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 ****.

On 12/27/13, 10:57 AM, 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 ****.




Thanks for your response. Considering the high percentage of
"traditional marriages" that fail and end in divorce, I don't understand
why there would be objections to gays marrying and a percentage of those
marriages ending in divorce, in tax codes, social security, hospital
visitations, et cetera.

And to those who object on religious grounds...well, no one is forcing
any of them into a gay or straight marriage. Legally, no one is forcing
gay marriage onto anyone. And "the government" shouldn't "condone" or in
any other way have opinions about the validity of the sorts of marriages
in which consenting adults engage. It's not the government's business,
is it?

To beat a dead duck, I read on wiki that the patriarch of Dumb Duck
Dynasty married his wife when she was 16 years old. At least she was
older than Miriam probably was when she gave birth to that Jesus fellow.
Miriam probably was 13. In those days, most girls in that part of the
world were engaged at 12, and married at 13.




--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

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!

"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 think the gay marriage part is also partly HIPPA related. A partner can
not get involved in the hospitalization and healthcare like a spouse can.

wrote:
On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 23:03:09 -0600, Califbill
wrote:

I think the gay marriage part is also partly HIPPA related. A partner can
not get involved in the hospitalization and healthcare like a spouse can.

The last time I was in a hospital situation one of the stack of forms
I had to fill out was a medical disclosure/consent authorization that
would let you list virtually anyone as your health advocate.

But if you can not fill out the form, your partner is out.

On Fri, 27 Dec 2013 23:03:09 -0600, Califbill wrote:

"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 think the gay marriage part is also partly HIPPA related. A partner can
not get involved in the hospitalization and healthcare like a spouse can.

A good reason for a 'Spousal License'.

Hope you're having a great day!