IRS recognizes same-sex mariages in all states

[rightwinger]

I said that gays should have equal rights when they are in committed relationships. So should two elderly sisters who are in a committed relationship. Or two brothers, or two cousins, or a mother and daughter.

All are same sex relationships, all are committed and loving. The ONLY difference is whether they have gay sex. Should the two elderly sisters declare themselves gay and married?

The whole gay marriage thing falls apart when a test of logic and common sense is applied to it.

I said that marriage is about love and a committed relationship. You keep bringing up sex

So you agree that two sisters who are in a loving and committed relationship should be declared married in order to not be discriminated against by the tax code?

Please read my posts. I have already detailed the differences

 

[Redfish]

How has the government punished people for not accepting inter-racial marriage?

How has the government punished people for not accepting inter-faith marriage?

not a valid analogy. its where you gays always go when you are losing the debate. But it does not work.

inter-racial and inter-faith are heterosexual and therefore----normal. They are not aberrations of the human condition as are homosexual marriages.

You are the ones forcing your views on others

Nobody forces you to accept gay marriage. You can continue to hate anyone you want

What you can't do is force the government to accept your hate

I don't hate anyone. I said many times that committed gays should have the same rights as normal married people.

But following that thought logically, there is no reason why two sisters or two brothers should not be allowed that same benefit if they are loving and committed to each other.

The only difference is that sex is part of one relationship and not the other.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Reactionaries simply do not understand what is marriage.

Civil unions for people who need tax breaks and reciprocity and perks makes a lot of sense.

 

[Redfish]

I said that marriage is about love and a committed relationship. You keep bringing up sex

So you agree that two sisters who are in a loving and committed relationship should be declared married in order to not be discriminated against by the tax code?

Please read my posts. I have already detailed the differences

no you have not, I have destroyed your arguments every time.

your conclusion is that gay sex is the deciding factor as to whether two loving commited people of the same sex can marry and get the married tax rates.

 

[Redfish]

This message is hidden because JakeStarkey is on your ignore list.

get off this thread snake, no one is reading your bullshit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This message is not hidden because JakeStarkey is not on Redfish's ignore list

 

[NightFox]

not a valid analogy. its where you gays always go when you are losing the debate. But it does not work.

inter-racial and inter-faith are heterosexual and therefore----normal. They are not aberrations of the human condition as are homosexual marriages.

You are the ones forcing your views on others

Nobody forces you to accept gay marriage. You can continue to hate anyone you want

What you can't do is force the government to accept your hate

I don't hate anyone. I said many times that committed gays should have the same rights as normal married people.

But following that thought logically, there is no reason why two sisters or two brothers should not be allowed that same benefit if they are loving and committed to each other.

The only difference is that sex is part of one relationship and not the other.

Redfish, there is a reason, the reason is that the social engineering objective (to encourage marriage and procreation within marriage) which is the basis for the existence of differential tax treatment of married couples in the first place is not serviced by the scenarios you present.

Preferential tax treatment is a privilege granted to achieve a social engineering objective.

 

[rightwinger]

not a valid analogy. its where you gays always go when you are losing the debate. But it does not work.

inter-racial and inter-faith are heterosexual and therefore----normal. They are not aberrations of the human condition as are homosexual marriages.

You are the ones forcing your views on others

Nobody forces you to accept gay marriage. You can continue to hate anyone you want

What you can't do is force the government to accept your hate

I don't hate anyone. I said many times that committed gays should have the same rights as normal married people.

But following that thought logically, there is no reason why two sisters or two brothers should not be allowed that same benefit if they are loving and committed to each other.

The only difference is that sex is part of one relationship and not the other.

Why do you struggle so much to understand the difference between love and sex?

 

[Redfish]

You are the ones forcing your views on others

Nobody forces you to accept gay marriage. You can continue to hate anyone you want

What you can't do is force the government to accept your hate

I don't hate anyone. I said many times that committed gays should have the same rights as normal married people.

But following that thought logically, there is no reason why two sisters or two brothers should not be allowed that same benefit if they are loving and committed to each other.

The only difference is that sex is part of one relationship and not the other.

Redfish, there is a reason, the reason is that the social engineering objective (to encourage marriage and procreation within marriage) which is the basis for the existence of differential tax treatment of married couples in the first place is not serviced by the scenarios you present.

Preferential tax treatment is a privilege granted to achieve a social engineering objective.

yes, of course I know that. I was just trying to get the gay-marriage advocates to actually think about what they are asking for.

Not one of them can come up with a reason why two committed same sex people can only be married if they are having gay sex. Two elderly sisters fit every definition of a gay marriage except they are not having sex. So they should get the same tax benefits as a gay couple that is having sex.

 

[Redfish]

You are the ones forcing your views on others

Nobody forces you to accept gay marriage. You can continue to hate anyone you want

What you can't do is force the government to accept your hate

I don't hate anyone. I said many times that committed gays should have the same rights as normal married people.

But following that thought logically, there is no reason why two sisters or two brothers should not be allowed that same benefit if they are loving and committed to each other.

The only difference is that sex is part of one relationship and not the other.

Why do you struggle so much to understand the difference between love and sex?

YOU are the one having that problem. You want to discriminate against two loving committed people just because they are not having sex. The two elderly sisters in my example fit every definition of a gay marriage except the sex part. Why do you hate elderly women who love each other and are committed to caring for each other?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Redfish and others who are Prop 8 supporters certainly can't use critical thinking principles.

 

[Nosmo King]

according to some normal is now abnormal and the abnormal is normal.
Stop deflecting. The title of the thread is wrong.

The game is over for your 'separate but equal' fascists, bigrebnc.

God will take care of that.
Just like he did at Sodom
Live it up your time is short.

Did you read that in a Taliban manifesto?

 

[NightFox]

I don't hate anyone. I said many times that committed gays should have the same rights as normal married people.

But following that thought logically, there is no reason why two sisters or two brothers should not be allowed that same benefit if they are loving and committed to each other.

The only difference is that sex is part of one relationship and not the other.

Redfish, there is a reason, the reason is that the social engineering objective (to encourage marriage and procreation within marriage) which is the basis for the existence of differential tax treatment of married couples in the first place is not serviced by the scenarios you present.

Preferential tax treatment is a privilege granted to achieve a social engineering objective.

yes, of course I know that. I was just trying to get the gay-marriage advocates to actually think about what they are asking for.

Good luck with that, all I can offer is some advice I saw in really good movie once;

"And please, speak as you might to a young child. Or a golden retriever." -- John Tuld, Margin Call

 

[rightwinger]

I don't hate anyone. I said many times that committed gays should have the same rights as normal married people.

But following that thought logically, there is no reason why two sisters or two brothers should not be allowed that same benefit if they are loving and committed to each other.

The only difference is that sex is part of one relationship and not the other.

Why do you struggle so much to understand the difference between love and sex?

YOU are the one having that problem. You want to discriminate against two loving committed people just because they are not having sex. The two elderly sisters in my example fit every definition of a gay marriage except the sex part. Why do you hate elderly women who love each other and are committed to caring for each other?

Why do you struggle so much with the concept of love?

Sisters do not love each other the way a married couple does....regardless of sex

 

[Redfish]

Redfish, there is a reason, the reason is that the social engineering objective (to encourage marriage and procreation within marriage) which is the basis for the existence of differential tax treatment of married couples in the first place is not serviced by the scenarios you present.

Preferential tax treatment is a privilege granted to achieve a social engineering objective.

yes, of course I know that. I was just trying to get the gay-marriage advocates to actually think about what they are asking for.

Good luck with that, all I can offer is some advice I saw in really good movie once;

"And please, speak as you might to a young child. Or a golden retriever." -- John Tuld, Margin Call

that quote is very applicable for discussing anything with a liberal.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The whole gay marriage thing falls apart when a test of logic and common sense is applied to it.

No, the fact that two siblings are not allowed to marry, which creates a family relationship where one didn't exist before, but beside that.

OK, you say "The whole gay marriage thing falls apart when a test of logic and common sense is applied to it."

Here is your chance, please articulate the logic for why - from a government perspective, not a religious perspective - law abiding, tax paying, United States Citizen, non-related, consenting, infertile, adults in a different sex relationship are allowed to Civilly Marry while law abiding, tax paying, United States Citizen, non-related, consenting, infertile, adults in a same sex relationship are not allowed to Civilly Marry?


An answer needs to be based on the conflict in law that currently exists (in most states) where the only difference is the gender composition of non-related adults. Make your logical and common sense case please.



>>>>

 

[Redfish]

The whole gay marriage thing falls apart when a test of logic and common sense is applied to it.

No, the fact that two siblings are not allowed to marry, which creates a family relationship where one didn't exist before, but beside that.

OK, you say "The whole gay marriage thing falls apart when a test of logic and common sense is applied to it."

Here is your chance, please articulate the logic for why - from a government perspective, not a religious perspective - law abiding, tax paying, United States Citizen, non-related, consenting, infertile, adults in a different sex relationship are allowed to Civilly Marry while law abiding, tax paying, United States Citizen, non-related, consenting, infertile, adults in a same sex relationship are not allowed to Civilly Marry?


An answer needs to be based on the conflict in law that currently exists (in most states) where the only difference is the gender composition of non-related adults. Make your logical and common sense case please.



>>>>

very simple. because a majority of people world wide believe that homosexuality is an aberration of the human condition and, while it should be tolerated, it should not be sanctioned and given equal societal status with traditional man/woman marriage.


Now you tell me why, if homosexual marriage is allowed why isn't a non-sexual loving committed union of two same sex siblings allowed?

If there is no sex involved then there is no incest. Why have tax laws that discriminate against two sisters who are loving and committed to each other

 

[Redfish]

The whole gay marriage thing falls apart when a test of logic and common sense is applied to it.

No, the fact that two siblings are not allowed to marry, which creates a family relationship where one didn't exist before, but beside that.

OK, you say "The whole gay marriage thing falls apart when a test of logic and common sense is applied to it."

Here is your chance, please articulate the logic for why - from a government perspective, not a religious perspective - law abiding, tax paying, United States Citizen, non-related, consenting, infertile, adults in a different sex relationship are allowed to Civilly Marry while law abiding, tax paying, United States Citizen, non-related, consenting, infertile, adults in a same sex relationship are not allowed to Civilly Marry?


An answer needs to be based on the conflict in law that currently exists (in most states) where the only difference is the gender composition of non-related adults. Make your logical and common sense case please.



>>>>

can gay cousins marry? if not, why not? the gene pool is not at issue, why discriminate against these people?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Redfish would support slavery in a majority of the world supported the abomination.

The good people of this Board do not support Redfish abominations.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The whole gay marriage thing falls apart when a test of logic and common sense is applied to it.

No, the fact that two siblings are not allowed to marry, which creates a family relationship where one didn't exist before, but beside that.

OK, you say "The whole gay marriage thing falls apart when a test of logic and common sense is applied to it."

Here is your chance, please articulate the logic for why - from a government perspective, not a religious perspective - law abiding, tax paying, United States Citizen, non-related, consenting, infertile, adults in a different sex relationship are allowed to Civilly Marry while law abiding, tax paying, United States Citizen, non-related, consenting, infertile, adults in a same sex relationship are not allowed to Civilly Marry?


An answer needs to be based on the conflict in law that currently exists (in most states) where the only difference is the gender composition of non-related adults. Make your logical and common sense case please.



>>>>

very simple. because a majority of people world wide believe that homosexuality is an aberration of the human condition and, while it should be tolerated, it should not be sanctioned and given equal societal status with traditional man/woman marriage.

That's not an answer based on the concept of law in this country, but I don't really expect a logical and common sense answer to the question. I've only been asking if for about 6-years and to date no one has provided an cogent answer. Normally when someone even tries - which you may or may not have done, I can't tell from the weakness of the answer - has been deflection or ignoring it.

Now you tell me why, if homosexual marriage is allowed why isn't a non-sexual loving committed union of two same sex siblings allowed?

Why same-sex only?

What makes you think I'm against two siblings being able to marry to take care of each other. I lived through the exact situation you described. My sister was in very bad physical shape - diabetes, heart disease, blind, poor circulation, renal failure. I was in the Navy and was either overseas or out of State. If fell to my other sister to care for our older one [our parents had passed years ago], the younger sister was single and it would have made life a hell of a lot easier if they could have entered into a marriage then to have to deal with the reams and reams of paperwork that married couples don't have to do.



>>>>