Another angle for why gay marriage might become a stumbling block for Team Bush

[glenn1]

Today is April 15th. And dollars to doughnuts I bet some of the gays who were married in San Francisco et al will attempt to claim joint filling status and claim the tax benefits of married couples. Will the Bush administration have the stones to vigorously fight this in Tax Court? Seems like a no-win situation for the Bush administration either way....

 

[steveeast112]

I think that this gay marriage thing needs to be put to rest by providing them CHOICE. Its just like women's suffrage or civil rights. Its an inherent right.

 

[girlgeek]

The IRS has seven years to challenge those filings. By then, we'll have some Supreme Court decisions on the issue, so we'll know whether they are legal marriages or not.

Bush has bigger fish to fry, IMHO.

 

[CrazyHelloDeli]

I hope people can wake up and realize how much of a non-issue this is. Of all the important issues facing this country and the world its sickening how many fvcktards are going to be basing their vote on weather or not Bush or Kerry support Gay marriage. As someone on this board said, "This gay sh!t is so annoying".

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: steveeast112
I think that this gay marriage thing needs to be put to rest by providing them CHOICE. Its just like women's suffrage or civil rights. Its an inherent right.

Does 'school choice' also belong on your list, or is that not an "inhernet right?"

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: steveeast112
I think that this gay marriage thing needs to be put to rest by providing them CHOICE. Its just like women's suffrage or civil rights. Its an inherent right.

Does 'school choice' also belong on your list, or is that not an "inhernet right?"

you have the right to Chose another School By.......


MOVING

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: steveeast112
I think that this gay marriage thing needs to be put to rest by providing them CHOICE. Its just like women's suffrage or civil rights. Its an inherent right.

Does 'school choice' also belong on your list, or is that not an "inhernet right?"

you have the right to Chose another School By.......


MOVING

Really...such a novel idea, especially for the single mother who is making $6.00/hour and is reliant on public transportation that is often found in inner cities. Or, instead, are you saying school choice is simply a function of income and that exercising such choice is only afforded to those who can afford it...is that your form of equity, sir? In layman?s terms, school choice is not an ?inherent right,? like you presuppose gay marriage to be (and abortion, for that matter), but instead, school choice is only for those who can afford it.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Moreover, extending your argument to its logical absurdity (which isn't a far trip), "you have the right to gay marriage by......."


MOVING TO A COUNTY THAT ALLOWS GAY MARRIAGE.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: steveeast112
I think that this gay marriage thing needs to be put to rest by providing them CHOICE. Its just like women's suffrage or civil rights. Its an inherent right.

Does 'school choice' also belong on your list, or is that not an "inhernet right?"

you have the right to Chose another School By.......


MOVING

Really...such a novel idea, especially for the single mother who is making $6.00/hour and is reliant on public transportation that is often found in inner cities. Or, instead, are you saying school choice is simply a function of income and that exercising such choice is only afforded to those who can afford it...is that your form of equity, sir? In layman?s terms, school choice is not an ?inherent right,? like you presuppose gay marriage to be (and abortion, for that matter), but instead, school choice is only for those who can afford it.

I never said gay marriage or Abortion? were inherent rights. In fact i never mention either of them. But I enjoy you calling My simple Statement I made a "logical absurdity " by bringing up abortion and Gay marriage. I said If you dont like Your Public School district, MOVE. Its That simple. Move, Or Pay for Private.

 

[steveeast112]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Moreover, extending your argument to its logical absurdity (which isn't a far trip), "you have the right to gay marriage by......."


MOVING TO A COUNTY THAT ALLOWS GAY MARRIAGE.

Umm...thats a problem because there are like 3 counties in the US that allow gay marriage. More offer civil unions, but I think that gays want something more. They want to feel and be perceived like a regular family, not be ridiculed. Let them have their choice. You have yours with everything else, and they are people too.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: steveeast112

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Moreover, extending your argument to its logical absurdity (which isn't a far trip), "you have the right to gay marriage by......."


MOVING TO A COUNTY THAT ALLOWS GAY MARRIAGE.

Umm...thats a problem because there are like 3 counties in the US that allow gay marriage. More offer civil unions, but I think that gays want something more. They want to feel and be perceived like a regular family, not be ridiculed. Let them have their choice. You have yours with everything else, and they are people too.

That is something Galt Cant Understand. Everyone elses Choices MUST be the Same as His.

No Big Surprise. Not Much Room in that Head For Origional Thought With all the Space those RNC talking points are taking Up.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: steveeast112

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
Moreover, extending your argument to its logical absurdity (which isn't a far trip), "you have the right to gay marriage by......."


MOVING TO A COUNTY THAT ALLOWS GAY MARRIAGE.

Umm...thats a problem because there are like 3 counties in the US that allow gay marriage. More offer civil unions, but I think that gays want something more. They want to feel and be perceived like a regular family, not be ridiculed. Let them have their choice. You have yours with everything else, and they are people too.

Well, smashy says too bad--MOVE!

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: girlgeek
The IRS has seven years to challenge those filings. By then, we'll have some Supreme Court decisions on the issue, so we'll know whether they are legal marriages or not.

Bush has bigger fish to fry, IMHO.

So why did Bush put this issue along with steroids-use on the spotlight in the first place?

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: tallest1

Originally posted by: girlgeek
The IRS has seven years to challenge those filings. By then, we'll have some Supreme Court decisions on the issue, so we'll know whether they are legal marriages or not.

Bush has bigger fish to fry, IMHO.

So why did Bush put this issue along with steroids-use on the spotlight in the first place?

Mars B!tches

 

Gay marrage is just wrong.
Its not a lifestyle, its an illness.
Sex between two men is not natural.
What a great way to sread dease, anal sex between two men.
And we want to make this legal.
Why, so a simple minority can get insurance and spoucal benifets.
I dont dislike gays, I know many, great people, hard working, caring.

What about the majority who will have to pay to cover the losses on medicare for HIV related costs.

Who cares, I care, and it sound like GWB cares!
I will vote for GWB on this issue alone!

Go team Bush!

john
Stop gay Marrage once and for all!

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: jdhoeffken
Gay marrage is just wrong.
Its not a lifestyle, its an illness.
Sex between two men is not natural.
What a great way to sread dease, anal sex between two men.
And we want to make this legal.
Why, so a simple minority can get insurance and spoucal benifets.
I dont dislike gays, I know many, great people, hard working, caring.

What about the majority who will have to pay to cover the losses on medicare for HIV related costs.

Who cares, I care, and it sound like GWB cares!
I will vote for GWB on this issue alone!

Go team Bush!

john
Stop gay Marrage once and for all!

if your sex is as bad as your spelling, you got much more pressing issues to deal with than worrying about gays in your closet.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: jdhoeffken
Gay marrage is just wrong.
Its not a lifestyle, its an illness.
Sex between two men is not natural.
What a great way to sread dease, anal sex between two men.
And we want to make this legal.
Why, so a simple minority can get insurance and spoucal benifets.
I dont dislike gays, I know many, great people, hard working, caring.

What about the majority who will have to pay to cover the losses on medicare for HIV related costs.

Who cares, I care, and it sound like GWB cares!
I will vote for GWB on this issue alone!

Go team Bush!

john
Stop gay Marrage once and for all!

if your sex is as bad as your spelling, you got much more pressing issues to deal with than worrying about gays in your closet.

Now that's funny 🙂

 

[groovepapa]

jdhoeffken, people like you shouldn't be making any kind of political statements. it's obvious you're basing all your assertions on moral values. now, moral values are important, but you don't want to go around forcing your morals and values onto people, because then you've opened the can of worms that lets them try to force their moral values onto you. if I think homosexuals are sick, disgusting, and perverted, which I do, I'm still not willing to tell them how to live, because I don't want them telling me how to live. so I don't care if they are gay...that's their thing, and I'm not going to stop them. and they can show the same respect - they may think I'm a bigot, or a homophobe, or just an evil person, but still allow me to view them as I do, and leave me to my view without interfering. this "Marriage Ammendment" idea going around is stupid. the ammendment I'd like to see passed is written something like this:

"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the States to define marriage rights for the citizens of that State."

take the issue off the national scene, and let the states decide how each of them will do it.

I think all ammendments should start with "Congress shall make no law..." like the 1st ammendment. the best ammendments are the ones that restrict the federal government's power, not expand it.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: steveeast112
I think that this gay marriage thing needs to be put to rest by providing them CHOICE. Its just like women's suffrage or civil rights. Its an inherent right.

Does 'school choice' also belong on your list, or is that not an "inhernet right?"

It does.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx

Originally posted by: steveeast112
I think that this gay marriage thing needs to be put to rest by providing them CHOICE. Its just like women's suffrage or civil rights. Its an inherent right.

Does 'school choice' also belong on your list, or is that not an "inhernet right?"

It does.

...getting cold in hell again, Orsorum :sun:

 

[tallest1]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: tallest1

Originally posted by: girlgeek
The IRS has seven years to challenge those filings. By then, we'll have some Supreme Court decisions on the issue, so we'll know whether they are legal marriages or not.

Bush has bigger fish to fry, IMHO.

So why did Bush put this issue along with steroids-use on the spotlight in the first place?

Mars B!tches

The more amazing thing is that I caught your reference (Dave Chappelle rocks)

 

[Falloutboy]

eventually were going to have too make some provision for gay marrage why don't we just do it now and get it over with??

 

sorry about the spelling, sometimes its hard to drive and type at the same time!
john

 

I am not telling gays how to live, they are forcing the issue on me by going public with demands of marriage.


john

 

[groovepapa]

so, if you're against publicity of immoral behavior, do you support censorship laws to make it illegal to depict or describe sex between un-married couples? I mean, to be logical and consistent with this "public" argument, you'd have to say that public immorality (in your view) cannot be allowed. no public drinking, no public smoking, no public swearing, no public anything-that-someone-might-think-is-immoral. what if someone else thinks it is immoral to speak against abortion, or to carry a Bible in a public park, or display the Ten Commandments outside your residence? should these things be illegal, also? I don't think it's the publicity that bothers you.

how does it infringe on YOUR rights for two men to be married, or have a civil union, or whatever?

and instead of quibbling about the stupidities of homosexuals, or arguing tediously about the details of why homosexual behavior is adverse for society...let's let that go to the state level. then people can live in a state that doesn't allow gay marriage, if it is that important to them. most likely, it's only important enough for people to get up on their soap-box for a spell. the dangerous thing about that is that politicians do the same thing, only the consequences of what they do on their soap-boxes are much bigger, and more permanent.