You mean, separate but equal? That worked out well for blacks...

If you're just gonna spout bullshit without backing it up then I don't see why people should waste their time refuting it.

I originally intended to feel a bit smart by picking your 'arguments' apart and pointing at the historical view on marriage in the United - and mostly how fluid it's been, from interracial marriages to the reasons that people marry - but honestly I'm not gonna waste time on it.

Your arguments summed up are basically "It's abnormal!" "It's a break against tradition!" "Straight parents love their children because they have to, gay parents only love their children because they can" I'm actually gonna take a break here because I simply can't get over how stupid this is as an argument or even as a claim: it can either be read as paedo accusations (if that's what you're going for: Shame on you) or simply as "Gay people love their children" and then trying to argue that it is a bad thing. Besides the argument about 'biological reasons' simply doesn't hold true: The reality of the world is that there are parents out there that hate their kids. There are parents out there that are simply indifferent to their kids. And there are parents out there that love their kids. Some parents move through all of these states - god knows I was a hard kid to love with all the shit I pulled on my mother - and some parents only stay in one. I shouldn't have to argue with you on this simply because I can't fathom you living a life so sheltered that you've never seen the effects of a bad parent or just some bad parenting (and if you can say that you never have, in real life or digital, seen this then feel free to take a visit over at r/raisedbynarcissists and realise how small the world you live in are and how grateful you should be that you've only seen love around you and how shameful it must be that this love has inside you turned into disgust of the ones that haven't).

Anecdotally I can only claim to have seen loving gay parents, or more generally parents that have adopted, simply because they had to take the time to plan for it and set aside their own lives in the process of claiming responsibility for another. This is not to say that there aren't adoptive parents that simply weren't suited for the task but I'd wager that they are few and farer between than the 'accidental' kids of straight relationships (and as a fellow accident I can assure you that they too can be treated with love growing up, although they tend to put more strain on the parents' relationship).

Moving on to your last point: That straight families simply are stronger & that gay families aren't as committed to their children & that they are more inclined to breaking up & that all of this is due to 'biological reasons' of the hormones of the mother and the stereotypical responsibility and the sterness of the father. And all of this is just so, so blatantly false. I mean, I could go out and dig up some great articles on this (one posted in a peer-reviewed magazine last week that I for the life of me can't remember the name of but that simply said that there isn't less stability in a gay parenthood than in a straigh one) but I feel like a cherry picked article from my side won't make you suddenly change your position on this. I hope that it might have sowed a couple of seeds of discord but I won't put my hope further than that. And even if you don't find it in you one day to love the people around you, despite whatever life or background they might have, I hope that you'll one day at least accept them and teach your children to do the same. For me the path of acceptance and tolerance, both for myself and others around the world, took both time and effort, and some great minds challenging me, simply because I was born and raised in one of the straight homes that you seem to value so much.

Heh, I started out writing this while being pretty mad and now I just feel solemn. Guess it's time to hit the shower for me.

Also dollarlayer: How is marrying someone you don't love just for the benefits not the single most american thing possible?

you expect me to read that wall of text on my phone

You do expect us to praise the shit out of your artwork you post every week tho.

Fair enough, but I don't expect anything from anyone! People like some of the stuff I post because they LIKE it, but please if you don't, that's fine. You make it sound like what I post is some sorta thing you have to enjoy and participate in. You really don't, and if it bothers you that much I can draw a picture of myself for you to print out and throw your feelings at it.

my favorite thing about this passing is all the bigots coming out of the woodwork to say why this is a bad thing

Considering it's less common for same-sex married couples to raise children than for straight married couples to raise children, is it fair for the same-sex couples to receive the same benefits if they do not have kids? Married couples receive greater tax benefits because they are likely to have kids. Would it not be fairer if the tax benefits that specifically help raise children only apply to those with children, regardless of sexual orientation in the marriage?

Sorry if this has already been mentioned.

It's not fair if anyone is receiving benefits with or without children, married or not.

It's not fair to help raise children?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

Judging by his flag he is Turkish, that's what's wrong with him

Even though it isn't really proven to be a mental illness, it's interesting to think that those who change their sexual orientation are more prone to be depressed and suicidal (depression is a mental illness) than those who do not change their orientation; so I suppose you can say those who change their preference are causing a mental illness.

Have you really never heard of common-law marriage? In some jurisdictions, if a couple lives together for a designated period of time, they are legally considered married although no paperwork is filed. Please educate yourself before shit posting.

I would say a big part of that is due to how people(friends and family) will treat you after you figure out your sexual orientation/gender identity and pursue it, that and how society treats those people

got edited to:

Sneaky.

But I will reply.
Yeah I don't think that it's fair when someone is receiving benefits over somebody else because he made some other choice in life. I don't think childless people should get less from their taxes just because they cannot have a kid as if it wasn't bad enough for them already that they cannot spend time with them or walk them to school.. Having child comes with a set of benefits and is a choice of everyone.

The reason people receive tax benefits for having kids is because the cost of raising a child to age 18 in lets say for example, the United States, is estimated to be approximately 245 thousand dollars or around 220,050 euros.

There is no unfairness considering both people will come out equal as the person without children isn't having to support an economic parasite for 18 years. In fact, its a well known fact that the person without kids and no tax benefits will still have much more wealth than those with both.

Also if your argument is based on fairness, isn't it inherently unfair that without tax benefits and other federal programs to aid parents raising children for lower income households that it would be essentially impossible in developed nations?

http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/18/pf/child-cost/

Economically denying someone the right to have children is far more unfair than denying someone who will come out richer anyways the right to have a tax break they dont need.

Actually you need to educate yourself because common law marriage still requires a basis of "informal marriage" meaning besides just cohabitation there has to representation that the couple living together are married or planning to be married.

For example: if you go to a restaurant with your gf/bf and are not formally married but are living together and sign yourselves in as Mr. and Mrs. X then you have declared yourself married under common law in Texas.

So no, common law marriage will not be affected by this ruling unless roommates of the same gender start saying they're married/getting married.

Remember kids, don't yell at people about things unless you know what you're talking about.

The old age rule of internet forum debates:

Great step towards equality, proud of you, Murica.

It's actually about exactly 1/4th the number you mentioned to raise a child on average. Quite a big difference.

Social justice != fairness.
And yeah, if you can deny access to culture for people with lower income you can also deny them having a children if they cannot afford raising one.
You don't have to convert anything to euros as I'm using dollars for more often than them, but don't think that cost of raising child being high are unique to the States. It's generally a big cost as the child has similar cost of living to you and the harder it is to sustain where you live the harder it is for you to help others who depend on you.

When I was working last summer I was earning 10PLN or $2.68/hour. Cost of raising a child here is 190,000PLN where it's $245,000 in the States according to U.S. Department of Agriculture.
But that doesn't count in everything that's not necessary that child might want like Game Boys etc. which are even more expensive here than in the States despites pay being lower so I'd say those numbers are pretty close compared to a median pay.

Apologies, I used the wrong number from a different study. Edited my post.

You can't possibly compare people being denied luxuries to being denied the right to reproduce.

Is this real life.

Not being denied. Having to be able to provide for them.
I'm all for public education, hospitals etc. though - stuff that directly benefits children and gives them an equal start in this competitive world.
EDIT: I also think that everyone has some social responsibility, but whether they fulfill it or not should be up to them. I'm doing my best myself to do what's beyond what is forced upon me even though the later sometimes feels like a huge burden especially for those on low income looking to start business.
If I start a company I'm paying 400PLN every month before I make any income. How is that fair? Cause it's a direct consequence of having all the benefits I will never use. When I don't hope to earn more than that I'm losing money by working or do freelance work illegally.

i read your post wrong at first, my bad.

First of all thanks for being the only one who actually replied with good points, yes I agree there are bad parents, horrible parents even. But what makes you think the same won't happen AT LEAST around the same percentages for homosexuals? What makes you think that children will be raised better if their parents are gay or lesbian? However this "horrible parents" topic at this stage is nothing but an assumption at this stage since we've yet to see homosexual marriage being mainstream which means it will be hard to get accurate statistics.

Moving on to your last point: That straight families simply are stronger & that gay families aren't as committed to their children & that they are more inclined to breaking up & that all of this is due to 'biological reasons' of the hormones of the mother and the stereotypical responsibility and the sterness of the father. And all of this is just so, so blatantly false. I mean, I could go out and dig up some great articles on this (one posted in a peer-reviewed magazine last week that I for the life of me can't remember the name of but that simply said that there isn't less stability in a gay parenthood than in a straigh one)

First of all, the reason why the statistics may seem more favoured towards the gay marriage side (if we are talking percentages of course) is because gay marriage has become a thing recently, we're only going to see proper results after a couple of decades. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/05/10/us/politics/fivethirtyeight-0509-ssm1/fivethirtyeight-0509-ssm1-blog480.png When we take a look at this gay marriage has started to become a growing trend after 2004. It is simply pointless to compare homosexual marriage statistics to straight marriage statistics about stability and etc. because it is impossible to compare a 30 year old marriage when the max years of a possible marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is 11 in the US (http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/history-and-timeline-of-marriage, gay marriage in the US started in 2004 as well).

As much as people try to disagree with this fact, female hormones are incredibly vital when it comes to raising a child. Hormones like LTH aka prolactin which is a female only hormone that activates after a newborn child are there reasons why a mother can raise a child and make it look easy, homosexual parents who lack such hormones and stuff like maternal sensitivity because they aren't activated are going to be in a huge disadvantage which is why I mainly think that raising a baby as a gay/lesbian parent is going to be a huge issue for them.

@Se7en "Since the 1970s, the consensus of the behavioral and social sciences and the health and mental health professions globally is that homosexuality is a healthy variation of human sexual orientation, although some professionals maintain that it is a disorder."

Maybe I shouldn't have been so full of myself when I said that since the popularity of that opinion diminished after a couple of years, but by some it is still considered as mental illness

@Rigel comparing racism to this is wrong in mulitple ways. But lets just say that in the 21st century, you don't see gay people being hanged because they are gay right now. Plus gay people in the US had civil partnerships for couple of years.

I heard an argument of lacking a role model.
Would you say that lesbians adopting girls and gays adopting boys would be enough of an example for a growing child?

http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/

Half of pregnancies are unplanned. I think the fact that each adoption will be by two people who make a conscious decision to raise a child would outweigh a lack of hormones anyways,.

Declined in lower age group and increased in higher one.
It seems like it's the same generation making those mistakes.

There will always be people at the bottom of the totem poll under any capitalistic society, regardless of social policy.

The bottom of the totem poll will always be extremely hard pressed to provide for their children, even with social infrastructure.

If you choose to deny parents certain financial stipends/benefits for raising children even if you are not outright denying them the right to have kids you are through economics denying lower economic classes the right to have children.

Bad is bad whichever way you put it.

I'm not denying them anything. I'm refusing to be forced to sponsor other people when I'm not rich by any definition either. They can have a child if they want. There are many low income parents there. The kind that couldn't be as poor in any way if they were employed legally in the States and there are not that many benefits for them.
When you don't have money you make your own cream cheese by mixing jam with natural yogurt.
But obviously we have different views on this. I see where you're coming from and I understand your point just don't agree with it. However it's such a core issue that I doubt we can convince anyone to our opinion in that matter.