Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

[WorldWatcher]

Re-read the threads and the posts advocating gay marriage and their justification for it.

No need to, my statement is correct. The case before the SCOTUS (Windsor v. United States) is not about eliminating the Estate Tax. The case is about a legally married woman who was required to pay an Estate Tax that other legally married couples are not required to pay when a legal spouse dies.

That is not about making a special exemption for gay couples, that is not about eliminating the Estate Tax.

That is about the same rules that apply to some legally married couples being applied to other legally married couples.


>>>>

What is the difference between the red claims?

The difference is in the function of the law.

The claim was they gays were asking to be exempt from the Estate Tax. No they weren't, there was not legal challenge to the Estate Tax based on sexual orientation. Windsor v. United States (the DOMA case before SCOTUS) is not about saying gays should be exempt form the Estate Tax and that the tax should apply only to straights.

Windsor v. United States is about a legally married woman (both in the location of origination of the marriage and in terms of state of residence) whose spouse died and then was charge Estate Tax when a different-sex spouse in the exact same situation WOULD NOT have been charged the Estate Tax.

It's not about "exempting gays from the Estate Tax", it's about legally Civilly Married spouses being treated the same irregardless of gender.


>>>>

 

[kaz]

The claim was they gays were asking to be exempt from the Estate Tax. No they weren't, there was not legal challenge to the Estate Tax based on sexual orientation. Windsor v. United States (the DOMA case before SCOTUS) is not about saying gays should be exempt form the Estate Tax and that the tax should apply only to straights.

No one that I know of wants gay couples to be exempt from the estate tax.

No, the claim was not that there was no legal challenge, the claim was "no one you know of." If you read the threads on this site, you will come over quote after quote of the death tax as being an argument for gay marriage. Straight couples don't have to pay death taxes, gay couples shouldn't either.

A better answer is no one should pay a tax for dying.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The claim was they gays were asking to be exempt from the Estate Tax. No they weren't, there was not legal challenge to the Estate Tax based on sexual orientation. Windsor v. United States (the DOMA case before SCOTUS) is not about saying gays should be exempt form the Estate Tax and that the tax should apply only to straights.

No one that I know of wants gay couples to be exempt from the estate tax.

No, the claim was not that there was no legal challenge, the claim was "no one you know of." If you read the threads on this site, you will come over quote after quote of the death tax as being an argument for gay marriage. Straight couples don't have to pay death taxes, gay couples shouldn't either.

A better answer is no one should pay a tax for dying.

Both straight and gay couples pay the death tax equally. Just because someone is in a "couple" is not the legal standard. Civil Marriage is the standard.

However different-sex Civilly Married couples have a huge exemption (over $5,000,000) before the tax kicks in. Same-sex Civilly Married couples do not receive the same exemption.

So again the basis of the challenge is not to exempt Gays from the tax while having it paid by straights, the challenge is that "straight married couples" get the exemption while "gay married couples" do not. It is not about taking the exemption away from legally married different-sex couples.


>>>>

 

[Pop23]

Actually no deflection from me at all. You were asked your question first by WorldWatcher. Once you have answered that question, then and only then will your questions be answered.

You are again deflecting away from answering that same first question by going on the counter-attack. doesn't work like that. Why? simply because if allowed to continue with your deflections, you will never actually answer the questions posed to you. you have given ample evidence of that very ploy yourself with your continuous array of red herrings, straw men, errors of fact and moving the goal posts. Although i am new here, i have yet to see you honestly and point blank answer a question posed to you.

I'll make you a deal, you answer, without evasion, WorldWatcher's question, then i will answer yours. That is only fair as his question was posed first.

Ok, won't take too much of your time then. Incest.

Now, go for it.

Just pointing out "incest" is not an answer to the question that I had asked.

Between law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a same-sex couple and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a different-sex couple?

<<SNIP>>

The real question is "Is there a compelling government interest in treating like situated groups (see above) differently to warrant upholding invidious and capricious laws which target a select group?"​

"Non-related" excludes incest because incest is illegal, while being a homosexual is not.


>>>>

Let's, for the sake of discussion say that I agree with you. That I can't find a reason, that meets your qualifications. In fact let's say that the SCOTUS just handed down a sweeping ruling that states that same gender marriage shall be legal now in all 50 states. Your side not only won the battle, you won the war.

Now, please answer my questions.

1. What compelling government interest is there in denying a pair of opposite gender siblings a state issued marriage certificate?

2. What compelling government interest is there in denying a pair os same gender siblings a state issued marriage certificate?

Edited to add, the siblings are all of legal age....

 

[Pop23]

Ok, won't take too much of your time then. Incest.

Now, go for it.

You evaded again, pop. You're not a very honest man, are you? for shame, young man. go to your room, mister.

As i said, you answer the first question, then you pose your question. Everytime you guys deflect and evade, it gives more and more evidence that indicates that you realize you can't answer the question without losing.

There is no compelling State interest for disallowing same sex marriage because they can't reproduce. Because the rule is not applied consistently because infertile couples, and couples that won't reproduce are allowed to marry even though they won't or can't reproduce.

Also, as has been mentioned a few times already, and what you are clearly ignoring (for obvious reasons) is that gay couples can reproduce through the use of in vitro and thru surrogates just like some heterosexual couples do. Hence they have fulfilled your "creating population" criteria.

I give you one more chance to answer with honesty. If you duck, dodge, deflect, evade, elude, and avoid yet again; you will clearly be just another deceitful dude who can't justify why he thinks gays shouldn't marry. and who is just full of camel caca.

What is the compelling government interest in disallowing same sex couples to marry but allowing infertile heterosexual couples to marry?

and as a penalty for being so dishonest and so lacking in credibility and trustworthiness, you can then show us exactly where it says a couple must be able to, and plan to reproduce after they get married.

Show me the law.

Balls in your court, bruh.

I answered the question, you just don't like the answer.

Second, did I ever (your turn to be honest) say that a same gender couple could not use invitro to have a child? I have said that the components of the two, within the couple cannot combine to create a child. If I am wrong please point that out. Be honest now.......

Anyone else hear the crickets chirping.?

Now it's your turn to absorb a penalty...show me where I ever made the claim that makes procreation a prerequisite to marriage... here's a clue, I don't think it should be, I don't take such a limited, one size fits all view of the world. I know that's a foreign concept to you.

Maybe I'm not a "you guys"

Your turn "dude"

 

[WorldWatcher]

Ok, won't take too much of your time then. Incest.

Now, go for it.

Just pointing out "incest" is not an answer to the question that I had asked.

Between law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a same-sex couple and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a different-sex couple?

<<SNIP>>

The real question is "Is there a compelling government interest in treating like situated groups (see above) differently to warrant upholding invidious and capricious laws which target a select group?"​

"Non-related" excludes incest because incest is illegal, while being a homosexual is not.


>>>>

Let's, for the sake of discussion say that I agree with you. That I can't find a reason, that meets your qualifications. In fact let's say that the SCOTUS just handed down a sweeping ruling that states that same gender marriage shall be legal now in all 50 states. Your side not only won the battle, you won the war.

Now, please answer my questions.

1. What compelling government interest is there in denying a pair of opposite gender siblings a state issued marriage certificate?

2. What compelling government interest is there in denying a pair os same gender siblings a state issued marriage certificate?

Edited to add, the siblings are all of legal age....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7037391-post436.html


Already answered, from my perspective about 90 posts ago.

We've debated Same-sex Civil Marriage on a serious basis since the 1993 Hawaii Case, the case that resulted in DOMA being passed in 1996. The first state started Civil Union's (Vermont) in 2000 and the first state to have Same-sex Civil Marriage (Massachusetts) started in 2004. So with some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples for over a dozen years there really hasn't been any big issues as a function of Civil Union/Marriage laws. Now there are problems, but those problems exist because of Public Accommodation laws, not Civil Marriage laws. For example, the oft cited case of the photographer in New Mexico? That wasn't a problem with Civil Marriage laws as there is no Civil Marriage for same-sex couples in New Mexico, the issue was Public Accommodation laws which exist even if there is no Civil Marriage.

Let society debate close-family marriage, it can stand or fall on it's own merrits. But one thing we do know, such a future discussion is not a basis for denying non-related same-sex couples now.


>>>>

 

[Flaylo]

Comparing homosexual behavior to hair color? Are you fuckers shitting me? lol

 

[Seawytch]

Comparing homosexual behavior to hair color? Are you fuckers shitting me? lol

Orientation, not behaviors.

 

[Pop23]

Just pointing out "incest" is not an answer to the question that I had asked.

Between law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a same-sex couple and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a different-sex couple?

<<SNIP>>

The real question is "Is there a compelling government interest in treating like situated groups (see above) differently to warrant upholding invidious and capricious laws which target a select group?"​

"Non-related" excludes incest because incest is illegal, while being a homosexual is not.


>>>>

Let's, for the sake of discussion say that I agree with you. That I can't find a reason, that meets your qualifications. In fact let's say that the SCOTUS just handed down a sweeping ruling that states that same gender marriage shall be legal now in all 50 states. Your side not only won the battle, you won the war.

Now, please answer my questions.

1. What compelling government interest is there in denying a pair of opposite gender siblings a state issued marriage certificate?

2. What compelling government interest is there in denying a pair os same gender siblings a state issued marriage certificate?

Edited to add, the siblings are all of legal age....

http://www.usmessageboard.com/7037391-post436.html


Already answered, from my perspective about 90 posts ago.

We've debated Same-sex Civil Marriage on a serious basis since the 1993 Hawaii Case, the case that resulted in DOMA being passed in 1996. The first state started Civil Union's (Vermont) in 2000 and the first state to have Same-sex Civil Marriage (Massachusetts) started in 2004. So with some form of legal recognition for same-sex couples for over a dozen years there really hasn't been any big issues as a function of Civil Union/Marriage laws. Now there are problems, but those problems exist because of Public Accommodation laws, not Civil Marriage laws. For example, the oft cited case of the photographer in New Mexico? That wasn't a problem with Civil Marriage laws as there is no Civil Marriage for same-sex couples in New Mexico, the issue was Public Accommodation laws which exist even if there is no Civil Marriage.

Let society debate close-family marriage, it can stand or fall on it's own merrits. But one thing we do know, such a future discussion is not a basis for denying non-related same-sex couples now.


>>>>

I may have mis read your post. (90 posts ago) The last paragraph seems to me to imply that the two sisters in the scenario should be allowed to marry so that one could more easily care for the other. If that was not your intent, then my apology.

My point is that the laws pertaining to incest were established long before anyone took same gender marriage serious. Those laws were established to protect a child that is born from a marriage of closely related partners from severe genetic abnormalities.

With a same gender set of siblings the problem does not exist (please note I use siblings in my example because parent/child has a completely different set of problems along with the genetic problem)

There is no real reason, if same gender marriage becomes law that two same gender siblings could not unite as there is no chance of the genetic abnormalities existing. I could not see a compelling government interest in denying them the right to Marry.

At the same time, an opposite gender set of siblings that simply want the same relationship that the same gender couple could obtain, and the state could refuse because of the possibility that a child with genetic abnormalities might occur.

In a way It's rather interesting the reversal of roles.

Of course it's not as though the law against incest would change at the same time the prohibition against closely related individuals would change. But unless there is a compelling government interest in keeping same gender siblings from Marriage, then the same gender marriage relationship actually becomes superior to the opposite gender marriage.

I simply continue to find additional differences and fewer commonalities.

 

[Flaylo]

Comparing homosexual behavior to hair color? Are you fuckers shitting me? lol

Orientation, not behaviors.

Homosexuality is defined by homosexual behavior and its fucking retarded to compare homosexuality to having red hair color, of all the things to come up with for comparison this has got to be the fucking dumbest.

 

[Noomi]

Comparing homosexual behavior to hair color? Are you fuckers shitting me? lol

Orientation, not behaviors.

Homosexuality is defined by homosexual behavior and its fucking retarded to compare homosexuality to having red hair color, of all the things to come up with for comparison this has got to be the fucking dumbest.

People cannot help being born with red hair, and they can't help being born homosexual, either.

 

[ABikerSailor]

marriage ain't some shit to play with, thats the problem with man today, being brainwashed by bullshit like "You can be whatever you want to be and do anything you want" well without knowledge and God leading the way you cannot, leave what is God's to God and give those homosexuals those tax and property rights, but I know they wouldn't just want that, they want their homosexuality to be legitamitzed and accepted, laws can't force that.

The fact that gay people wish to marry the person they love is not “playing with” anything. Are you making the claim that gays are incapable of love? It is impossible to love someone romantically who is the same sex? Their relationships are not valid?

Brainwashed by bullshit? So you’re claiming that Americans are not free to be whatever they want to be, and do whatever they want to do as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others?

I agree people need knowledge.

But religion and belief in gods are not necessary for everyone. I have no beef with your religious beliefs; you are free to believe in a god and to worship as you choose. Would you allow me and others the same courtesy and respect to believe that there are no gods?

If marriage belongs to a god, and I am an atheist, is my heterosexual marriage invalid in your eyes? Religion had not a single thing to do with my wedding or my marriage.

You may decide not to answer that, so I will answer it for you just in case. Civil marriage does not require religious belief. Marriage exists and has existed separate from Christianity, separate from Judaism, separate from Islam, and separate from other religions for millennia. Neither religion nor gods invented it. Mankind did.

I don’t want to give gods anything; nor should I have to.

As for your fallacious projection assuming you know what gays want; how do you know? How many gays told you they want their homosexuality to be legitimized and accepted? Or are you making an assumption based solely upon your prejudices and biases?

Try facts and logic instead.

Let me ask you; if they have the full rights and the word marriage; what tangible effect will that have on your life, sir? What rights of yours are being infringed upon, specifically?

Love cannot be legislated stop it with that compelling interest bullshit, and to be specific, all people have the right to fucking marriage, what I am against is people seeking to change marriage to suit whatever situation you're in. High school diplomas are only issued when you finish and graduate high school, a person who has a GED and wants the definition of high school diploma changed to suit them is wrong just like gays are wrong, we can't go around redefining the fucking law to suit people's preferences, what next, bestiality and siblings who want fuck each other?

Really? You're gonna go with that?

So..................basically, what you're saying is that people who are heterosexual and want to live with one another qualify for a "high school diploma" because they are good enough to be opposite sex, yet.....................

Those who love each other, yet are the same gender only qualify for the GED because they are of the same sex?

You're even stupider than Gomert from Texas. He went on some long diatribe that went from having 10 rounds in a gun, to polygamy, to homosexual marriage, to bestiality.

You fuckers on the right REALLY need to quit watching FAUX Nooze.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Comparing homosexual behavior to hair color? Are you fuckers shitting me? lol

Orientation, not behaviors.

Homosexuality is defined by homosexual behavior and its fucking retarded to compare homosexuality to having red hair color, of all the things to come up with for comparison this has got to be the fucking dumbest.

Scientists in Sweden have proven that the brains of gays are different from the brains of straights.

Now................since you are born with the body you are given, and can't really control the way your genes are going to build your body (i.e., giving you red hair), do you really think that you're going to be able to control the structure of your brain?

Scientists at the Karolinska Institute studied brain scans of 90 gay and straight men and women, and found that the size of the two symmetrical halves of the brains of gay men more closely resembled those of straight women than they did straight men. In heterosexual women, the two halves of the brain are more or less the same size. In heterosexual men, the right hemisphere is slightly larger. Scans of the brains of gay men in the study, however, showed that their hemispheres were relatively symmetrical, like those of straight women, while the brains of homosexual women were asymmetrical like those of straight men. The number of nerves connecting the two sides of the brains of gay men were also more like the number in heterosexual women than in straight men.

Just what these brain differences mean is still not clear. Ever since 1991, when Simon LeVay first documented differences in the hypothalamus of gay and straight men, researchers have been struggling to understand what causes these differences to occur. Until now, the brain regions that scientists have come to believe play a role in sexual orientation have been related to either reproduction or sexuality. The Swedish study, however, is the first to find differences in parts of the brain not normally involved in reproduction — the denser network of nerve connections, for example, was found in the amygdala, known as the emotional center of the brain. "The big question has always been, if the brains of gay men are different, or feminized, as earlier research suggests," says Dr. Eric Vilain, professor of human genetics at University of California Los Angeles, "then is it just limited to sexual preference or are there other regions that are gender atypical in gay males? For the first time, in this study it looks like there are regions of the brain not directly involved in sexuality that seem to be feminized in gay males."

Vilain, who studies the genetic factors behind sexuality and sexual orientation, notes that it may turn out that the brains of gay men possess only some 'feminized' structures, while retaining some masculine ones, and this is reflected in how they act on their sexuality. "We know from studies that men, regardless of their sexual orientation, retain masculine characteristics when it comes to their sexual behavior," he says. Both gay and straight men, for example, tend to prefer younger partners, in contrast to women, who gravitate toward older partners. Most men are also more likely than women to engage in casual sex, and to be aroused by visual stimuli. "So I expect that some regions of the brain will remain masculine even in gay men," says Vilain. For something as complex as sexual orientation, it's no surprise that everything from genes to gender to environment may play a role in ultimately determining your perfect partner.


Read more: What the Gay Brain Looks Like - TIME

 

[Flaylo]

The fact that gay people wish to marry the person they love is not “playing with” anything. Are you making the claim that gays are incapable of love? It is impossible to love someone romantically who is the same sex? Their relationships are not valid?

Brainwashed by bullshit? So you’re claiming that Americans are not free to be whatever they want to be, and do whatever they want to do as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others?

I agree people need knowledge.

But religion and belief in gods are not necessary for everyone. I have no beef with your religious beliefs; you are free to believe in a god and to worship as you choose. Would you allow me and others the same courtesy and respect to believe that there are no gods?

If marriage belongs to a god, and I am an atheist, is my heterosexual marriage invalid in your eyes? Religion had not a single thing to do with my wedding or my marriage.

You may decide not to answer that, so I will answer it for you just in case. Civil marriage does not require religious belief. Marriage exists and has existed separate from Christianity, separate from Judaism, separate from Islam, and separate from other religions for millennia. Neither religion nor gods invented it. Mankind did.

I don’t want to give gods anything; nor should I have to.

As for your fallacious projection assuming you know what gays want; how do you know? How many gays told you they want their homosexuality to be legitimized and accepted? Or are you making an assumption based solely upon your prejudices and biases?

Try facts and logic instead.

Let me ask you; if they have the full rights and the word marriage; what tangible effect will that have on your life, sir? What rights of yours are being infringed upon, specifically?

Love cannot be legislated stop it with that compelling interest bullshit, and to be specific, all people have the right to fucking marriage, what I am against is people seeking to change marriage to suit whatever situation you're in. High school diplomas are only issued when you finish and graduate high school, a person who has a GED and wants the definition of high school diploma changed to suit them is wrong just like gays are wrong, we can't go around redefining the fucking law to suit people's preferences, what next, bestiality and siblings who want fuck each other?

Really? You're gonna go with that?

So..................basically, what you're saying is that people who are heterosexual and want to live with one another qualify for a "high school diploma" because they are good enough to be opposite sex, yet.....................

Those who love each other, yet are the same gender only qualify for the GED because they are of the same sex?

You're even stupider than Gomert from Texas. He went on some long diatribe that went from having 10 rounds in a gun, to polygamy, to homosexual marriage, to bestiality.

You fuckers on the right REALLY need to quit watching FAUX Nooze.

I'm not a rightwinger squid, and my analogy was simple, people with GEds can't argue to amend the high school diplomas to include GEDs, if you want a HS diploma go to high school to get one, abide by the standard, don't fucking ask to change something you're not willing to do.

 

[expatriate]

why can't righties let the churches themselves decide?

Baptists don't want to sanction gay marriage? they don't have to. Congregationalists have no problem performing gay marriages? Let them.

Get the government out of the holy matrimony business and get the church out of the civil unions/contracts business.

 

[Jarhead]

why can't righties let the churches themselves decide?

Baptists don't want to sanction gay marriage? they don't have to. Congregationalists have no problem performing gay marriages? Let them.

Get the government out of the holy matrimony business and get the church out of the civil unions/contracts business.

Its not just righties.

And not all righties, by the way. Some of us have absolutyely no probnlem with gay mariage as defined no different than heterosexual marriage.

But its not just righties.

Legislators dont want it. Those on the left want a federal law and those on the right want it to not be allowed for any reason.

Yours is a solution...and the best one out there. But the legislators want federal government control.

 

[Pop23]

Just pointing out "incest" is not an answer to the question that I had asked.

Between law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a same-sex couple and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a different-sex couple?

<<SNIP>>

The real question is "Is there a compelling government interest in treating like situated groups (see above) differently to warrant upholding invidious and capricious laws which target a select group?"​

"Non-related" excludes incest because incest is illegal, while being a homosexual is not.


>>>>

Kind of uncomfortable isn't it to think that we have to treat all within the group as equal. The government would have a tough time finding a compelling state interest in not allowing them a state issued license to same sex siblings, i can't think an argument that would work to deny them, but the opposite sex siblings would be denied, which there are good valid reasoning behind?

Separate but equal?

You still failed to answer the question. Incest has nothing to do with same sex marriage of non-familial adults.

As was pointed out to you, incestuous sex is illegal, homosexual sex is not. So incestuous sex is a compelling state interest for disallowing siblings from marrying as it is reasonable to assume that sexual relations will occur with the marriage.

And you seem to be making the assumption that same sex siblings having sex ual intercourse would not be incestuous sex, but it is.

However, you still have not answered the question:

What is the compelling state interest for disallowing same sex marriage of non-familial adults?

Ok I think your gonna like this.

The answer to World Watchers question is and always will be that the compelling government interest is.......(insert drumroll here)

PROCREATION

Now before you respond that it can't be, please remember that the ADA covers people with disabilities (unless you claim homosexuality is a disability).

I'll await your reply, but I ain't counting on it.

Oops

 

[WorldWatcher]

Kind of uncomfortable isn't it to think that we have to treat all within the group as equal. The government would have a tough time finding a compelling state interest in not allowing them a state issued license to same sex siblings, i can't think an argument that would work to deny them, but the opposite sex siblings would be denied, which there are good valid reasoning behind?

Separate but equal?

You still failed to answer the question. Incest has nothing to do with same sex marriage of non-familial adults.

As was pointed out to you, incestuous sex is illegal, homosexual sex is not. So incestuous sex is a compelling state interest for disallowing siblings from marrying as it is reasonable to assume that sexual relations will occur with the marriage.

And you seem to be making the assumption that same sex siblings having sex ual intercourse would not be incestuous sex, but it is.

However, you still have not answered the question:

What is the compelling state interest for disallowing same sex marriage of non-familial adults?

Ok I think your gonna like this.

The answer to World Watchers question is and always will be that the compelling government interest is.......(insert drumroll here)

PROCREATION

Between law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a same-sex couple and law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, non-related, infertile, consenting adults in a different-sex couple?

<<SNIP>>

The real question is "Is there a compelling government interest in treating like situated groups (see above) differently to warrant upholding invidious and capricious laws which target a select group?"​

PROCREATION doesn't answer the question because the question is about infertile couples that are allowed to Civilly Marry.

So the question is what is the government compelling interest in denying Civil Marriage to one group that can't procreate while allowing another group who can't procreate if the compelling government interest is procreation. If that were the case then nether group would be allowed to Civilly Marry.

In addition there are laws that specifically require that the couple can't procreate before being allowed to Civilly Marry.

So the "procreation" argument makes no sense.

Now before you respond that it can't be, please remember that the ADA covers people with disabilities (unless you claim homosexuality is a disability).

What does the American's with Disabilities Act have to do with the subject?


>>>>

 

[ima]

Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

Why can't straight people just stop thinking about gays and be done with it?

 

[High_Gravity]

Why can't gays accept civil unions and just be done with it?

Why can't straight people just stop thinking about gays and be done with it?

Good post.