On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 11:23:24 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 10:57:42 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 12/27/2013 9:28 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 12/26/13, 11:16 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 21:54:46 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 15:11:26 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 26 Dec 2013 11:44:31 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

But I suppose in Utah if multiple spouses are allowed, you
could have both a straight and a gay partner.

Hence the "B" in the acronym

It would seem that the 'B' would detract from the 'born gay' theory.
I also saw a lady interviewed
on Oprah a while back that stated she liked men, for a while, and
then women, for a while. She'd go
back and forth. That also seemed to detract from the 'born gay' theory.


They have even added the "Q" to the acronym, just to cover anyone they
missed.

I saw an article in the paper tonight.
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/


I'm still waiting for a right-wing hatemonger to explain to us all how,
precisely, gay marriage will "destroy" heterosexual marriage, since that
seems to be pretty much the only remaining claim. Your boy "Poco Loco"
Herring seems to be perseverating on gays, so perhaps you can convince
him to tell us what he bases his objections on.

I'm aware that some of the religious bigots object to gays on "biblical
grounds," but that seems vacuous, since there are so many concepts and
rules in that book that the bigots ignore. One of the bigots here
brought up the "marriage is for procreating" bull****, something I've
not heard in years.

What's left in reasons to object?


From a modern, practical and non-religious point of view I think the
main objection is based on the same reason that gays are striving *for*
legal recognition of same sex marriages.

Money.

Those who are pushing for legal recognition of same sex marriages are
doing so in order to qualify for the same tax breaks and
financial/social benefits that heterosexual married couples enjoy.
Otherwise, there is no compelling reason to have legal recognition of
gay couples living and sharing their lives together. They can just do
so. There are no laws against it that I know of.

Remember, it wasn't very long ago that the remote *concept* of legal,
same sex "marriages" was unheard of.

The concern many have is where do you draw the line? The government
giveith and the government takeith away when it comes to tax codes.

Those who object based on religious grounds are really in the same boat
you are in when you complain about religious organizations working to
influence legislation that furthers their interests.
You object because it "jams their beliefs down your throat".

Maybe some people want to raise families and teach their children in
older, more traditional beliefs and values. A government that condones
same sex marriages is probably just as offensive to some people as the
religious zealots are offensive to you.

Disclaimer: This is my gut feeling for the objections some have. It
is not necessarily what I believe. I believe that I really don't give
a ****.



I am not sure where the tax advantage is. You could claim your gay
partner as a dependent and take the single head of household tax break
that beats the hell out of the married column.

'Head of household' has some pretty strict 'relationship' requirements that most of these spouses
wouldn't meet, unless we add an 'I' for incest to the acronym. Looking at the requirements below, I
don't see how the gay,lesbian, etc, partner would meet the dependency qualifications, unless it was
a child the gay person was married to - I assume that would mean adding an 'I' for 'incest' to the
acronym.



"To qualify for head of household status, you must be either unmarried or considered unmarried on
the last day of the year. You are considered unmarried on the last day of the tax year if you meet
all the following tests.

You file a separate return (defined earlier under Joint Return After Separate Returns ).

You paid more than half the cost of keeping up your home for the tax year.

Your spouse did not live in your home during the last 6 months of the tax year. Your spouse is
considered to live in your home even if he or she is temporarily absent due to special
circumstances. See Temporary absences , later.

Your home was the main home of your child, stepchild, or foster child for more than half the
year. (See Home of qualifying person , later, for rules applying to a child's birth, death, or
temporary absence during the year.)

You must be able to claim an exemption for the child. However, you meet this test if you cannot
claim the exemption only because the noncustodial parent can claim the child using the rules
described later in Children of divorced or separated parents (or parents who live apart) under
Qualifying Child or in Support Test for Children of Divorced or Separated Parents (or Parents Who
Live Apart) under Qualifying Relative. The general rules for claiming an exemption for a dependent
are explained later under Exemptions for Dependents ."


Hope you're having a great day!