IndependentTexan said:income tax isn't an individual freedom...but thats and entirely different subject...but do you see where im getting at with that?
I know this is the standard answer to anyone who objects, but it isn’t the same at all. You are not hurt because you cannot get legally married.Yeah, how dare they want equality! It's just like the black people wanting slavery to end or women wanting the vote. Why can't they just wait until the majority of people in power are ok with that?
You are asking that the definition of a word be changed to support your stance. Marriage is (The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.) If you have the option of Civil Union, why isn’t that good enough for you?Seriously, why are two people getting married a "ridiculous demand".
It doesn’t? Do you have any idea how much the paperwork alone will cost the Taxpayers?It doesn't affect you at all.
So?Stopping gays from getting married doesn't make them go away either. They're going to be around whether they can get married or not.
You are talking about common law “marriage”? I don’t agree with those either.Some states have proposed legislation that would ban civil unions (amusingly, including civil unions between straight people too).
Equality has nothing to do with it. A gay couple will never be a man and a woman, no matter how you spin it.And since when has equality been a demand that's so unreasonable?
I don’t understand why you want it. It isn’t going to make people like you or accept you. It isn’t going to be easier for you. People will have more reason to resent you, not less. I don’t care what you do in the privacy of your home, but I am sick and tired of special interest groups making demands, and insisting that we all just accept it and live with it.I just don't understand your stance against it.
Squawker said:You are talking about common law “marriage”? I don’t agree with those either. Equality has nothing to do with it. A gay couple will never be a man and a woman, no matter how you spin it. I don’t understand why you want it. It isn’t going to make people like you or accept you. It isn’t going to be easier for you. People will have more reason to resent you, not less. I don’t care what you do in the privacy of your home, but I am sick and tired of special interest groups making demands, and insisting that we all just accept it and live with it.
Same thing, you'll need to prove that the discrimination is different. There are medical benefits, financial help, etc that have been shown to you that are hand in hand with marriage, denial to those benefits prove damage. And are you hurt if gays could legally get married? No. It doesn't affect your life one iota. It doesn't affect my life one iota either.Squawker said:I know this is the standard answer to anyone who objects, but it isn’t the same at all. You are not hurt because you cannot get legally married.
Why do you assume that the definition of a word changes? Even so, words change all the time and so this is a lame point.Squawker said:You are asking that the definition of a word be changed to support your stance. Marriage is (The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.) If you have the option of Civil Union, why isn’t that good enough for you?
Wait, are you OK with civil unions that would offer the same benefits or not? I'm confused because if you're saying that civil unions are OK with you, the financial burden would be the EXACT same.Squawker said:It doesn’t? Do you have any idea how much the paperwork alone will cost the Taxpayers? So?.
Why should what gays do in the privacy of their homes affect you at all? Which would include marriage. You would think that they were performing the wedding on your front lawn and consummated it in your bed and then sending you the bill.Squawker said:You are talking about common law “marriage”? I don’t agree with those either. Equality has nothing to do with it. A gay couple will never be a man and a woman, no matter how you spin it. I don’t understand why you want it. It isn’t going to make people like you or accept you. It isn’t going to be easier for you. People will have more reason to resent you, not less. I don’t care what you do in the privacy of your home, but I am sick and tired of special interest groups making demands, and insisting that we all just accept it and live with it.
I said I don't care. I don't want to see gays kissing in public, if that is what you mean.Why should what gays do in the privacy of their homes affect you at all? Which would include marriage. You would think that they were performing the wedding on your front lawn and consummated it in your bed and then sending you the bill.
Every step down this road destroys the family. We shouldn't be encouraging or making it easy for men and women to "choose" homosexuality. You present gays as well adjusted committed members of society who would have all their problems solved, if they could only get married. The reality is far different.Wouldn't it make more sense if you're so protective of the sanctity of marriage to stop legal divorces? That seems to be what's causing the majority of problems in marriage today, and not the increase of legality of people of the same or opposite sex getting married. I'm still not able to wade through your logic except that this is an emotional and not a logical issue for you.
You do realize that I'm gay, that I was in a committed monogamous relationship for 11 years before my partner passed away from cancer. That a lot of issues that could have been easily resolved from us being married became very complicated because there were some legal things we hadn't thought about when he was alive. I'm beginning to see your opinions not as rationales but more as prejudices. I wish you well and hope that someday you'll be comfortable in your skin while others are comfortable in theirs and that's ok. There's no agenda to take over the world.Squawker said:Every step down this road destroys the family. We shouldn't be encouraging or making it easy for men and women to "choose" homosexuality. You present gays as well adjusted committed members of society who would have all their problems solved, if they could only get married. The reality is far different.
You have my sympathy. That doesn’t change the fact that the traditional family is the glue to our society, and deviant sexual practices undermine it.You do realize that I'm gay, that I was in a committed monogamous relationship for 11 years before my partner passed away from cancer. That a lot of issues that could have been easily resolved from us being married became very complicated because there were some legal things we hadn't thought about when he was alive.
I said before, I don’t care what you do in your home. All I ask is you don’t force your lifestyle on me, or ask me to pay for it.I'm beginning to see your opinions not as rationales but more as prejudices. I wish you well and hope that someday you'll be comfortable in your skin while others are comfortable in theirs and that's ok. There's no agenda to take over the world.
You can get married to a woman anytime you want. You have the same right that we all do.I don't like to make a big deal out of me being gay. I don't mention often online because it's not who I am, it's part of what I am tho. It's as big a deal as me being left handed. Or at least it should be. But when my rights to a lot of things that could easily be afforded to me by marriage are denied, I get really uppity.
Well, with that standing, I'm assuming that you've:Squawker said:You have my sympathy. That doesn’t change the fact that the traditional family is the glue to our society, and deviant sexual practices undermine it.
Interesting, you feel it's fine to force your "lifestyle" on me by insisting that I marry a woman, but for some reason, me living my own life is foisting my lifestyle on you. Time for you to take a long look in the mirror and find out whose pushing a lifestyle on whom. Seriously.Squawker said:I said before, I don’t care what you do in your home. All I ask is you don’t force your lifestyle on me, or ask me to pay for it.
You can get married to a woman anytime you want. You have the same right that we all do.
shuamort said:Interesting, you feel it's fine to force your "lifestyle" on me by insisting that I marry a woman, but for some reason, me living my own life is foisting my lifestyle on you.
Vauge, do you support a national amendment against gay marriage, without a vote from every state?vauge said:I still do not see how it is "discrimination". How is requiring a man and a woman getting married "forcing" anything on two people of the same sex? If states allow civil marriage is that not good enough? The gay person is NOT the victim.
How is it harmful to the gay person for them NOT to marry?
We cannot simply allow a conservative president like Bush to use his power against the people's will. We should leave the issue to be decided democratically by each state, since you know as well as I that the people of Texas are profoundly different in thinking than the people of Massachusetts.vauge said:Yes. But, I would be satisfied with a vote from every state as well.
There is no guarantee that my vote would even count. So, while I would support a state by state vote, it would almost be worthless.vauge said:Say Mass passes and Texas does not - should Texas be required to honor it?
That would be the next step. When the gay groups go to the Supreme Court to sue Texas and it could become law that all states would have to recognize the others. Thus, it would make the states vote irrelivant on gay marriage.
First, why would a gay couple want to go to Texas? And you could vote to have your state not recognize it. I don't think a gay couple living in MA really cares if, while vacationing in Florida, they are not legally married. If Texas outlaws gay marriage and civil unions, the gay couples will go somewhere its legal. Why would they ever come back anyway lol?vauge said:I will say it again...
There is no guarantee that my vote would even count. So, while I would support a state by state vote, it would almost be worthless.
The gay community in Dallas is much larger than San Fran.anomaly said:First, why would a gay couple want to go to Texas?
Of course the would. What if one was in an accident and one of them couldn't go to the hospitol like they could in MA? Supreme court time claiming discrimination.I don't think a gay couple living in MA really cares if, while vacationing in Florida, they are not legally married.
Why wouldn't they be able to go to the hospital? For that matter, why are you personally such a homophobe? You seem quite frightened by the gay community, either that or you simply hate them.vauge said:The gay community in Dallas is much larger than San Fran.
Of course the would. What if one was in an accident and one of them couldn't go to the hospitol like they could in MA? Supreme court time claiming discrimination.
anomaly said:Why wouldn't they be able to go to the hospital? For that matter, why are you personally such a homophobe? You seem quite frightened by the gay community, either that or you simply hate them.
Sorry if this looks messy, this was the easist way to keep on track.vauge said:I still do not see how it is "discrimination". How is requiring a man and a woman getting married "forcing" anything on two people of the same sex? If states allow civil marriage is that not good enough? The gay person is NOT the victim.shuamort said:Interesting, you feel it's fine to force your "lifestyle" on me by insisting that I marry a woman, but for some reason, me living my own life is foisting my lifestyle on you.squawker said:I said before, I don’t care what you do in your home. All I ask is you don’t force your lifestyle on me, or ask me to pay for it.
You can get married to a woman anytime you want. You have the same right that we all do.
How is it harmful to the gay person for them NOT to marry?
Vauge, what happened to you was horrible, BUT, let's say the crime was done by a black person. Would that mean that ALL black people were like that, or just that one?vauge said:Homophobe; read other posts from me in this thread. I have mentioned my past several times.
What you describe isn't any different than thousands of heterosexual married or unmarried couples go through, Shuamort. Maine has a large population of gays, and believe me when I say they are not all upstanding citizens who would never bother anyone not interested, or stay with the same partner for more than a few years. They are a huge drain on the taxpayers for medical and other assistance. You see it only from your perspective.I hate using anecdotal evidence to support my claim, but here we go.
Squawker, yes it is different. If I would've been legally married would I or any heterosexual married couple had to have paid the exorbinant taxes from inheriting a house from a deceased partner? NOSquawker said:What you describe isn't any different than thousands of heterosexual married or unmarried couples go through, Shuamort. Maine has a large population of gays, and believe me when I say they are not all upstanding citizens who would never bother anyone not interested, or stay with the same partner for more than a few years. They are a huge drain on the taxpayers for medical and other assistance. You see it only from your perspective.
Why should we, they have the option to get married anytime should they choose and have the volition to do so. Therein lies the difference.vauge said:Shuamort, I am sincerely sorry about your loss.
The same type of event happens to unmarried heterosexual couples as well. Less the "common law" marriage states.
Do we need fix that issue as well?
There is the estate tax, the death tax and the inheritance tax, take your pick. The property could have easily been transferred to yourself had your partner chosen to do it. Don’t get angry with society because your partner failed to get the legal documents.If I would've been legally married would I or any heterosexual married couple had to have paid the exorbinant taxes from inheriting a house from a deceased partner? NO
Please prove your claim that it is different.
SourceOne of the oldest and most common forms of taxation is the taxation of property held by an individual at the time of their death. Such a tax can take the form, among others, of estate tax (a tax levied on the estate before any transfers). An estate tax is a charge upon the decedent's entire estate, regardless of how it is disbursed. An alternative form of death tax is an inheritance tax (a tax levied on individuals receiving property from the estate). Taxes imposed upon death provide incentive to transfer assets before death.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?