Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Folks who argue that if same sex marriage is legal, why not marriage between cousins or siblings simply don't understand why marriage licenses exist. The marriage license establishes a next-of-kin relationship that already legally exists among family members. Marriage among family members is redundant. The legality of their relationship has been formed by blood. A marriage is a legally sanctioned relationship based on consent.
Folks who argue that if same sex marriage is legal, why not marriage between cousins or siblings simply don't understand why marriage licenses exist. The marriage license establishes a next-of-kin relationship that already legally exists among family members. Marriage among family members is redundant. The legality of their relationship has been formed by blood. A marriage is a legally sanctioned relationship based on consent.
Folks who argue that if same sex marriage is legal, why not marriage between cousins or siblings simply don't understand why marriage licenses exist. The marriage license establishes a next-of-kin relationship that already legally exists among family members. Marriage among family members is redundant. The legality of their relationship has been formed by blood. A marriage is a legally sanctioned relationship based on consent.
Don't kid yourself, it's not that they don't understand it. It's that the specter of "incest" is being used in a "poison pill" attempt to deflect away from not having a - ah - logical and common sense reason for denying equal treatment to homosexuals.
>>>>
Folks who argue that if same sex marriage is legal, why not marriage between cousins or siblings simply don't understand why marriage licenses exist. The marriage license establishes a next-of-kin relationship that already legally exists among family members. Marriage among family members is redundant. The legality of their relationship has been formed by blood. A marriage is a legally sanctioned relationship based on consent.
Don't kid yourself, it's not that they don't understand it. It's that the specter of "incest" is being used in a "poison pill" attempt to deflect away from not having a - ah - logical and common sense reason for denying equal treatment to homosexuals.
>>>>
wrong again, I/we want equal treatment for homosexuals, I/we also want equal treatment for all same sex couples in a loving committed relationship--------regardless of whether or not they engage in some form of sex.
Don't kid yourself, it's not that they don't understand it. It's that the specter of "incest" is being used in a "poison pill" attempt to deflect away from not having a - ah - logical and common sense reason for denying equal treatment to homosexuals.
>>>>
wrong again, I/we want equal treatment for homosexuals, I/we also want equal treatment for all same sex couples in a loving committed relationship--------regardless of whether or not they engage in some form of sex.
No you don't, you want to poison the discussion - it's pretty obvious. The intent is to reserve special privileges for couples like ours (i.e. different sex) and then through a boogy man try to dissuade people from supporting equal treatment for homosexuals. Because heaven knows, if we let the ghey's get married then we must allow brother to marry sister, father to marry daughter, mother to may daughter (if she divorces the father).
You'll probably deny it again, but it's obvious to any reasonable observer. Instead of defining legally valid and compelling government interest in denying homosexuals equal treatment under the law for like conditions - let's scare people with grandfather/grandson marriages.
>>>>
Good luck with that, all I can offer is some advice I saw in really good movie once;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.
"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.
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
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
wrong again, I/we want equal treatment for homosexuals, I/we also want equal treatment for all same sex couples in a loving committed relationship--------regardless of whether or not they engage in some form of sex.
No you don't, you want to poison the discussion - it's pretty obvious. The intent is to reserve special privileges for couples like ours (i.e. different sex) and then through a boogy man try to dissuade people from supporting equal treatment for homosexuals. Because heaven knows, if we let the ghey's get married then we must allow brother to marry sister, father to marry daughter, mother to may daughter (if she divorces the father).
You'll probably deny it again, but it's obvious to any reasonable observer. Instead of defining legally valid and compelling government interest in denying homosexuals equal treatment under the law for like conditions - let's scare people with grandfather/grandson marriages.
>>>>
I have been merely pointing out one falacy of the gay marriage debate. Mark my words, some sibling couple, some bigamist or polygamist will file a discrimination suit----and will win, because the logic that supports gay marriage is the exact same logic that will be used to support other forms of marriage-------discrimination and equal protection under the law.
if you choose to ignore the slippery slope, fine. but we are already sliding into the abyss.
wrong again, I/we want equal treatment for homosexuals, I/we also want equal treatment for all same sex couples in a loving committed relationship--------regardless of whether or not they engage in some form of sex.
No you don't, you want to poison the discussion - it's pretty obvious. The intent is to reserve special privileges for couples like ours (i.e. different sex) and then through a boogy man try to dissuade people from supporting equal treatment for homosexuals. Because heaven knows, if we let the ghey's get married then we must allow brother to marry sister, father to marry daughter, mother to may daughter (if she divorces the father).
You'll probably deny it again, but it's obvious to any reasonable observer. Instead of defining legally valid and compelling government interest in denying homosexuals equal treatment under the law for like conditions - let's scare people with grandfather/grandson marriages.
>>>>
I have been merely pointing out one falacy of the gay marriage debate. Mark my words, some sibling couple, some bigamist or polygamist will file a discrimination suit----and will win, because the logic that supports gay marriage is the exact same logic that will be used to support other forms of marriage-------discrimination and equal protection under the law.
if you choose to ignore the slippery slope, fine. but we are already sliding into the abyss.
I should be cranking out amended returns next week!
IR-2013-72 said:Treasury and IRS Announce That All Legal Same-Sex Marriages Will Be Recognized For Federal Tax Purposes; Ruling Provides Certainty, Benefits and Protections Under Federal Tax Law for Same-Sex Married Couples
IR-2013-72, Aug. 29, 2013
WASHINGTON The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) today ruled that same-sex couples, legally married in jurisdictions that recognize their marriages, will be treated as married for federal tax purposes. The ruling applies regardless of whether the couple lives in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage or a jurisdiction that does not recognize same-sex marriage.
The ruling implements federal tax aspects of the June 26 Supreme Court decision invalidating a key provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.
Under the ruling, same-sex couples will be treated as married for all federal tax purposes, including income and gift and estate taxes. The ruling applies to all federal tax provisions where marriage is a factor, including filing status, claiming personal and dependency exemptions, taking the standard deduction, employee benefits, contributing to an IRA and claiming the earned income tax credit or child tax credit.
Any same-sex marriage legally entered into in one of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, a U.S. territory or a foreign country will be covered by the ruling. However, the ruling does not apply to registered domestic partnerships, civil unions or similar formal relationships recognized under state law.
Legally-married same-sex couples generally must file their 2013 federal income tax return using either the married filing jointly or married filing separately filing status.
Individuals who were in same-sex marriages may, but are not required to, file original or amended returns choosing to be treated as married for federal tax purposes for one or more prior tax years still open under the statute of limitations.
Generally, the statute of limitations for filing a refund claim is three years from the date the return was filed or two years from the date the tax was paid, whichever is later. As a result, refund claims can still be filed for tax years 2010, 2011 and 2012. Some taxpayers may have special circumstances, such as signing an agreement with the IRS to keep the statute of limitations open, that permit them to file refund claims for tax years 2009 and earlier.
Additionally, employees who purchased same-sex spouse health insurance coverage from their employers on an after-tax basis may treat the amounts paid for that coverage as pre-tax and excludable from income.
How to File a Claim for Refund
Taxpayers who wish to file a refund claim for income taxes should use Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.
Taxpayers who wish to file a refund claim for gift or estate taxes should file Form 843, Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement. For information on filing an amended return, see Tax Topic 308, Amended Returns, available on IRS.gov, or the Instructions to Forms 1040X and 843. Information on where to file your amended returns is available in the instructions to the form.
Future Guidance
Treasury and the IRS intend to issue streamlined procedures for employers who wish to file refund claims for payroll taxes paid on previously-taxed health insurance and fringe benefits provided to same-sex spouses. Treasury and IRS also intend to issue further guidance on cafeteria plans and on how qualified retirement plans and other tax-favored arrangements should treat same-sex spouses for periods before the effective date of this Revenue Ruling.
Other agencies may provide guidance on other federal programs that they administer that are affected by the Code.
Revenue Ruling 2013-17, along with updated Frequently Asked Questions for same-sex couples and updated FAQs for registered domestic partners and individuals in civil unions, are available today on IRS.gov. See also Publication 555, Community Property.
Treasury and the IRS will begin applying the terms of Revenue Ruling 2013-17 on Sept. 16, 2013, but taxpayers who wish to rely on the terms of the Revenue Ruling for earlier periods may choose to do so, as long as the statute of limitations for the earlier period has not expired.
No you don't, you want to poison the discussion - it's pretty obvious. The intent is to reserve special privileges for couples like ours (i.e. different sex) and then through a boogy man try to dissuade people from supporting equal treatment for homosexuals. Because heaven knows, if we let the ghey's get married then we must allow brother to marry sister, father to marry daughter, mother to may daughter (if she divorces the father).
You'll probably deny it again, but it's obvious to any reasonable observer. Instead of defining legally valid and compelling government interest in denying homosexuals equal treatment under the law for like conditions - let's scare people with grandfather/grandson marriages.
>>>>
I have been merely pointing out one falacy of the gay marriage debate. Mark my words, some sibling couple, some bigamist or polygamist will file a discrimination suit----and will win, because the logic that supports gay marriage is the exact same logic that will be used to support other forms of marriage-------discrimination and equal protection under the law.
if you choose to ignore the slippery slope, fine. but we are already sliding into the abyss.
Maybe - Maybe not. That will be up to them to argue and make their case.
I gave you the opportunity, under our laws and legal system, to present a compelling government interest why 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.
You dodged into the old standby:
1. They don't produce children - well, the ability to produce children is not a disqualifying factor for different sex couples, so therefore it is not a legal disqualification for same-sex couples.
2. Then you say "well people don't like it". Well in the early 2000's there were many, many referendum's on the ballot to deny same-sex couples Civil Marriage. A decade later same-sex Civil Marriage has begun winning at the ballot box (with four victories in 2012) and polls showing consistently that sociaty is changing.
Because "A" currently receives special privileges and there is no logical or common sense reasoning to deny "B" the same privileges, trying to scare people with the idea that "C" and "D" might eventually have the same privileges is not a legal justification.
"C" and "D" will have to make their own cases.
>>>>
No you don't, you want to poison the discussion - it's pretty obvious. The intent is to reserve special privileges for couples like ours (i.e. different sex) and then through a boogy man try to dissuade people from supporting equal treatment for homosexuals. Because heaven knows, if we let the ghey's get married then we must allow brother to marry sister, father to marry daughter, mother to may daughter (if she divorces the father).
You'll probably deny it again, but it's obvious to any reasonable observer. Instead of defining legally valid and compelling government interest in denying homosexuals equal treatment under the law for like conditions - let's scare people with grandfather/grandson marriages.
>>>>
I have been merely pointing out one falacy of the gay marriage debate. Mark my words, some sibling couple, some bigamist or polygamist will file a discrimination suit----and will win, because the logic that supports gay marriage is the exact same logic that will be used to support other forms of marriage-------discrimination and equal protection under the law.
if you choose to ignore the slippery slope, fine. but we are already sliding into the abyss.
No, they will not.
Such a suit would be dismissed almost immediately, as brothers and sisters do not constitute a ‘class of persons.’
Brothers and sisters may not make a discrimination claim because all brothers and sisters are prohibited from marrying – brothers and sisters of all races, religions, and sexual orientations.
The issue is not the restriction or prohibition per se, but how such laws are applied.
I have been merely pointing out one falacy of the gay marriage debate. Mark my words, some sibling couple, some bigamist or polygamist will file a discrimination suit----and will win, because the logic that supports gay marriage is the exact same logic that will be used to support other forms of marriage-------discrimination and equal protection under the law.
if you choose to ignore the slippery slope, fine. but we are already sliding into the abyss.
Maybe - Maybe not. That will be up to them to argue and make their case.
I gave you the opportunity, under our laws and legal system, to present a compelling government interest why 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.
You dodged into the old standby:
1. They don't produce children - well, the ability to produce children is not a disqualifying factor for different sex couples, so therefore it is not a legal disqualification for same-sex couples.
2. Then you say "well people don't like it". Well in the early 2000's there were many, many referendum's on the ballot to deny same-sex couples Civil Marriage. A decade later same-sex Civil Marriage has begun winning at the ballot box (with four victories in 2012) and polls showing consistently that sociaty is changing.
Because "A" currently receives special privileges and there is no logical or common sense reasoning to deny "B" the same privileges, trying to scare people with the idea that "C" and "D" might eventually have the same privileges is not a legal justification.
"C" and "D" will have to make their own cases.
>>>>
you are trying to make a simple issue complicated. Its not complicated. It comes down to basic beliefs of what is right and what is wrong for a society.
If you believe that homosexuality is a normal human condition then you are OK with homosexual marriage
If you believe that homosexuality is an aberration or the human condition then you are opposed to homosexual marriage.
Most who are opposed to homosexual marriage are not opposed to a gay union of some sort that gives a gay couple inheritence rights and tax breaks, but their union is not a marriage. A marriage has been established as a union of one man and one woman for thousands of years in every culture and every religion.
Attempting to compare interracial or interfaith marriage to homosexual marriage is ignoring that the first two involve a man and a woman.
I have been merely pointing out one falacy of the gay marriage debate. Mark my words, some sibling couple, some bigamist or polygamist will file a discrimination suit----and will win, because the logic that supports gay marriage is the exact same logic that will be used to support other forms of marriage-------discrimination and equal protection under the law.
if you choose to ignore the slippery slope, fine. but we are already sliding into the abyss.
Maybe - Maybe not. That will be up to them to argue and make their case.
I gave you the opportunity, under our laws and legal system, to present a compelling government interest why 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.
You dodged into the old standby:
1. They don't produce children - well, the ability to produce children is not a disqualifying factor for different sex couples, so therefore it is not a legal disqualification for same-sex couples.
2. Then you say "well people don't like it". Well in the early 2000's there were many, many referendum's on the ballot to deny same-sex couples Civil Marriage. A decade later same-sex Civil Marriage has begun winning at the ballot box (with four victories in 2012) and polls showing consistently that sociaty is changing.
Because "A" currently receives special privileges and there is no logical or common sense reasoning to deny "B" the same privileges, trying to scare people with the idea that "C" and "D" might eventually have the same privileges is not a legal justification.
"C" and "D" will have to make their own cases.
>>>>
you are trying to make a simple issue complicated. Its not complicated. It comes down to basic beliefs of what is right and what is wrong for a society.
If you believe that homosexuality is a normal human condition then you are OK with homosexual marriage
If you believe that homosexuality is an aberration or the human condition then you are opposed to homosexual marriage.
Most who are opposed to homosexual marriage are not opposed to a gay union of some sort that gives a gay couple inheritence rights and tax breaks, but their union is not a marriage. A marriage has been established as a union of one man and one woman for thousands of years in every culture and every religion.
Attempting to compare interracial or interfaith marriage to homosexual marriage is ignoring that the first two involve a man and a woman.
Maybe - Maybe not. That will be up to them to argue and make their case.
I gave you the opportunity, under our laws and legal system, to present a compelling government interest why 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.
You dodged into the old standby:
1. They don't produce children - well, the ability to produce children is not a disqualifying factor for different sex couples, so therefore it is not a legal disqualification for same-sex couples.
2. Then you say "well people don't like it". Well in the early 2000's there were many, many referendum's on the ballot to deny same-sex couples Civil Marriage. A decade later same-sex Civil Marriage has begun winning at the ballot box (with four victories in 2012) and polls showing consistently that sociaty is changing.
Because "A" currently receives special privileges and there is no logical or common sense reasoning to deny "B" the same privileges, trying to scare people with the idea that "C" and "D" might eventually have the same privileges is not a legal justification.
"C" and "D" will have to make their own cases.
>>>>
you are trying to make a simple issue complicated. Its not complicated. It comes down to basic beliefs of what is right and what is wrong for a society.
If you believe that homosexuality is a normal human condition then you are OK with homosexual marriage
If you believe that homosexuality is an aberration or the human condition then you are opposed to homosexual marriage.
Most who are opposed to homosexual marriage are not opposed to a gay union of some sort that gives a gay couple inheritence rights and tax breaks, but their union is not a marriage. A marriage has been established as a union of one man and one woman for thousands of years in every culture and every religion.
Attempting to compare interracial or interfaith marriage to homosexual marriage is ignoring that the first two involve a man and a woman.
Your problem is that you cannot force your belief that homosexual marriage is wrong without proving that you, or others are harmed in some way.
Otherwise, the government has no business in determining whose relationship is worthy of marriage
