Feds extend legal benefits to gay spouses

[Dinosaur]

Asguard: You accuse me of being a liar, which I resent. From my Post #3

If gay couples are allowed to file joint returns, why not allow siblings & parent/child couples to do so? Many sibling & parent/child couples are as strongly bonded as gay partners.

I am not a homophobe, but it irks me a bit that gay partners are being given the same benefits as husband/wife partnerships. The best man at my wedding was (probably still is) gay. In the 1950's I was a habitue of coffee houses in Philadelphia, where I met & became friendly with many gays.

There was a period in my life when I cared for my widowed mother. While I could claim her as a dependent, we could not file a joint income tax, which would have saved me quite a bit of money. There was another period when my late son was in poor health both financially & physically. Similarly, it would have saved a lot if I could have filed a joint return with him.

From your post #4:

isn't it interesting that those who say they are not homophobic ARE the homophobs.

A homophobe does not have gay friends & does not have a gay person as his best man. In calling me a homophobe you are accusing me of lying about the sexual orientation of my best man and about my early experiences & acquaintances.

Tiassa: I feel sorry for you. The dynamics of your family must have been terrible. Were you abused or were your parents merely cold & distant toward their children? You apparently interpret the following from my post #3 as describing an incestuous relationship.

Many sibling & parent/child couples are as strongly bonded as gay partners.

As far as I know, the terms bond & bonding are commonly used to relate to a process which insures that a new born infant will be cared for by parents, especially the mother. Considering the helplessness of a human infant for the first year of its life, we would not have survived if parents did not expend considerably resources to care for it. Evolution developed the strong parent/child bond.

BTW: Your following question is some form or red herring or rhetoric.

What is the legal argument underpinning that proposition?

The above relating to my asking why not allow parent/child couples to file a joint return. We both know there is no legal underpinning for IRS actions not currently legislated into existence.

Since I am already branded a liar, homophobe, and practitioner or advocate of incest, I might as well give you folks some more ammunition by discussing some of my opinions on the subject of sexual orientation.

Since the majority (at least the plurality) of people are heterosexual, other orientations are properly called not normal. Note that I did not say abnormal, which has negative connotations. Homosexuality between consenting adults harms nobody & laws against it should not be allowed (any currently enforceable should be repealed). Pedophiles are criminals who should be prosecuted. Necrophilies are weird, but harmless although there are laws criminalizing them. In deference to the feelings of the deceased’s relatives, I would consider it grounds for revoking an undertaker’s license.

While I sympathize with gay activists, I consider their claim that sexual orientation is genetic to be erroneous.

A gene for exclusive homosexuality would have been eliminated from the gene pool long ago or would be a very rare recessive.

Sexual orientation is a complex behavior which I consider to be the result of some very complex social and/or /family dynamics.

I do not think that sexual orientation is due to a conscious decision. I do not believe that a gay person could have chosen to be otherwise, but would have been heterosexual if raised in a different environment.​

I often wonder if the claim for a genetic basis is a reaction to (defense against) gay bashing. In modern times, it is considered (by the better folks) to be verboten to discriminate against those who are different due to characteristics such as skin color or ethnic background.

 

[Balerion]

If gay couples are allowed to file joint returns, why not allow siblings & parent/child couples to do so? Many sibling & parent/child couples are as strongly bonded as gay partners.

Why on earth would you make that leap? Why, in your mind, is legal incest such a natural step from gay marriage? Do you really see these two things as morally equivalent?

There was a period in my life when I cared for my widowed mother. While I could claim her as a dependent, we could not file a joint income tax, which would have saved me quite a bit of money. There was another period when my late son was in poor health both financially & physically. Similarly, it would have saved a lot if I could have filed a joint return with him.

Again, why is legal unions between blood relatives comparable to gay unions?

Since the majority (at least the plurality) of people are heterosexual, other orientations are properly called not normal. Note that I did not say abnormal, which has negative connotations.

By that logic, being male isn't normal, since the majority of human beings are female.

See how silly that is? Homosexuality is perfectly normal, in that it occurs at a pretty steady rate in nature across many different species.

While I sympathize with gay activists, I consider their claim that sexual orientation is genetic to be erroneous.

Based on what?

A gene for exclusive homosexuality would have been eliminated from the gene pool long ago or would be a very rare recessive.

According to whom?

Sexual orientation is a complex behavior which I consider to be the result of some very complex social and/or /family dynamics.

Based on what?

I do not think that sexual orientation is due to a conscious decision. I do not believe that a gay person could have chosen to be otherwise, but would have been heterosexual if raised in a different environment.

Based on what?

I often wonder if the claim for a genetic basis is a reaction to (defense against) gay bashing. In modern times, it is considered (by the better folks) to be verboten to discriminate against those who are different due to characteristics such as skin color or ethnic background.

I think the genetic claim is based on the fact that it isn't simply a human condition, but extant in nature outside of our species. That, and many gay people claim to have always known they were gay.

 

[Magical Realist]

While I sympathize with gay activists, I consider their claim that sexual orientation is genetic to be erroneous.

A gene for exclusive homosexuality would have been eliminated from the gene pool long ago or would be a very rare recessive.

Sexual orientation is a complex behavior which I consider to be the result of some very complex social and/or /family dynamics.

I do not think that sexual orientation is due to a conscious decision. I do not believe that a gay person could have chosen to be otherwise, but would have been heterosexual if raised in a different environment

"There is no consensus among scientists about why a person develops a particular sexual orientation;[1] however, biologically-based theories for the cause of sexual orientation are favored by experts,[3] which point to genetic factors, the early uterine environment, or both in combination.[4] There is no substantive evidence which suggests parenting or early childhood experiences play a role when it comes to sexual orientation;[4] when it comes to same-sex sexual behavior, shared or familial environment plays no role for men and minor role for women.[5] While some hold the view that homosexual activity is unnatural,[6][7] research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects.[1][8] Most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.[1] There is insufficient evidence to support the use of psychological interventions to change sexual orientation."---http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

How the genes for homosexuality evolved:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617204459.htm

 

[Asguard]

Asguard: You accuse me of being a liar, which I resent. From my Post #3From your post #4:A homophobe does not have gay friends & does not have a gay person as his best man. In calling me a homophobe you are accusing me of lying about the sexual orientation of my best man and about my early experiences & acquaintances.

Tell your friend, I am so sorry, that he has to put up with someone like you who cant accept him for who he is and who he loves. What a wonderful person your friend must be that he can see past your homophobia and see SOME value in you

 

[Bells]

Asguard: You accuse me of being a liar, which I resent. From my Post #3From your post #4:A homophobe does not have gay friends & does not have a gay person as his best man. In calling me a homophobe you are accusing me of lying about the sexual orientation of my best man and about my early experiences & acquaintances.

The issue here, Dinosaur, is that you have applied terms that portray a familial relationship to be akin to a someone incestuous relationship. Which was why you were repeatedly questioned about your wording. There is no legal basis for "sibling couples" - wording it as such.. well.. it kind of sends a message you obviously do not wish to send.

Your applying a homosexual marriage in the context that you did was homophobic. Whether you have gay friends or not, your argument in this thread has been distinctly homophobic.

Tiassa: I feel sorry for you. The dynamics of your family must have been terrible. Were you abused or were your parents merely cold & distant toward their children?

That was exceptionally rude and offensive.

You have described yourself as having a 'couple' like relationship with your close relatives and then complained that you could not get the same benefits for your couple like relationship with close family members that married gay couples have. I really don't think you are in any position to judge others on their upbringing or their relationship with their family members.

You apparently interpret the following from my post #3 as describing an incestuous relationship.As far as I know, the terms bond & bonding are commonly used to relate to a process which insures that a new born infant will be cared for by parents, especially the mother. Considering the helplessness of a human infant for the first year of its life, we would not have survived if parents did not expend considerably resources to care for it. Evolution developed the strong parent/child bond.

This has been explained to you numerous times now.

When you describe your relationship with your parent(s) or sibling or child what one would say about a spouse, then you are inferring incest. When you distinctly compare yourself to married or defacto relationships and apply that comparison to your relationship with your parent(s), sibling or child, then it sends the very message you are complaining about. Surely you cannot be so obtuse as to not understand how and why comparing your relationship with your child to that of a married couple and even using the word "couple" in describing said relationship to your child could lead people to question you about the relationship?

BTW: Your following question is some form or red herring or rhetoric.The above relating to my asking why not allow parent/child couples to file a joint return. We both know there is no legal underpinning for IRS actions not currently legislated into existence.

Because your relationship with your child is not one of a "couple". Parent/child are not couples. You'd only refer to yourselves as such if you were in a defacto/married type of relationship.

Since I am already branded a liar, homophobe, and practitioner or advocate of incest, I might as well give you folks some more ammunition by discussing some of my opinions on the subject of sexual orientation.

Firstly, you have expressed nasty beliefs on homosexuals and homosexuality, not to mention homosexual marriage. You have repeatedly referred to your relationship with your close family members as "couple" - so much so that even in this very post, you referred to it as "parent/child couple" and have repeatedly complained that your "couple" relationship you seem to have with your close relations are not recognised by law in the same way that gay married/defacto couples are. Surely this has not escaped your notice? We have tried to get you to correct your wording more often than not and we have expressly explained how your argument was being interpreted and asked you to not use such terms. And you keep doing it.

Since the majority (at least the plurality) of people are heterosexual, other orientations are properly called not normal.

Rubbish.

As Balerion pointed out, since the majority of the world's population is female, it would mean that to use your argument would render males as being "not normal". And since homosexuality is practiced across most animal species, your argument is inherently false and stems solely from bigotry.

Note that I did not say abnormal, which has negative connotations. Homosexuality between consenting adults harms nobody & laws against it should not be allowed (any currently enforceable should be repealed). Pedophiles are criminals who should be prosecuted. Necrophilies are weird, but harmless although there are laws criminalizing them. In deference to the feelings of the deceased’s relatives, I would consider it grounds for revoking an undertaker’s license.

Err... Okay.. What does all this have to do with this subject?

[/quote]While I sympathize with gay activists, I consider their claim that sexual orientation is genetic to be erroneous.

A gene for exclusive homosexuality would have been eliminated from the gene pool long ago or would be a very rare recessive.

Sexual orientation is a complex behavior which I consider to be the result of some very complex social and/or /family dynamics.

I do not think that sexual orientation is due to a conscious decision. I do not believe that a gay person could have chosen to be otherwise, but would have been heterosexual if raised in a different environment.​

I often wonder if the claim for a genetic basis is a reaction to (defense against) gay bashing. In modern times, it is considered (by the better folks) to be verboten to discriminate against those who are different due to characteristics such as skin color or ethnic background.[/QUOTE]

Your claims have been repeatedly disproven by science. The fact that homosexuality exists in so many animal species also clearly shows it is not new and it is not a choice, nor is it caused by social or family dynamics. Hell, it's even mentioned in the Bible, which means it existed even in the mythical biblical times.

 

[billvon]

If gay couples are allowed to file joint returns, why not allow siblings & parent/child couples to do so?

Sure, why not? Anyone you have a civil union with.

(I think the government should get out of the marriage business anyway. Government should create civil unions. People should get married however and wherever they like.)

I am not a homophobe, but it irks me a bit that gay partners are being given the same benefits as husband/wife partnerships.

?? Why would it "irk" you? What's the difference and how does it harm you?

The best man at my wedding was (probably still is) gay. In the 1950's I was a habitue of coffee houses in Philadelphia, where I met & became friendly with many gays.

Just so you know - "I have a gay friend" is becoming the equivalent of "I'm not racist, I have a black friend!"

There was a period in my life when I cared for my widowed mother. While I could claim her as a dependent, we could not file a joint income tax, which would have saved me quite a bit of money. There was another period when my late son was in poor health both financially & physically. Similarly, it would have saved a lot if I could have filed a joint return with him.

That's fine. You should be able to create a civil union with them and file together.

 

[Dinosaur]

Some Posters seem to be very hung up on any remark which they interpret as gay bashing.

While abnormal implies negative connotations, not normal merely relates to frequency. If a plurality or majority have a characteristic, it is often referred to as normal. If a small percentage (say 5-10%) have a characteristic, it is often referred to as not normal. In that sense of the word, gay is not normal.

There is a lot of difference between the following

I have a gay friend.

The best man at my wedding was a gay friend.
​

A homophobe might make the former remark implying an exception to his/her usual attitude toward gays. I do not think a homophobe would have a gay friend as best man.

BTW: In my twenties (the 1950's), gays were called faggots & often physically attacked. Some gay couples arranged weddings which were not legally recognized. At the time I lived in a 3-story row house owned by my parents who resided in a rural area & used the house in Philadelphia when they went to an Engineers Club function, movie, or play that city. My gay friends asked if that house could be used as a place for their wedding & some partying afterwards.

Since I allowed the use of the house, they suggested that I be honored as best man. When I got married a year or so later, my wife & I thought it would be a cute idea to ask my gay friend to be best man.

BTW: Although the marriage existed legally for circa 30 years, it was obviously a disaster within 5 years. I was friendly with my gay best man for circa ten years. We became separated by distance, not lack of friendship.

For those whose pounced on my use of the term bond/bonding: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_bond

The maternal bond (or motherly bond) is typically the relationship between a mother and her child.

It is a term commonly used by sociologists, anthropologists, & biologists which does not imply or suggest incest.

I apologize (with a minimum of sincerity) to Tiassa for my remarks about her family dynamics. The remarks & minimum of sincerity are a reaction to her calling me silly and an advocate of incest. I think she intended the reamrks to be insulting. I suppose she is ignorant of some uses of the term bond/bonding.

Note that contrary to the opinion of some people, ignorant is not a synonym for stupid. It is not considered an insult to say that an English Major is usually ignorant of mathematics.

 

[barcelonic]

I'd have to disagree with your definitions. 5-10% might be 'uncommon'. In some contexts, such as medical, it may also be 'abnormal'.
'Not normal' is not really a defined expression. Were i to read those words together I would actually think it was a sign of a poor writer, because it should read 'abnormal'.

It is normal to be gay, however, because although a relatively small minority of us may be gay it is not an either/or deal; it is more of a scale, just as with biological gender. Some of us may be more 'gay' than others and yet still be heterosexual.

 

[Bells]

Some Posters seem to be very hung up on any remark which they interpret as gay bashing.

While abnormal implies negative connotations, not normal merely relates to frequency. If a plurality or majority have a characteristic, it is often referred to as normal. If a small percentage (say 5-10%) have a characteristic, it is often referred to as not normal. In that sense of the word, gay is not normal.

There is a lot of difference between the following

I have a gay friend.

The best man at my wedding was a gay friend.
​

A homophobe might make the former remark implying an exception to his/her usual attitude toward gays. I do not think a homophobe would have a gay friend as best man.

BTW: In my twenties (the 1950's), gays were called faggots & often physically attacked. Some gay couples arranged weddings which were not legally recognized. At the time I lived in a 3-story row house owned by my parents who resided in a rural area & used the house in Philadelphia when they went to an Engineers Club function, movie, or play that city. My gay friends asked if that house could be used as a place for their wedding & some partying afterwards.

Since I allowed the use of the house, they suggested that I be honored as best man. When I got married a year or so later, my wife & I thought it would be a cute idea to ask my gay friend to be best man.

BTW: Although the marriage existed legally for circa 30 years, it was obviously a disaster within 5 years. I was friendly with my gay best man for circa ten years. We became separated by distance, not lack of friendship.

For those whose pounced on my use of the term bond/bonding: From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_bondIt is a term commonly used by sociologists, anthropologists, & biologists which does not imply or suggest incest.

I apologize (with a minimum of sincerity) to Tiassa for my remarks about her family dynamics. The remarks & minimum of sincerity are a reaction to her calling me silly and an advocate of incest. I think she intended the reamrks to be insulting. I suppose she is ignorant of some uses of the term bond/bonding.

Note that contrary to the opinion of some people, ignorant is not a synonym for stupid. It is not considered an insult to say that an English Major is usually ignorant of mathematics.

Had you used the word bond, no one would have said anything.

However you persistently used the word "couple" and "coupling" in describing your familial relationships when suggesting you should receive the same benefits as married homosexuals.., which is why we have spent so much time trying to explain to you why it sounded the way it did.

 

[billvon]

There is a lot of difference between the following

I have a gay friend.

The best man at my wedding was a gay friend.
​

A homophobe might make the former remark implying an exception to his/her usual attitude toward gays. I do not think a homophobe would have a gay friend as best man.

That's somewhat beside the point. Historically racists (for example, people who objected to interracial marriages since blacks were less evolved than whites) used the "but I have black friends! Why, a black man was even the guest of honor at an event I went to!" angle to try to make the claim that having a black friend immunized one from claims of racism.

Your son could be gay. The best man at your wedding could be gay. Your best friend could be gay. You could work with gay guys every day. None of that means you are not a homophobe. None of that means you ARE a homophobe, either. It's beside the point. However, long and impassioned descriptions of how you are so close to this or that gay person, and how that proves you could not possibly be homophobic, eventually starts to have the opposite effect - partly because of a long history of people doing that disingenuously.

 

[Dinosaur]

It seems quite obvious that the POV of posters at this thread is that that only gay folks are not homophobes.

 

[Repo Man]

It seems quite obvious that the POV of posters at this thread is that that only gay folks are not homophobes.

Some gay folks are trans phobic. We all have our prejudices.

 

[Tiassa]

Vinegar

Vinegar

It seems quite obvious that the POV of posters at this thread is that that only gay folks are not homophobes.

It seems quite obvious that you are offering either sour grapes or sheer ignorance.

Consider the 2012 election. In Washington, with a population of 6.9 million, statistics suggest that a little under 700,000 gay people live in the state.

Gay marriage received 1,659,588 votes in our state, suggesting at least 900,000 people who are not gay voted in favor of civil rights equality for homosexuals.

One would think the difference is obvious, but then, here you are to prove that presumption wrong.