You know, (rhetorically speaking) were we living in 1820, none of this would be argued. Back then, polygamy was entirely legal.
Thank you for categorizing my post. I admit I never so far have done that to your posts. But since you claim polygamy causes no harm, who would I be to not agree with you?
This came due to what a woman said. Her opening remarks are linked too. By Sara Burrows JUNE 30, 2015 Open her link and read her story. She advocates for what she calls polyamory.
My view is that it is up to her and her boyfriend to decide on what makes them happy. What is your opinion?
Nice of you to admit that. https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-too...-Advantages-of-Getting-Married-/INF17870.html
No I'm not. It still depends on what actually happens. In all reality yes same sex marriage could possibly lead to polyamorous marriage but the chances are equally great that it won't. Hence the fallacy.
Look at what you are calling incentives. Two people who are living as one, can: put the income the couple earns into an IRA the couple owns, write off the expenses the couple incurs against income the couple earns, don't have to create individual returns for individual lives they aren't leading, can choose between the benefit programs the couple earned... you understand none of these things gives that couple an advantage over anyone single? These accommodations try not to drive an unnecessary legal wall between two people who have agreed to live one life. Those "incentives" are ways you can live as one couple, instead of two singles, and not have to pay extra for that life choice. And it doesn't even get you all the way there, your benefit #7 is people living a shared life (usually) pay more in taxes. That's why we still give them the option to file single returns, if they really want to do all that work. It's like arguing an "incentive" to become blind is you can take your dog into Starbucks.
This part really appeals to me I believe all ^^^ are usually why marriages fail... chokes the life out of you I almost wish she kept gay marriage out of it, marriage is a choice and everyone should be allowed to choose, perhaps they want to be married AND polyamorous like her. .. I say bring it lol
I say you do not understand what TurboTax wrote. Read that first sentence again. The advantages they are talking about are compared to the same couple, not filing jointly. Nothing listed gives the couple a reason to choose to live one life in the first place. No need to tell TurboTax this, they know. They even told you in that first paragraph that the "advantages" of filing jointly are that you can avoid many of the "penalties" of being married. The law is not trying to incentivize people to marry, it is trying not to penalize the ones who do.
No. I want to know what you think as I am not having a conversation with her. Perhaps you should review the rules as a link should support rather than make your argument and the OP should include enough personal input to stimulate a civil debate.
