Any tax benefit anyone else gets harms him financially.

Post #403,038 by crazy 6/29/15 9:05:19 AM Reply	Any tax benefit anyone else gets harms him financially. Remember, he feels (in the depths of his nonexistent Communist soul) that he IS the state. So, once he has it set in his mind that some benefit will chip away at his totallity, he will fight it. Even if it costs him just a 1/10 of a cent, he hates it. Happy MM? You are no longer a homophobic bigot!
Post #403,039 by mmoffitt 6/29/15 9:13:48 AM Reply	s/him/State
Post #403,041 by crazy 6/29/15 9:48:37 AM 6/29/15 9:50:58 AM Reply	Which makes no difference in the meaning of the post Since it states they are the same thing to you. Which you didn't argue against. Did I summarize your view correctly, or did I miss anything? After all, you have argued a bunch of side points, but it all boils down to this, or so it seems. You feel pain when the state feels pain. Of course, since the state doesn't actually feel anything, it is up to you to determine it. Edited by crazy June 29, 2015, 09:50:58 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #403,044 by malraux 6/29/15 10:01:47 AM Reply	No, he still could be. Because whether or not there is a tax benefit, it should be equally applied to everyone/no one. And since marriage isn't going to be abolished, his wishful thinking (?) aside, the 14th Amendment applies. It's really starting to smell like a pseudo-rational cover for bigotry. Paraphrased: "I don't like the institution of marriage, therefore I'm going to fight against allowing this last little bit of society to have it." Seems like quite a stretch to me. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #403,048 by mmoffitt 6/29/15 12:04:45 PM Reply	Of course the tax should apply equally. It did. I think you're asking me "In what way has altering the definition of marriage injured the marriages entered into before the definition changed?" Is that it? If so, (and again, I'm speaking here of the perspective of the State) I'd say that the definition has been so altered as to make the definition ambiguous and without purpose. I don't know that I'd say that really injures pre-existing marriages, but I would say that it makes them at best undefined, at worst irrelevant.
Post #403,049 by drook 6/29/15 12:10:01 PM Reply	Nope Inheritance is not undefined. Medical decision-making authority is not irrelevant. Neither of those things changed. This decision didn't make my marriage one iota different from what it was before. -- Drew
Post #403,050 by mmoffitt 6/29/15 12:12:46 PM Reply	But you got that because of an expectation that you'd reproduce.
Post #403,051 by Another Scott 6/29/15 12:16:06 PM Reply	An expectation by whom? Legal cites, please.
Post #403,052 by drook 6/29/15 12:36:36 PM Reply	You didn't make a claim about retroactive meaning You said, "that it makes them at best undefined, at worst irrelevant." That's "makes", present tense. That this decision changes something in the present meaning of my marriage. It doesn't. -- Drew
Post #403,062 by mmoffitt 6/29/15 1:29:24 PM Reply	I was trying to answer a question posed to me. Although I admittedly don't yet completely understand the question's full implications. Our everyday language is (or was at least at one point) full of expressing the idea that marriage results in children. Surely you've heard at some point in your life, "Get married and start a family." Does that not imply the expectation that children will result from marriage? I think it indisputable that most opposite-sex marriages do, in fact, result in the births of children. I recall the scuttlebutt about the hospital where my wife and I worked being that we "would never have children" because my wife wasn't pregnant in the first two years after we got married - like everyone else who was our age who'd gotten married. I'm finished with this topic here because everyone apparently rejects my premise that State issued marriage licenses only make sense in the context of an expectation of a new generation arising from those relationships and that expectation is the basis for all codified preferential treatment under law those relationships receive. I think rejecting that premise is being dishonest of (at least) the history of marriage in the United States. But, if you can't agree on the premises, you can never agree on the arguments. And that's where we are. And I'm weary. ;0)
Post #403,054 by malraux 6/29/15 1:00:40 PM Reply	Re: Of course the tax should apply equally. It did. In responding to "No more than biracial marriage does gay marriage harm people who don’t have or want to have such" you said, Reinstate the marriage penalty in the tax code, and I'd agree. Here's the question I asked again, for reference: How does gay marriage harm people who don't have it or want it MORE THAN any other sort of marriage does? Because the decision last week was about the 14th Amendment, from the viewpoint of the State. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.

Welcome to IWETHEY!