Gay Marriage Part 3 - Taiwan's Diverse Formation of Family Union Law

[BiggusDickus]

@hsinhai78

@Steve4nLanguage

Wow. So the 90~95% of the population who aren’t homosexual are not having children now because of the gay population? Because they’re suddenly turning gay? I don’t understand your reasoning.

The problem lies in the allocation of scarce resources that should be spent on the sustainability of this society, not subsidizing the lifestyle of persons inherently unable to procreate due to their own genital preferences. Tax monies now contributed by forever childless homo couples that could be spent on public kindergartens will no longer be available when gay marriage including the tax breaks that come with marriage become a reality in Taiwan.

I paid my tax yesterday and I can assure you the tax benefits for being married are a bonus, but not that impressive. What proportion of people in Taiwan do you think are gay, and what percentage of those do you think will get married?

I’m trying to get a figure in my mind about how many public kindergartens aren’t being built.

[tando]

@hsinhai78

The problem lies in the allocation of scarce resources that should be spent on the sustainability of this society, not subsidizing the lifestyle of persons inherently unable to procreate due to their own genital preferences. Tax monies now contributed by forever childless homo couples that could be spent on public kindergartens will no longer be available when gay marriage including the tax breaks that come with marriage become a reality in Taiwan.

The home couples adopting and raising kids are ok to be included?

[hsinhai78]

@afterspivak

Thanks for making your ethno-racial xenophobia clear. Your service to the forumosan community will no doubt be warmly received!

Nowhere did I write that I oppose immigration of non-ethinc Chinese to Taiwan. For instance, I welcome any legislative initiative to amend the ROC Nationality Act to allow naturalization without the requirement of renunciation of the applicant’s original citizenship sans the current conditions hardly anyone fulfills. However, I very much oppose the radical alteration of Taiwan’s ethnic/cultural makeup. There is a profound difference in effects on society between a net immigration rate of 0.50% or 5.00%.

@IbisWtf

He very clearly pointed out some economical factors that for him should be kept under consideration when dealing with the rights of homosexual people, especially concerning social benefits/allocation of resources etc.

If the counter-argument to his point is:“You’re homophobic”, to my eyes it kinda validates his position, because if his argument was heavily flawed and easy to prove wrong, then it would make more sense to do so rather than dismiss it.

Yes, thank you.

@tando

The homo couples adopting and raising kids are ok to be included?

While I am personally against same sex marriage and even more so against adoptions by same sex couples, it would only be reasonable from an economic point of view. That being said, I am more in favor of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Such a lex specialis might contradict the Grand Justices’ understanding of the equality provisions in the constitution, however as a part of the constitution it could not be held as unconstitutional by the Grand Justices (aka the Constitutional Court). In effect there would be no gay marriage.

@BiggusDickus

I paid my tax yesterday and I can assure you the tax benefits for being married are a bonus, but not that impressive. What proportion of people in Taiwan do you think are gay, and what percentage of those do you think will get married?

Losing out on tax money from homosexuals would always mean less money can be spent on families. Hence more money must be taken from persons not choosing or inherently incapable of procreation, to be redistributed to families. There is a whole list of circumstances beyond homosexual lifestyles in which too little tax revenue is generated. Take the ownership of second and third homes for example.

[tando]

@hsinhai78

@tando

The homo couples adopting and raising kids are ok to be included?

While I am personally against same sex marriage and even more so against adoptions by same sex couples, it would only be reasonable from an economic point of view.

My next question is, infertile couples who don’t adopt kids should be excluded?

[gaboman]

@hsinhai78

While I am personally against same sex marriage and even more so against adoptions by same sex couples, it would only be reasonable from an economic point of view. That being said, I am more in favor of a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Such a lex specialis might contradict the Grand Justices’ understanding of the equality provisions in the constitution, however as a part of the constitution it could not be held as unconstitutional by the Grand Justices (aka the Constitutional Court). In effect there would be no gay marriage.

Okay, but you haven’t raised a single thing that would lead me to think there’d ever be any kind of economic issues worth considering. Married couples get a tiny, tiny benefit. Say 10% of the population is homosexual, and only a fraction of them actually get married, you’re talking a pittance at best. Not to mention, there are still financial benefits for having dependents (such as parents or children), that childless couples (both heterosexual and homosexual) won’t be able to take advantage of when filing taxes.

And why are you against gay couples adopting? What economic point of view made you take a hard stance on that one? Hell, the marriage point is absolute poppycock but at least I can see where you connected the threads somehow.

[hsinhai78]

@tando

My next question is, infertile couples who don’t adopt kids should be excluded?

Heterosexual couples who do not procreate (regardless of the specific reason) should not receive tax benefits.

[lostinasia]

So basically no tax benefits at all for marriage? Just scrap that altogether, and only have tax benefits for people with children, regardless of marital status? (I may be open to that idea, actually.)

[hsinhai78]

@lostinasia

So basically no tax benefits at all for marriage? Just scrap that altogether, and only have tax benefits for people with children, regardless of marital status? (I may be open to that idea, actually.)

You cannot discount the stable environment marriage is designed to provide for a child. I would rather implement policies to discourage divorce.

[tando]

@hsinhai78

You cannot discount the stable environment marriage is designed to provide for a child. I would rather implement policies to discourage divorce.

Happy home with a single parent can be beneficial for kids than unhappy home with a married couple in many cases. And, that kind of policies could increase the proportion of kids out of wedlock.

[ChewDawg]

I thought the progressive Hoklos in the DPP were going to pass this?

Or are these twits reverting back to A-bians habit of talking about human rights but then doing jack shit about it.

Progressive — horsehit!

[hsinhai78]

@tando

Happy home with a single parent can be beneficial for kids than unhappy home with a married couple in many cases.

Life with one amputated leg can be better than life on two legs with brain cancer.

[gaboman]

Right, but in your “discourage divorce” scenario, you’re saying take the brain cancer because you can’t walk with one amputated leg. You can’t just spout nonsense and mock those who point out obvious flaws in your nonsense.

In fact, your whole premise is falling apart. You’re against gay marriage for purely economic reasons, but in your argument you say you’d apply the same tax standard to childless married couples. So either your gripe is with tax laws, which you could be arguing, or there are other reasons you’re against same sex marriage.

[OysterOmelet]

@gaboman

Right, but in your “discourage divorce” scenario, you’re saying take the brain cancer because you can’t walk with one amputated leg. You can’t just spout nonsense and mock those who point out obvious flaws in your nonsense.

In fact, your whole premise is falling apart. You’re against gay marriage for purely economic reasons, but in your argument you say you’d apply the same tax standard to childless married couples. So either your gripe is with tax laws, which you could be arguing, or there are other reasons you’re against same sex marriage.

His point was that just because there is more than one factor contributing to a child’s well being, doesn’t mean that duo-parent households are, all else equal, better than single parent ones.

[BiggusDickus]

[quote=“nc47, post:73, topic:80308, full:true”]

His point was that just because there is more than one factor contributing to a child’s well being, doesn’t mean that duo-parent households are, all else equal, better than single parent ones.
[/quote]Really? I thought hsinhai78 was arguing the opposite: that a duo-parent, preferentially heterosexual, household was better than a single parent or gay one.

The fact that hsinhai78 has liked your post has confused me.

[OysterOmelet]

[quote=“BiggusDickus, post:74, topic:80308, full:true”]

@OysterOmelet

His point was that just because there is more than one factor contributing to a child’s well being, doesn’t mean that duo-parent households are, all else equal, better than single parent ones.
[/quote]Really? I thought hsinhai78 was arguing the opposite: that a duo-parent, preferentially heterosexual, household was better than a single parent or gay one.

The fact that hsinhai78 has liked your post has confused me.

That’s not the opposite. All else equal, that’s true. But sometimes the parents are married but hate each other. That might be worse than a happy single parent home.

Still, though, two parents is the ideal.

[BiggusDickus]

@OysterOmelet

Still, though, two parents is the ideal.

Gay or straight?

[tando]

@OysterOmelet

That’s not the opposite. All else equal, that’s true. But sometimes the parents are married but hate each other. That might be worse than a happy single parent home.

So, you posted a proverb saying the same thing with my post, right?

@hsinhai78

You cannot discount the stable environment marriage is designed to provide for a child. I would rather implement policies to discourage divorce.

I agree to the first sentence, but cannot understand how the policies in the second sentence work for kids well being.

Policies to discourage divorces could increase kids grown up with both parents, otherwise divorced.

Though, at the same time, they could increase couples who dont get married, and kids out of wedlock, as I posted before. Couples who hate each other but dont get divorced could be increased too. That could increase the kids grown up in unhappy home, and the number of affairs could rise too.

I’m not sure whether positive effect is larger than negative.

@lostinasia

So basically no tax benefits at all for marriage? Just scrap that altogether, and only have tax benefits for people with children, regardless of marital status?

I also thought this were your idea. Because you posted this.

@hsinhai78

Heterosexual couples who do not procreate (regardless of the specific reason) should not receive tax benefits.

[OysterOmelet]

@BiggusDickus

@OysterOmelet

Still, though, two parents is the ideal.

Gay or straight?

Two biological parents are optimal.

Cohabiting parents differ from married ones in three big ways | Brookings

[tando]

Important part is all else equal. It cannot happen on individual families.

In addition, family stability is not the cause of kids’ better being. It may be a part of it, but the causes of family stability contribute to kids’ well being.

[OysterOmelet]

@tando

Important part is all else equal. It cannot happen on individual families.

In addition, family stability is not the cause of kids’ better being. It may be a part of it, but the causes of family stability contribute to kids’ well being.

I agree. But from a policy standpoint, it’s easier to subsidize stable families than the cluster of factors contributing to stable families and child welfare.