction. One child (total,) a smaller deduction. Two children, no deduction. More than 2? An extra tax per child after 2.

That's the carbon footprint that will make the biggest difference to the planet, imo.