| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
13 Sep 2006 10:03:49 AM |
| Object: |
Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
This is what the proponents of same-sex marriage refuse to recognize; once
the Pandora's Box of granting marriages outside the traditional occurs, the
possibilities are endless of who can claim they deserve the same
recognition.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/13/nsisters13.xml
Inheritance tax concessions discriminate against some heterosexual
couples, lawyers for two elderly sisters told the European Court of Human
Rights yesterday.
Joyce Burden, 88, and her sister Sybil, 81, claim that they should
enjoy the same tax advantages as a lesbian couple.
The sisters looked after their parents and two aunts at their home
near Marlborough, Wilts, until their deaths.
They now care for each other. But when one of the sisters dies, the
other will face a hefty bill for inheritance tax.
They fear that the home they inherited from their parents will then
have to be sold. Inheritance tax is not payable on property passing on death
from one spouse to another.
When the Civil Partnership Act came into force last year, that
exemption was extended to same-sex couples. But siblings and descendants are
not allowed to register as civil partners, and so are not eligible for the
tax advantage.
"I don't have the status of a lesbian," Joyce Burden said before the
hearing in Strasbourg. "This is an insult to single people who have looked
after elderly parents. I don't call that justice."
--
----------
J Yöung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
14 Sep 2006 11:45:27 PM |
|
|
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
This is what the proponents of same-sex marriage refuse to recognize; once
the Pandora's Box of granting marriages outside the traditional occurs,
"Traditional" marriage is a fiction. It doesn't exist. Over the
centuries there have been many forms of marriages, from polyandry to
polygamy to arranged to casual to platonic and more variations in
addition.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
15 Sep 2006 01:04:12 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
J Young <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
This is what the proponents of same-sex marriage refuse to
recognize; once the Pandora's Box of granting marriages outside the
traditional occurs,
"Traditional" marriage is a fiction. It doesn't exist. Over the
centuries there have been many forms of marriages, from polyandry to
polygamy to arranged to casual to platonic and more variations in
addition.
Not to mention the catholic nuns who are wedded to christ.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
13 Sep 2006 04:40:55 PM |
|
|
J Young schrieb:
This is what the proponents of same-sex marriage refuse to recognize; once
the Pandora's Box of granting marriages outside the traditional occurs, t=
he
possibilities are endless of who can claim they deserve the same
recognition.
WTF do you know about marriage anyway, J fucking Young? Why don't you
stick to what you know best: racism, intolerance and bigotry?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=3D/news/2006/09/13/nsister=
s13.xml
Inheritance tax concessions discriminate against some heterosexual
couples, lawyers for two elderly sisters told the European Court of Human
Rights yesterday.
Joyce Burden, 88, and her sister Sybil, 81, claim that they should
enjoy the same tax advantages as a lesbian couple.
The sisters looked after their parents and two aunts at their home
near Marlborough, Wilts, until their deaths.
They now care for each other. But when one of the sisters dies, the
other will face a hefty bill for inheritance tax.
They fear that the home they inherited from their parents will then
have to be sold. Inheritance tax is not payable on property passing on de=
ath
from one spouse to another.
When the Civil Partnership Act came into force last year, that
exemption was extended to same-sex couples. But siblings and descendants =
are
not allowed to register as civil partners, and so are not eligible for the
tax advantage.
"I don't have the status of a lesbian," Joyce Burden said before the
hearing in Strasbourg. "This is an insult to single people who have looked
after elderly parents. I don't call that justice."
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
--=20
----------
=20
J Y=F6ung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "bobandcarole" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
13 Sep 2006 05:18:20 PM |
|
|
Parsifal wrote:
J Young schrieb:
This is what the proponents of same-sex marriage refuse to recognize; o=
nce
the Pandora's Box of granting marriages outside the traditional occurs,=
the
possibilities are endless of who can claim they deserve the same
recognition.
WTF do you know about marriage anyway, J fucking Young?
You're not pissed are you?
Why don't you
stick to what you know best: racism, intolerance and bigotry?
Why don't you stick to what you know best...go ***** yourself.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=3D/news/2006/09/13/nsist=
ers13.xml
Inheritance tax concessions discriminate against some heterosexual
couples, lawyers for two elderly sisters told the European Court of Hum=
an
Rights yesterday.
Joyce Burden, 88, and her sister Sybil, 81, claim that they should
enjoy the same tax advantages as a lesbian couple.
The sisters looked after their parents and two aunts at their home
near Marlborough, Wilts, until their deaths.
They now care for each other. But when one of the sisters dies, t=
he
other will face a hefty bill for inheritance tax.
They fear that the home they inherited from their parents will th=
en
have to be sold. Inheritance tax is not payable on property passing on =
death
from one spouse to another.
When the Civil Partnership Act came into force last year, that
exemption was extended to same-sex couples. But siblings and descendant=
s are
not allowed to register as civil partners, and so are not eligible for =
the
tax advantage.
"I don't have the status of a lesbian," Joyce Burden said before =
the
hearing in Strasbourg. "This is an insult to single people who have loo=
ked
after elderly parents. I don't call that justice."
=20
--=20
----------
=20
J Y=F6ung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
14 Sep 2006 07:00:17 AM |
|
|
bobandcarole schrieb:
Parsifal wrote:
J Young schrieb:
This is what the proponents of same-sex marriage refuse to recognize;=
once
the Pandora's Box of granting marriages outside the traditional occur=
s, the
possibilities are endless of who can claim they deserve the same
recognition.
WTF do you know about marriage anyway, J fucking Young?
You're not pissed are you?
No, why should I?
Why don't you
stick to what you know best: racism, intolerance and bigotry?
Why don't you stick to what you know best...go ***** yourself.
How clever... how articulate... how typical of you, our favorite case
of mental AIDS.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=3D/news/2006/09/13/nsi=
sters13.xml
Inheritance tax concessions discriminate against some heterosex=
ual
couples, lawyers for two elderly sisters told the European Court of H=
uman
Rights yesterday.
Joyce Burden, 88, and her sister Sybil, 81, claim that they sho=
uld
enjoy the same tax advantages as a lesbian couple.
The sisters looked after their parents and two aunts at their h=
ome
near Marlborough, Wilts, until their deaths.
They now care for each other. But when one of the sisters dies,=
the
other will face a hefty bill for inheritance tax.
They fear that the home they inherited from their parents will =
then
have to be sold. Inheritance tax is not payable on property passing o=
n death
from one spouse to another.
When the Civil Partnership Act came into force last year, that
exemption was extended to same-sex couples. But siblings and descenda=
nts are
not allowed to register as civil partners, and so are not eligible fo=
r the
tax advantage.
"I don't have the status of a lesbian," Joyce Burden said befor=
e the
hearing in Strasbourg. "This is an insult to single people who have l=
ooked
after elderly parents. I don't call that justice."
--
----------
=20
J Y=F6ung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bobandcarole" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
13 Sep 2006 03:08:31 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
This is what the proponents of same-sex marriage refuse to recognize; once
the Pandora's Box of granting marriages outside the traditional occurs, t=
he
possibilities are endless of who can claim they deserve the same
recognition.
If they really want to be treated like lesbians then somebody smack
them in the face and deny them the right to anything.............
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=3D/news/2006/09/13/nsister=
s13.xml
Inheritance tax concessions discriminate against some heterosexual
couples, lawyers for two elderly sisters told the European Court of Human
Rights yesterday.
Joyce Burden, 88, and her sister Sybil, 81, claim that they should
enjoy the same tax advantages as a lesbian couple.
The sisters looked after their parents and two aunts at their home
near Marlborough, Wilts, until their deaths.
They now care for each other. But when one of the sisters dies, the
other will face a hefty bill for inheritance tax.
They fear that the home they inherited from their parents will then
have to be sold. Inheritance tax is not payable on property passing on de=
ath
from one spouse to another.
When the Civil Partnership Act came into force last year, that
exemption was extended to same-sex couples. But siblings and descendants =
are
not allowed to register as civil partners, and so are not eligible for the
tax advantage.
"I don't have the status of a lesbian," Joyce Burden said before the
hearing in Strasbourg. "This is an insult to single people who have looked
after elderly parents. I don't call that justice."
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
--=20
----------
=20
J Y=F6ung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dionisio" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
13 Sep 2006 09:15:40 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
This is what the proponents of same-sex marriage refuse to recognize; once
the Pandora's Box of granting marriages outside the traditional occurs, the
possibilities are endless of who can claim they deserve the same
recognition.
It took you almost a week to find this? NPR had it on 9/7.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5783508
But why would you be against thumping a law that penalizes heterosexuals?
--
"If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed."
--Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JoelKatz" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
14 Sep 2006 06:39:22 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
This is what the proponents of same-sex marriage refuse to recognize; once
the Pandora's Box of granting marriages outside the traditional occurs, the
possibilities are endless of who can claim they deserve the same
recognition.
It really doesn't open a Pandora's Box once you realize that marriage
laws specifically favor marriage as an exercise of social policy. That
is, legal benefits are granted to married copies as a way of
encouraging marriage because it is believed to have social value.
The argument made by homosexuals is that society should not favor
long-term heterosexual unions more than long-term homosexual unions
because doing so discriminates against them on the basis of their
sexual orientation. Yes, this opens the door to other groups doing so
on other bases.
However, because we agree with one such argument it does not follow
that we have to agree with every possible argument that is similar to
it. And my response to those sisters would be that society can choose
to bless the type of union you have with your sister with the rights of
marriage or it can choose not to. In your case, we choose not to. If
you can make an argument that this is discriminatory or unfair, go for
it, and we'll think about it.
A similar argument can be made with respect to polygamy, which is also
brought up in such slippery slope arguments. Asking for the same
benefits as a marriage for groups of more than two people is actually,
in many cases, asking for *more* benefit. Your union isn't entitled to
more benefits than everyone else's just because homosexual unions are
entitled to the same benefits.
DS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
13 Sep 2006 10:40:43 AM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
This is what the proponents of same-sex marriage refuse to recognize; once
the Pandora's Box of granting marriages outside the traditional occurs, the
possibilities are endless of who can claim they deserve the same
recognition.
Leave it to J Young to draw the completely wrong conclusions.
It's not a problem with tax law, it's a problem with those derned
queers!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/13/nsisters13.xml
Inheritance tax concessions discriminate against some heterosexual
couples, lawyers for two elderly sisters told the European Court of Human
Rights yesterday.
Joyce Burden, 88, and her sister Sybil, 81, claim that they should
enjoy the same tax advantages as a lesbian couple.
The sisters looked after their parents and two aunts at their home
near Marlborough, Wilts, until their deaths.
They now care for each other. But when one of the sisters dies, the
other will face a hefty bill for inheritance tax.
They fear that the home they inherited from their parents will then
have to be sold. Inheritance tax is not payable on property passing on death
from one spouse to another.
When the Civil Partnership Act came into force last year, that
exemption was extended to same-sex couples. But siblings and descendants are
not allowed to register as civil partners, and so are not eligible for the
tax advantage.
"I don't have the status of a lesbian," Joyce Burden said before the
hearing in Strasbourg. "This is an insult to single people who have looked
after elderly parents. I don't call that justice."
.
|
|
|
| User: "bobandcarole" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
13 Sep 2006 02:14:05 PM |
|
|
Chris Johnson wrote:
J Young wrote:
This is what the proponents of same-sex marriage refuse to recognize; once
the Pandora's Box of granting marriages outside the traditional occurs, the
possibilities are endless of who can claim they deserve the same
recognition.
Leave it to J Young to draw the completely wrong conclusions.
It's not a problem with tax law, it's a problem with those derned
queers!
they are indeed a problem........
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/13/nsisters13.xml
Inheritance tax concessions discriminate against some heterosexual
couples, lawyers for two elderly sisters told the European Court of Human
Rights yesterday.
Joyce Burden, 88, and her sister Sybil, 81, claim that they should
enjoy the same tax advantages as a lesbian couple.
The sisters looked after their parents and two aunts at their home
near Marlborough, Wilts, until their deaths.
They now care for each other. But when one of the sisters dies, the
other will face a hefty bill for inheritance tax.
They fear that the home they inherited from their parents will then
have to be sold. Inheritance tax is not payable on property passing on death
from one spouse to another.
When the Civil Partnership Act came into force last year, that
exemption was extended to same-sex couples. But siblings and descendants are
not allowed to register as civil partners, and so are not eligible for the
tax advantage.
"I don't have the status of a lesbian," Joyce Burden said before the
hearing in Strasbourg. "This is an insult to single people who have looked
after elderly parents. I don't call that justice."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jamie" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
14 Sep 2006 08:52:41 PM |
|
|
What harm would it be to allow elderly men and women who happen to be
related and living together to be considered a partnership as far as
probate law is concerned? Why should elderly couples straight or gay
have the added burden of inheritance taxes that are inately unfair to
all?
Chris Johnson wrote:
J Young wrote:
This is what the proponents of same-sex marriage refuse to recognize; once
the Pandora's Box of granting marriages outside the traditional occurs, the
possibilities are endless of who can claim they deserve the same
recognition.
Leave it to J Young to draw the completely wrong conclusions.
It's not a problem with tax law, it's a problem with those derned
queers!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/13/nsisters13.xml
Inheritance tax concessions discriminate against some heterosexual
couples, lawyers for two elderly sisters told the European Court of Human
Rights yesterday.
Joyce Burden, 88, and her sister Sybil, 81, claim that they should
enjoy the same tax advantages as a lesbian couple.
The sisters looked after their parents and two aunts at their home
near Marlborough, Wilts, until their deaths.
They now care for each other. But when one of the sisters dies, the
other will face a hefty bill for inheritance tax.
They fear that the home they inherited from their parents will then
have to be sold. Inheritance tax is not payable on property passing on death
from one spouse to another.
When the Civil Partnership Act came into force last year, that
exemption was extended to same-sex couples. But siblings and descendants are
not allowed to register as civil partners, and so are not eligible for the
tax advantage.
"I don't have the status of a lesbian," Joyce Burden said before the
hearing in Strasbourg. "This is an insult to single people who have looked
after elderly parents. I don't call that justice."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
14 Sep 2006 09:37:03 PM |
|
|
Jamie wrote:
What harm would it be to allow elderly men and women who happen to be
related and living together to be considered a partnership as far as
probate law is concerned? Why should elderly couples straight or gay
have the added burden of inheritance taxes that are inately unfair to
all?
I have no problem with loosening the government requirements for
partnerships. My point was that J Young drew the wrong conclusion.
Instead of a problem with current tax law, he sees a problem in letting
gays marry.
Chris Johnson wrote:
J Young wrote:
This is what the proponents of same-sex marriage refuse to recognize; once
the Pandora's Box of granting marriages outside the traditional occurs, the
possibilities are endless of who can claim they deserve the same
recognition.
Leave it to J Young to draw the completely wrong conclusions.
It's not a problem with tax law, it's a problem with those derned
queers!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/13/nsisters13.xml
Inheritance tax concessions discriminate against some heterosexual
couples, lawyers for two elderly sisters told the European Court of Human
Rights yesterday.
Joyce Burden, 88, and her sister Sybil, 81, claim that they should
enjoy the same tax advantages as a lesbian couple.
The sisters looked after their parents and two aunts at their home
near Marlborough, Wilts, until their deaths.
They now care for each other. But when one of the sisters dies, the
other will face a hefty bill for inheritance tax.
They fear that the home they inherited from their parents will then
have to be sold. Inheritance tax is not payable on property passing on death
from one spouse to another.
When the Civil Partnership Act came into force last year, that
exemption was extended to same-sex couples. But siblings and descendants are
not allowed to register as civil partners, and so are not eligible for the
tax advantage.
"I don't have the status of a lesbian," Joyce Burden said before the
hearing in Strasbourg. "This is an insult to single people who have looked
after elderly parents. I don't call that justice."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
13 Sep 2006 11:06:52 AM |
|
|
Thanks for the story that shows discrimination based on sexual orientation.
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:nLOdnVj9COutg5XYnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@giganews.com...
This is what the proponents of same-sex marriage refuse to recognize; once
the Pandora's Box of granting marriages outside the traditional occurs,
the
possibilities are endless of who can claim they deserve the same
recognition.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/13/nsisters13.xml
Inheritance tax concessions discriminate against some heterosexual
couples, lawyers for two elderly sisters told the European Court of Human
Rights yesterday.
Joyce Burden, 88, and her sister Sybil, 81, claim that they should
enjoy the same tax advantages as a lesbian couple.
The sisters looked after their parents and two aunts at their home
near Marlborough, Wilts, until their deaths.
They now care for each other. But when one of the sisters dies, the
other will face a hefty bill for inheritance tax.
They fear that the home they inherited from their parents will then
have to be sold. Inheritance tax is not payable on property passing on
death
from one spouse to another.
When the Civil Partnership Act came into force last year, that
exemption was extended to same-sex couples. But siblings and descendants
are
not allowed to register as civil partners, and so are not eligible for the
tax advantage.
"I don't have the status of a lesbian," Joyce Burden said before the
hearing in Strasbourg. "This is an insult to single people who have looked
after elderly parents. I don't call that justice."
--
----------
J Yöung
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
13 Sep 2006 11:15:43 AM |
|
|
John D.Wentzky wrote:
Thanks for the story that shows discrimination based on sexual orientation.
It does not do so. The two sisters aren't getting benefits because
they're not single, not because they're heterosexual. It shows
discrimination based on civil status, as it shows couples receiving
benefits that singles don't. Even if there was no benefits for gay and
lesbian couples, the sisters wouldn't be receiving anything.
Hence why J. Young is bitching. He thinks that those sisters shouldn't
be receiving any tax breaks, and that recognition of homosexual
couplings is a slippery slope that might allow those sisters to get the
break they deserve.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
13 Sep 2006 11:31:31 AM |
|
|
"DarkAngel" <drkangel666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158164143.684203.19110@e63g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
John D.Wentzky wrote:
Thanks for the story that shows discrimination based on sexual
orientation.
It does not do so. The two sisters aren't getting benefits because
they're not single, not because they're heterosexual. It shows
discrimination based on civil status, as it shows couples receiving
benefits that singles don't.
Which, in itself shows unequal protections based upon non-individual rights.
Totally unconstitutional in light of the 14th Amendment.
Your gang mentality is showing.
Even if there was no benefits for gay and
lesbian couples, the sisters wouldn't be receiving anything.
Why shouldn't they?
They are individuals.
The constitution does not allow respecting lesbian couples above
individuals.
Hence why J. Young is bitching. He thinks that those sisters shouldn't
be receiving any tax breaks, and that recognition of homosexual
couplings is a slippery slope that might allow those sisters to get the
break they deserve.
Doesn;t matter to me what you or he *thinks*.
All that matters to me is that all you couple bitches read the 14th
Amendment and stop ganging up like small wolfpacks.
I am against discriminating against individuals in the USA by such underling
gang tactics.
The 14th Amendment does not allow granting rights in entities of two.
It is for individual rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DarkAngel" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
13 Sep 2006 01:22:15 PM |
|
|
John D.Wentzky wrote:
(snip)
Amendments don't give rights. The State don't give rights.
Constitutions don't give rights. Human nature gives us rights. Those
who wrote the Constitution only penned them down on paper, and they
didn't even write down all of them in the first place.
It is through struggle that rights are won. The Constitution is just a
paper tiger.
---
No Gods. No Masters.
No Borders. No State.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
13 Sep 2006 03:00:33 PM |
|
|
All that matters to me is that all you couple bitches read the 14th
Amendment and stop ganging up like small wolfpacks.
I am against discriminating against individuals in the USA by such underling
gang tactics.
The 14th Amendment does not allow granting rights in entities of two.
It is for individual rights.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
18 Sep 2006 01:26:36 PM |
|
|
John D.Wentzky wrote:
All that matters to me is that all you couple bitches read the 14th
Amendment and stop ganging up like small wolfpacks.
I am against discriminating against individuals in the USA by such underling
gang tactics.
The 14th Amendment does not allow granting rights in entities of two.
It is for individual rights.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, we see that the 14th amendment does
not apply to UK law
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Strife767" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
13 Sep 2006 05:38:13 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:00:33 -0400, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
All that matters to me is that all you couple bitches read the 14th
Amendment and stop ganging up like small wolfpacks.
I am against discriminating against individuals in the USA by such
underling
gang tactics.
The 14th Amendment does not allow granting rights in entities of two.
It is for individual rights.
I don't see you fighting m/f marriage, since it would fall under the same
category of stuff you're against, according to your apparent problem with
couples getting "special treatment" that individuals do not. Why is that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
13 Sep 2006 07:08:09 PM |
|
|
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tft85ycv5i5s70@chris...
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:00:33 -0400, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
All that matters to me is that all you couple bitches read the 14th
Amendment and stop ganging up like small wolfpacks.
I am against discriminating against individuals in the USA by such
underling
gang tactics.
The 14th Amendment does not allow granting rights in entities of two.
It is for individual rights.
I don't see you fighting m/f marriage, since it would fall under the same
category of stuff you're against, according to your apparent problem with
couples getting "special treatment" that individuals do not. Why is that?
I am not fighting m/f marriage. I am fighting unequal protections.
What part of that do you fail to understand?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Strife767" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
13 Sep 2006 09:09:06 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:08:09 -0400, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tft85ycv5i5s70@chris...
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:00:33 -0400, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
All that matters to me is that all you couple bitches read the 14th
Amendment and stop ganging up like small wolfpacks.
I am against discriminating against individuals in the USA by such
underling
gang tactics.
The 14th Amendment does not allow granting rights in entities of two.
It is for individual rights.
I don't see you fighting m/f marriage, since it would fall under the
same
category of stuff you're against, according to your apparent problem
with
couples getting "special treatment" that individuals do not. Why is
that?
I am not fighting m/f marriage. I am fighting unequal protections.
So what does same sex marriage have that opposite sex marriage doesn't,
that distinguishes it and makes the former "unfair" to you, but not the
latter?
What part of that do you fail to understand?
If you were truly again "granting rights in entities of two," as you
believe, then you would be against all marriage, not just same sex
marriage. It stinks of red herring.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
14 Sep 2006 12:10:41 AM |
|
|
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tfuixekp5i5s70@chris...
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:08:09 -0400, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tft85ycv5i5s70@chris...
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:00:33 -0400, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
All that matters to me is that all you couple bitches read the 14th
Amendment and stop ganging up like small wolfpacks.
I am against discriminating against individuals in the USA by such
underling
gang tactics.
The 14th Amendment does not allow granting rights in entities of two.
It is for individual rights.
I don't see you fighting m/f marriage, since it would fall under the
same
category of stuff you're against, according to your apparent problem
with
couples getting "special treatment" that individuals do not. Why is
that?
I am not fighting m/f marriage. I am fighting unequal protections.
So what does same sex marriage have that opposite sex marriage doesn't,
that distinguishes it and makes the former "unfair" to you, but not the
latter?
Same-sex marriage isn't equal to opposite sex marriage.
The terminology for the two disparate entities is wnough to tell you they
are not equal.
What part of that do you fail to understand?
If you were truly again "granting rights in entities of two," as you
believe, then you would be against all marriage, not just same sex
marriage. It stinks of red herring.
Not so.
I am against awarding special privileges and protections only on the basis
of being married.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Strife767" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
14 Sep 2006 09:40:30 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 01:10:41 -0400, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tfuixekp5i5s70@chris...
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:08:09 -0400, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tft85ycv5i5s70@chris...
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 16:00:33 -0400, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
All that matters to me is that all you couple bitches read the 14th
Amendment and stop ganging up like small wolfpacks.
I am against discriminating against individuals in the USA by such
underling
gang tactics.
The 14th Amendment does not allow granting rights in entities of two.
It is for individual rights.
I don't see you fighting m/f marriage, since it would fall under the
same
category of stuff you're against, according to your apparent problem
with
couples getting "special treatment" that individuals do not. Why is
that?
I am not fighting m/f marriage. I am fighting unequal protections.
So what does same sex marriage have that opposite sex marriage doesn't,
that distinguishes it and makes the former "unfair" to you, but not the
latter?
Same-sex marriage isn't equal to opposite sex marriage.
The terminology for the two disparate entities is wnough to tell you they
are not equal.
You could say the same about interracial marriage. But that doesn't answer
anything. Why do you think benefits given to same-sex couples are less
fair than ones given to opposite sex couples? Be very specific.
What part of that do you fail to understand?
If you were truly again "granting rights in entities of two," as you
believe, then you would be against all marriage, not just same sex
marriage. It stinks of red herring.
Not so.
I am against awarding special privileges and protections only on the
basis
of being married.
So why is it that you only oppose a small number of marriages?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
13 Sep 2006 09:37:42 PM |
|
|
Strife767 wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:08:09 -0400, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
If you were truly again "granting rights in entities of two," as you
believe, then you would be against all marriage, not just same sex
marriage. It stinks of red herring.
As you point out, Wentzky is hypocritical and inconsistent and
surrounded by a stink of herring. Or perhaps he's just dumb and
confused. But I will take up the idea that we should not "grant rights
in entities of two". The best solution is to get government out of the
marriage business altogether. Why should there exist a legal status
called "married"? If silly religious people consider their
heterosexual partnerships to be a holy sacriment --- fine. If they
want to go through a religious service to officialize the sacrimental
nature thereof --- fine. That is between them and their religious
organization (which can marry gays or not as they see fit). But the
government should take no official cognizance of any hypothetical
sacrimental aspect of marriage of any kind. In the same way, any
religious organization may recognize a concept of "bastardy", the law
has gotten rid of that concept.
I propose that if two people, hetero or gay, want some kind of contract
spelling out rights and obligations to each other --- fine. They can
consult a lawyer and draw up a contract. If they wish to think of
themselves as "married" and use the word to describe their union ---
fine. If they believe that their union is blessed by an Almighty
Beiing --- fine. Every American can make his or her own semantic
choice about whether or not to use the word "marriage" for anything
other than the traditional heterosexual union. Meanwhile everyone
should be taxed at a flat rate applicable to all, married or single,
gay or hetero or asexual, or whatever.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
14 Sep 2006 12:12:35 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in message
news:1158201462.894719.295830@e63g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Strife767 wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:08:09 -0400, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
If you were truly again "granting rights in entities of two," as you
believe, then you would be against all marriage, not just same sex
marriage. It stinks of red herring.
As you point out, Wentzky is hypocritical
Error.
and inconsistent and
surrounded by a stink of herring. Or perhaps he's just dumb and
confused. But I will take up the idea that we should not "grant rights
in entities of two". The best solution is to get government out of the
marriage business altogether. Why should there exist a legal status
called "married"? If silly religious people consider their
heterosexual partnerships to be a holy sacriment --- fine. If they
want to go through a religious service to officialize the sacrimental
nature thereof --- fine. That is between them and their religious
organization (which can marry gays or not as they see fit). But the
government should take no official cognizance of any hypothetical
sacrimental aspect of marriage of any kind. In the same way, any
religious organization may recognize a concept of "bastardy", the law
has gotten rid of that concept.
I propose that if two people, hetero or gay, want some kind of contract
spelling out rights and obligations to each other --- fine. They can
consult a lawyer and draw up a contract. If they wish to think of
themselves as "married" and use the word to describe their union ---
fine. If they believe that their union is blessed by an Almighty
Beiing --- fine. Every American can make his or her own semantic
choice about whether or not to use the word "marriage" for anything
other than the traditional heterosexual union. Meanwhile everyone
should be taxed at a flat rate applicable to all, married or single,
gay or hetero or asexual, or whatever.
You can not deny that you are discriminating against single individuals in
this same-sex marriage and even heterosexual marriage ploy to award unequal
benefits to persons who are not single.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Strife767" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
14 Sep 2006 09:38:24 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 01:12:35 -0400, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in message
news:1158201462.894719.295830@e63g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Strife767 wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:08:09 -0400, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
If you were truly again "granting rights in entities of two," as you
believe, then you would be against all marriage, not just same sex
marriage. It stinks of red herring.
As you point out, Wentzky is hypocritical
Error.
and inconsistent and
surrounded by a stink of herring. Or perhaps he's just dumb and
confused. But I will take up the idea that we should not "grant rights
in entities of two". The best solution is to get government out of the
marriage business altogether. Why should there exist a legal status
called "married"? If silly religious people consider their
heterosexual partnerships to be a holy sacriment --- fine. If they
want to go through a religious service to officialize the sacrimental
nature thereof --- fine. That is between them and their religious
organization (which can marry gays or not as they see fit). But the
government should take no official cognizance of any hypothetical
sacrimental aspect of marriage of any kind. In the same way, any
religious organization may recognize a concept of "bastardy", the law
has gotten rid of that concept.
I propose that if two people, hetero or gay, want some kind of contract
spelling out rights and obligations to each other --- fine. They can
consult a lawyer and draw up a contract. If they wish to think of
themselves as "married" and use the word to describe their union ---
fine. If they believe that their union is blessed by an Almighty
Beiing --- fine. Every American can make his or her own semantic
choice about whether or not to use the word "marriage" for anything
other than the traditional heterosexual union. Meanwhile everyone
should be taxed at a flat rate applicable to all, married or single,
gay or hetero or asexual, or whatever.
You can not deny that you are discriminating against single individuals
in
this same-sex marriage and even heterosexual marriage ploy to award
unequal
benefits to persons who are not single.
When same-sex marriage becomes legally fine nationwide, it will become
equal. Married "benefits" will not be discriminatory because anyone will
be able to get married. So where's the discrimination?
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
14 Sep 2006 10:38:55 AM |
|
|
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tfvhl7mf5i5s70@chris...
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 01:12:35 -0400, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in message
news:1158201462.894719.295830@e63g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Strife767 wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:08:09 -0400, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
If you were truly again "granting rights in entities of two," as you
believe, then you would be against all marriage, not just same sex
marriage. It stinks of red herring.
As you point out, Wentzky is hypocritical
Error.
and inconsistent and
surrounded by a stink of herring. Or perhaps he's just dumb and
confused. But I will take up the idea that we should not "grant rights
in entities of two". The best solution is to get government out of the
marriage business altogether. Why should there exist a legal status
called "married"? If silly religious people consider their
heterosexual partnerships to be a holy sacriment --- fine. If they
want to go through a religious service to officialize the sacrimental
nature thereof --- fine. That is between them and their religious
organization (which can marry gays or not as they see fit). But the
government should take no official cognizance of any hypothetical
sacrimental aspect of marriage of any kind. In the same way, any
religious organization may recognize a concept of "bastardy", the law
has gotten rid of that concept.
I propose that if two people, hetero or gay, want some kind of contract
spelling out rights and obligations to each other --- fine. They can
consult a lawyer and draw up a contract. If they wish to think of
themselves as "married" and use the word to describe their union ---
fine. If they believe that their union is blessed by an Almighty
Beiing --- fine. Every American can make his or her own semantic
choice about whether or not to use the word "marriage" for anything
other than the traditional heterosexual union. Meanwhile everyone
should be taxed at a flat rate applicable to all, married or single,
gay or hetero or asexual, or whatever.
You can not deny that you are discriminating against single individuals
in
this same-sex marriage and even heterosexual marriage ploy to award
unequal
benefits to persons who are not single.
When same-sex marriage becomes legally fine nationwide, it will become
equal. Married "benefits" will not be discriminatory because anyone will
be able to get married. So where's the discrimination?
The discrimination is against all singles presently.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Strife767" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
14 Sep 2006 06:50:26 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 11:38:55 -0400, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Strife767" <strife767@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:op.tfvhl7mf5i5s70@chris...
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 01:12:35 -0400, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Mike" <matmzc@hofstra.edu> wrote in message
news:1158201462.894719.295830@e63g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Strife767 wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 20:08:09 -0400, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
If you were truly again "granting rights in entities of two," as you
believe, then you would be against all marriage, not just same sex
marriage. It stinks of red herring.
As you point out, Wentzky is hypocritical
Error.
and inconsistent and
surrounded by a stink of herring. Or perhaps he's just dumb and
confused. But I will take up the idea that we should not "grant
rights
in entities of two". The best solution is to get government out of
the
marriage business altogether. Why should there exist a legal status
called "married"? If silly religious people consider their
heterosexual partnerships to be a holy sacriment --- fine. If they
want to go through a religious service to officialize the sacrimental
nature thereof --- fine. That is between them and their religious
organization (which can marry gays or not as they see fit). But the
government should take no official cognizance of any hypothetical
sacrimental aspect of marriage of any kind. In the same way, any
religious organization may recognize a concept of "bastardy", the law
has gotten rid of that concept.
I propose that if two people, hetero or gay, want some kind of
contract
spelling out rights and obligations to each other --- fine. They can
consult a lawyer and draw up a contract. If they wish to think of
themselves as "married" and use the word to describe their union ---
fine. If they believe that their union is blessed by an Almighty
Beiing --- fine. Every American can make his or her own semantic
choice about whether or not to use the word "marriage" for anything
other than the traditional heterosexual union. Meanwhile everyone
should be taxed at a flat rate applicable to all, married or single,
gay or hetero or asexual, or whatever.
You can not deny that you are discriminating against single individuals
in
this same-sex marriage and even heterosexual marriage ploy to award
unequal
benefits to persons who are not single.
When same-sex marriage becomes legally fine nationwide, it will become
equal. Married "benefits" will not be discriminatory because anyone will
be able to get married. So where's the discrimination?
The discrimination is against all singles presently.
Then why do you not oppose opposite sex marriage? (this is too easy)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
13 Sep 2006 03:13:01 PM |
|
|
John D.Wentzky wrote:
Which, in itself shows unequal protections based upon non-individual rights.
Totally unconstitutional in light of the 14th Amendment.
Your gang mentality is showing.
What the hell are you blathering about? WTF does the 14th amendment have
to do with the price of coffee?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Treat us like lesbians, say sisters in tax fight |
13 Sep 2006 02:09:30 PM |
|
|
John D.Wentzky wrote:
"DarkAngel" <drkangel666@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158164143.684203.19110@e63g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
John D.Wentzky wrote:
Thanks for the story that shows discrimination based on sexual
orientation.
It does not do so. The two sisters aren't getting benefits because
they're not single, not because they're heterosexual. It shows
discrimination based on civil status, as it shows couples receiving
benefits that singles don't.
Which, in itself shows unequal protections based upon non-individual rights.
Totally unconstitutional in light of the 14th Amendment.
Your gang mentality is showing.
What the hell are you blathering about? WTF does the 14th amendment have
to do with the price of coffee?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
