Ramifications of Same Sex Marriage

[Syriusly]

Or they don't.

My 80 year old uncle recently married a woman in her 70's- when he dies, she will likely survive him and be able to inherit his estate tax free- while his children from his previous marriage will have to pay inheritance tax.

Again- if marriage is about 'procreation' why do the benefits accrue to the spouse- not the children?

Spousal support.

The remaining spouse would be responsible to maintain the children. Often times after one spouse dies, the surviving spouse is left with:

A. Minor children
B. Lower income
C. A handicapped child requiring help
D. Spouses elderly health and nursing requirement.

And again- if it was for the benefit of the children- then the children could inherit those funds without any inheritance tax. The handicapped child could inherit the funds tax free for his or her own benefit, as could the minor children.

The reason spouses- not children- are exempt from inheritance tax is because spouses are partners who commit to a lifetime partnership.

Most- if not all- 'marriage benefits' are specifically for the benefit of one or both of the spouses- and have little or nothing to do with children- and do not depend upon having children at all.

And again Syriously plays word salad games.

Tell me Syriously, what possible additional expenses might a opposite gender couple have that a same sex couple would not.

I have no idea- since I was not talking about that.

You are the one playing word games here Pop- just part of your meltdown since the Supreme Court told all 50 states that they can not discriminate against same gender couples.

Oh, such a quick and witty come back.

In Iowa and apparently a few other same gender couples include relatives.

OBTW the point of the OP.

Feel free to point out those same gender couples- give us their names.

 

[Pop23]

And?

Apparently you like same sex brother sex????

And apparently you like mother son sex?????

I think I've posted, what, five times now that I object to all forms of incest.

Sure Pop...that must be why you're arguing so stridently for it in thread after thread.

Good luck with your pet issue.

Post anywhere that I posted in favor of any incestuous marriage.

Go ahead

Or, admit you're a troll Attacking the messenger, not the message.
.

Post where I anywhere said I am in favor of same sex brother sex

Go ahead

Or admit you're a troll attacking the messenger, not the message.

Did you not see the question marks.

Questions are not statements troll

Damn, you are good at redefining.

 

[Pop23]

Spousal support.

The remaining spouse would be responsible to maintain the children. Often times after one spouse dies, the surviving spouse is left with:

A. Minor children
B. Lower income
C. A handicapped child requiring help
D. Spouses elderly health and nursing requirement.

And again- if it was for the benefit of the children- then the children could inherit those funds without any inheritance tax. The handicapped child could inherit the funds tax free for his or her own benefit, as could the minor children.

The reason spouses- not children- are exempt from inheritance tax is because spouses are partners who commit to a lifetime partnership.

Most- if not all- 'marriage benefits' are specifically for the benefit of one or both of the spouses- and have little or nothing to do with children- and do not depend upon having children at all.

And again Syriously plays word salad games.

Tell me Syriously, what possible additional expenses might a opposite gender couple have that a same sex couple would not.

I have no idea- since I was not talking about that.

You are the one playing word games here Pop- just part of your meltdown since the Supreme Court told all 50 states that they can not discriminate against same gender couples.

Oh, such a quick and witty come back.

In Iowa and apparently a few other same gender couples include relatives.

OBTW the point of the OP.

Feel free to point out those same gender couples- give us their names.

Thanks for the invite, but like all invites, I can decline.

See, I just did

 

[Syriusly]

Or they don't.

My 80 year old uncle recently married a woman in her 70's- when he dies, she will likely survive him and be able to inherit his estate tax free- while his children from his previous marriage will have to pay inheritance tax.

Again- if marriage is about 'procreation' why do the benefits accrue to the spouse- not the children?

Spousal support.

The remaining spouse would be responsible to maintain the children. Often times after one spouse dies, the surviving spouse is left with:

A. Minor children
B. Lower income
C. A handicapped child requiring help
D. Spouses elderly health and nursing requirement.

And again- if it was for the benefit of the children- then the children could inherit those funds without any inheritance tax. The handicapped child could inherit the funds tax free for his or her own benefit, as could the minor children.

The reason spouses- not children- are exempt from inheritance tax is because spouses are partners who commit to a lifetime partnership.

Most- if not all- 'marriage benefits' are specifically for the benefit of one or both of the spouses- and have little or nothing to do with children- and do not depend upon having children at all.

What was for the benefit of children?

Marriage, silly syriously, children can't marry.

And Pop does his usual word games.

Most- if not all- 'marriage benefits' are specifically for the benefit of one or both of the spouses- and have little or nothing to do with children- and do not depend upon having children at all

Those benefits don't help raise children?

Do tell

Essentially no.

Couple A has no children- estate of $3,000,000
Couple B has 12 children- estate of $3,000,000

Couple A has 1 spouse die- Surviving spouse inherits entire estate tax free.
Couple B has 1 spouse die- Surviving spouse inherits entire estate tax free

Both spouses get the exact same amount of money- regardless of children. Neither spouse has any obligation to use that money for children or share that money with children.

Other 'marriage benefits'? Visitation rights? Again- unrelated to children. Able to sign up for company medical benefits- again unrelated to children.

 

[Syriusly]

And apparently you like mother son sex?????

I think I've posted, what, five times now that I object to all forms of incest.

Sure Pop...that must be why you're arguing so stridently for it in thread after thread.

Good luck with your pet issue.

Post anywhere that I posted in favor of any incestuous marriage.

Go ahead

Or, admit you're a troll Attacking the messenger, not the message.
.

Post where I anywhere said I am in favor of same sex brother sex

Go ahead

Or admit you're a troll attacking the messenger, not the message.

Did you not see the question marks.

Questions are not statements troll

Damn, you are good at redefining.

Oh so you are just passive aggressive?

 

[jillian]

Darn, it doesn't prohibit them from marrying their mule, either...

Sounds like a Lib paradise!!!!

quiet, loon.

the words consenting adults confuse you?

 

[jillian]

The funny thing about this argument is that Pop keeps trying to pretend that the bans on incestuous marriage are about procreation.

But then there is the issue of exemptions from inheritance tax.

IF the purpose of marriage is procreation- and IF the purpose of spousal benefits are for procreation- then WHY does a spouse inherit their joint estate tax free- but children do not?

IF the benefits for marriage were for children- then why does the spouse get the exemption- and not the children?

Simple really, the spouse is co creator.

Why the spouse- and not the children- if marriage is for procreation?

The spouse is co creator. They together spend the money to raise..........

A future tax payer


You can thank us later

Or they don't.

My 80 year old uncle recently married a woman in her 70's- when he dies, she will likely survive him and be able to inherit his estate tax free- while his children from his previous marriage will have to pay inheritance tax.

Again- if marriage is about 'procreation' why do the benefits accrue to the spouse- not the children?

Spousal support.

The remaining spouse would be responsible to maintain the children. Often times after one spouse dies, the surviving spouse is left with:

A. Minor children
B. Lower income
C. A handicapped child requiring help
D. Spouses elderly health and nursing requirement.

and?

 

[jillian]

And apparently you like mother son sex?????

I think I've posted, what, five times now that I object to all forms of incest.

Sure Pop...that must be why you're arguing so stridently for it in thread after thread.

Good luck with your pet issue.

Post anywhere that I posted in favor of any incestuous marriage.

Go ahead

Or, admit you're a troll Attacking the messenger, not the message.
.

Post where I anywhere said I am in favor of same sex brother sex

Go ahead

Or admit you're a troll attacking the messenger, not the message.

Did you not see the question marks.

Questions are not statements troll

Damn, you are good at redefining.

questions imply things... it's the way passive aggressive wingnuts pretend a "fact" exists when they don't. like "i'm just questioning if gays are pedophiles". or "i'm just questioning whether the president was born here".

and after seeing so many of your winger posts, you really shouldn't be calling anyone else "troll"

 

[Seawytch]

And?

You said- quote:
Prior to same sex marriage being legal it had one of the strictest anti incest marriage laws in the country,

And of course that is false- since their anti-incest marriage law did not include same gender couples, or for that matter even great-grandparents and great grandchildren- unlike States like Wisconsin and California.

Iowa has had 6 years to 'solve this problem'- and has done nothing to change the law.

Apparently Iowa doesn't see the problem that you see.

And?

Apparently you like same sex brother sex????

And apparently you like mother son sex?????

I think I've posted, what, five times now that I object to all forms of incest.

Sure Pop...that must be why you're arguing so stridently for it in thread after thread.

Good luck with your pet issue.

Post anywhere that I posted in favor of any incestuous marriage.

Go ahead

Or, admit you're a troll Attacking the messenger, not the message.

So, any comment on the OP?

I thought not.

You sure have a purdy mouth...you're spending an awful lot of time hunting around the Internet for ways to justify it.

Good luck with your fight.

 

[Pop23]

Spousal support.

The remaining spouse would be responsible to maintain the children. Often times after one spouse dies, the surviving spouse is left with:

A. Minor children
B. Lower income
C. A handicapped child requiring help
D. Spouses elderly health and nursing requirement.

And again- if it was for the benefit of the children- then the children could inherit those funds without any inheritance tax. The handicapped child could inherit the funds tax free for his or her own benefit, as could the minor children.

The reason spouses- not children- are exempt from inheritance tax is because spouses are partners who commit to a lifetime partnership.

Most- if not all- 'marriage benefits' are specifically for the benefit of one or both of the spouses- and have little or nothing to do with children- and do not depend upon having children at all.

What was for the benefit of children?

Marriage, silly syriously, children can't marry.

And Pop does his usual word games.

Most- if not all- 'marriage benefits' are specifically for the benefit of one or both of the spouses- and have little or nothing to do with children- and do not depend upon having children at all

Those benefits don't help raise children?

Do tell

Essentially no.

Couple A has no children- estate of $3,000,000
Couple B has 12 children- estate of $3,000,000

Couple A has 1 spouse die- Surviving spouse inherits entire estate tax free.
Couple B has 1 spouse die- Surviving spouse inherits entire estate tax free

Both spouses get the exact same amount of money- regardless of children. Neither spouse has any obligation to use that money for children or share that money with children.

Other 'marriage benefits'? Visitation rights? Again- unrelated to children. Able to sign up for company medical benefits- again unrelated to children.

AND at no time did either couple spend any resources on raising these children?

You did say essentially no.

THEN YOU SPEAK OF $3,000,000 estate.

You do realize what the federal estate tax minimum is dude.

Not even close. Looks as though it's equal UNDER YOUR EXAMPLE

 

[Pop23]

I think I've posted, what, five times now that I object to all forms of incest.

Sure Pop...that must be why you're arguing so stridently for it in thread after thread.

Good luck with your pet issue.

Post anywhere that I posted in favor of any incestuous marriage.

Go ahead

Or, admit you're a troll Attacking the messenger, not the message.
.

Post where I anywhere said I am in favor of same sex brother sex

Go ahead

Or admit you're a troll attacking the messenger, not the message.

Did you not see the question marks.

Questions are not statements troll

Damn, you are good at redefining.

questions imply things... it's the way passive aggressive wingnuts pretend a "fact" exists when they don't. like "i'm just questioning if gays are pedophiles". or "i'm just questioning whether the president was born here".

and after seeing so many of your winger posts, you really shouldn't be calling anyone else "troll"

Thanks for such an emotional remark

I now know progressives thing the redefine everything.

Thanks again

 

[Pop23]

And?

Apparently you like same sex brother sex????

And apparently you like mother son sex?????

I think I've posted, what, five times now that I object to all forms of incest.

Sure Pop...that must be why you're arguing so stridently for it in thread after thread.

Good luck with your pet issue.

Post anywhere that I posted in favor of any incestuous marriage.

Go ahead

Or, admit you're a troll Attacking the messenger, not the message.

So, any comment on the OP?

I thought not.

You sure have a purdy mouth...you're spending an awful lot of time hunting around the Internet for ways to justify it.

Good luck with your fight.

Sounds like you hear that a lot.

Thanks for sharing

Feel better?

 

[Syriusly]

And again- if it was for the benefit of the children- then the children could inherit those funds without any inheritance tax. The handicapped child could inherit the funds tax free for his or her own benefit, as could the minor children.

The reason spouses- not children- are exempt from inheritance tax is because spouses are partners who commit to a lifetime partnership.

Most- if not all- 'marriage benefits' are specifically for the benefit of one or both of the spouses- and have little or nothing to do with children- and do not depend upon having children at all.

What was for the benefit of children?

Marriage, silly syriously, children can't marry.

And Pop does his usual word games.

Most- if not all- 'marriage benefits' are specifically for the benefit of one or both of the spouses- and have little or nothing to do with children- and do not depend upon having children at all

Those benefits don't help raise children?

Do tell

Essentially no.

Couple A has no children- estate of $3,000,000
Couple B has 12 children- estate of $3,000,000

Couple A has 1 spouse die- Surviving spouse inherits entire estate tax free.
Couple B has 1 spouse die- Surviving spouse inherits entire estate tax free

Both spouses get the exact same amount of money- regardless of children. Neither spouse has any obligation to use that money for children or share that money with children.

Other 'marriage benefits'? Visitation rights? Again- unrelated to children. Able to sign up for company medical benefits- again unrelated to children.

AND at no time did either couple spend any resources on raising these children?

You did say essentially no.

THEN YOU SPEAK OF $3,000,000 estate.

You do realize what the federal estate tax minimum is dude.

Not even close. Looks as though it's equal UNDER YOUR EXAMPLE

LOL.....Pop dancing with words.

Is everyone else enjoying watching Pops meltdown just because same gender couples can marry now in all 50 states as much as I am?

 

[Pop23]

What was for the benefit of children?

Marriage, silly syriously, children can't marry.

And Pop does his usual word games.

Most- if not all- 'marriage benefits' are specifically for the benefit of one or both of the spouses- and have little or nothing to do with children- and do not depend upon having children at all

Those benefits don't help raise children?

Do tell

Essentially no.

Couple A has no children- estate of $3,000,000
Couple B has 12 children- estate of $3,000,000

Couple A has 1 spouse die- Surviving spouse inherits entire estate tax free.
Couple B has 1 spouse die- Surviving spouse inherits entire estate tax free

Both spouses get the exact same amount of money- regardless of children. Neither spouse has any obligation to use that money for children or share that money with children.

Other 'marriage benefits'? Visitation rights? Again- unrelated to children. Able to sign up for company medical benefits- again unrelated to children.

AND at no time did either couple spend any resources on raising these children?

You did say essentially no.

THEN YOU SPEAK OF $3,000,000 estate.

You do realize what the federal estate tax minimum is dude.

Not even close. Looks as though it's equal UNDER YOUR EXAMPLE

LOL.....Pop dancing with words.

Is everyone else enjoying watching Pops meltdown just because same gender couples can marry now in all 50 states as much as I am?

Not sure about that, but I sure am enjoying turning progressives into trolls.

So, if the wife and/or the children get exactly the same amount of cash, you've proved what?

 

[Pop23]

What was for the benefit of children?

Marriage, silly syriously, children can't marry.

And Pop does his usual word games.

Most- if not all- 'marriage benefits' are specifically for the benefit of one or both of the spouses- and have little or nothing to do with children- and do not depend upon having children at all

Those benefits don't help raise children?

Do tell

Essentially no.

Couple A has no children- estate of $3,000,000
Couple B has 12 children- estate of $3,000,000

Couple A has 1 spouse die- Surviving spouse inherits entire estate tax free.
Couple B has 1 spouse die- Surviving spouse inherits entire estate tax free

Both spouses get the exact same amount of money- regardless of children. Neither spouse has any obligation to use that money for children or share that money with children.

Other 'marriage benefits'? Visitation rights? Again- unrelated to children. Able to sign up for company medical benefits- again unrelated to children.

AND at no time did either couple spend any resources on raising these children?

You did say essentially no.

THEN YOU SPEAK OF $3,000,000 estate.

You do realize what the federal estate tax minimum is dude.

Not even close. Looks as though it's equal UNDER YOUR EXAMPLE

LOL.....Pop dancing with words.

Is everyone else enjoying watching Pops meltdown just because same gender couples can marry now in all 50 states as much as I am?

Dancing on the grave of your lame example!

Doin the happy dance

 

[Syriusly]

And Pop does his usual word games.

Most- if not all- 'marriage benefits' are specifically for the benefit of one or both of the spouses- and have little or nothing to do with children- and do not depend upon having children at all

Those benefits don't help raise children?

Do tell

Essentially no.

Couple A has no children- estate of $3,000,000
Couple B has 12 children- estate of $3,000,000

Couple A has 1 spouse die- Surviving spouse inherits entire estate tax free.
Couple B has 1 spouse die- Surviving spouse inherits entire estate tax free

Both spouses get the exact same amount of money- regardless of children. Neither spouse has any obligation to use that money for children or share that money with children.

Other 'marriage benefits'? Visitation rights? Again- unrelated to children. Able to sign up for company medical benefits- again unrelated to children.

AND at no time did either couple spend any resources on raising these children?

You did say essentially no.

THEN YOU SPEAK OF $3,000,000 estate.

You do realize what the federal estate tax minimum is dude.

Not even close. Looks as though it's equal UNDER YOUR EXAMPLE

LOL.....Pop dancing with words.

Is everyone else enjoying watching Pops meltdown just because same gender couples can marry now in all 50 states as much as I am?

Not sure about that, but I sure am enjoying turning progressives into trolls.

So, if the wife and/or the children get exactly the same amount of cash, you've proved what?

The wives get the exact same amount of money- regardless of whether there are any children or not.

 

[Pop23]

Those benefits don't help raise children?

Do tell

Essentially no.

Couple A has no children- estate of $3,000,000
Couple B has 12 children- estate of $3,000,000

Couple A has 1 spouse die- Surviving spouse inherits entire estate tax free.
Couple B has 1 spouse die- Surviving spouse inherits entire estate tax free

Both spouses get the exact same amount of money- regardless of children. Neither spouse has any obligation to use that money for children or share that money with children.

Other 'marriage benefits'? Visitation rights? Again- unrelated to children. Able to sign up for company medical benefits- again unrelated to children.

AND at no time did either couple spend any resources on raising these children?

You did say essentially no.

THEN YOU SPEAK OF $3,000,000 estate.

You do realize what the federal estate tax minimum is dude.

Not even close. Looks as though it's equal UNDER YOUR EXAMPLE

LOL.....Pop dancing with words.

Is everyone else enjoying watching Pops meltdown just because same gender couples can marry now in all 50 states as much as I am?

Not sure about that, but I sure am enjoying turning progressives into trolls.

So, if the wife and/or the children get exactly the same amount of cash, you've proved what?

The wives get the exact same amount of money- regardless of whether there are any children or not.

Ok, soooooo

 

[Skylar]

So why haven't any of your ramifications actually happened? Same sex marriage has been legal in the US for 10 years depending on location. And nothing you've predicated has occurred.

Your record of predicting ramifications of same sex marriage is so far, a perfect failure.

 

[Pop23]

So why haven't any of your ramifications actually happened? Same sex marriage has been legal in the US for 10 years depending on location. And nothing you've predicated has occurred.

Your record of predicting ramifications of same sex marriage is so far, a perfect failure.

They have, it appears that the only exclusions to marriage in Iowa is opposite sex, closely related with the exception of 1st cousins ( yes and great grandparents silly)

 

[Pop23]

Those benefits don't help raise children?

Do tell

Essentially no.

Couple A has no children- estate of $3,000,000
Couple B has 12 children- estate of $3,000,000

Couple A has 1 spouse die- Surviving spouse inherits entire estate tax free.
Couple B has 1 spouse die- Surviving spouse inherits entire estate tax free

Both spouses get the exact same amount of money- regardless of children. Neither spouse has any obligation to use that money for children or share that money with children.

Other 'marriage benefits'? Visitation rights? Again- unrelated to children. Able to sign up for company medical benefits- again unrelated to children.

AND at no time did either couple spend any resources on raising these children?

You did say essentially no.

THEN YOU SPEAK OF $3,000,000 estate.

You do realize what the federal estate tax minimum is dude.

Not even close. Looks as though it's equal UNDER YOUR EXAMPLE

LOL.....Pop dancing with words.

Is everyone else enjoying watching Pops meltdown just because same gender couples can marry now in all 50 states as much as I am?

Not sure about that, but I sure am enjoying turning progressives into trolls.

So, if the wife and/or the children get exactly the same amount of cash, you've proved what?

The wives get the exact same amount of money- regardless of whether there are any children or not.

You do understand that children do not remain children, right? With you being the possible exception that is.

Once a child reaches the age of majority the parents (if they are biological always are male/female by the way) have no longer a financial obligation to them, with the obvious exclusion to those handicapped and Obamacare.

But you prattle on dude, you are chuckle worthy.