Ask Me Help Desk - The IRS scandal

Quote:

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I get it, you're ok with the IRS being the new Gestapo.

If that's what they are then I would be plotting overthrow, but facts have not born the new gestapo label as being accurate. What's more accurate is you guys having the need for a lawyer to fill out forms and there is no shame in that as the process is complicated for the average kitchen table person.

The notion you have a right, or entitled to be tax exempt when your purpose is political change though is completely bogus, and delusional. Proper and equal application of the law should clean that up for BOTH sides. So I probably don't need to borrow your guns, but keep 'em shiny, just in case.

What you and I have a right to is fairness and impartiality, and you can thank us later for fighting on your behalf since you won't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

If that's what they are then I would be plotting overthrow, but facts have not born the new gestapo label as being accurate. What's more accurate is you guys having the need for a lawyer to fill out forms and there is no shame in that as the process is complicated for the average kitchen table person.

The notion you have a right, or entitled to be tax exempt when your purpose is political change though is completely bogus, and delusional. Proper and equal application of the law should clean that up for BOTH sides. So I probably don't need to borrow your guns, but keep 'em shiny, just in case.

And Moveon.org or Planned parenthood have never engaged in ANY political activities?

Quote:

Proper and equal application of the law should clean that up for BOTH sides.

Missed that part huh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Missed that part huh?

Yes, yes I did. Then we're in agreement, we need to stop the unequal application of the law, right?

On all fronts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

On all fronts.

That is never going to happen. Ever since this country has granted superior rights then the rest of us are screwed.

I disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

I disagree.

Can you explain? To me so long as superior rights exist then there can never be equality.

Because those that don't have equality are striving for it still, and by law there can be no superior rights, just denying others their rights. Do the motives or methods matter?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Because those that don't have equality are striving for it still, and by law there can be no superior rights, just denying others their rights. Do the motives or methods matter?

Its written into the laws that give them superior rights. That is why you can never have equality so long as superior rights exist. In the world we live in today there is no reason for anyone to be striving for rights that have to be protected by class. There are legal remidies that exist. And its through the law that disputes can be settled. But in cases of superior rights then you by its very nature cause inequality. You are in effect quashing ones rights in favor of another. Where is the equality in that?

Specifics please and define they so I can follow your point better.

I'm just guessing here but SCOTUS just struck down one at least in part, that affirmative action thing.

Voter rights section 5 which made changes to voting laws have to be pre cleared for some states and jurisdictions. There is no preclearance, but voting laws can still be challenged in any jurisdiction.

Well a day for democracy Eh?

The same laws that the court found discriminatory are now being enacted post haste so expect the same lawsuits.

Are you saying your legislators don't learn

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Specifics please and define they so I can follow your point better.

Here is one recent one in the news. When they ruled on DOMA. They gave superior rights to a group of people when in fact the law didn't discriminate but was a definition of law. It is the difference between saying you can't park in front of a fire hydrant without specifics vs having specifics like how far that boundary actually reaches.

By redefining the law from being specific they in fact opened it to superior rights. There is no definition now so those rights can extend to anyone that applies in superior fashion. All they have to do is fit into any class of persons that didn't fit into the previously defined law.

So its okay to EXCLUDE a class of people from monetary benefits and economic advantages that others enjoy? Striking down DOMA for FEDERAL purposes doesn't affect existing couples at all, nor give superior rights. Lets not confuse the same rights with superior ones and the definition of marriage is now defined on the federal level, and changes nothing for traditional, or religious couples.

Maybe you could elaborate on how the DOMA ruling makes guy marriage superior than traditional marriage. I don't see it, but I know the law use to be that whites were superior to blacks and other races.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

So its okay to EXCLUDE a class of people from monetary benefits and economic advantages that others enjoy? Striking down DOMA for FEDERAL purposes doesn't affect existing couples at all, nor give superior rights. Lets not confuse the same rights with superior ones and the definition of marriage is now defined on the federal level, and changes nothing for traditional, or religious couples.

Maybe you could elaborate on how the DOMA ruling makes guy marriage superior than traditional marriage. I don't see it, but I know the law use to be that whites were superior to blacks and other races.

You don't seem to understand. Doma was a definition of law. Without it anything goes. The fact that gays are a protected class shows how it involves superior rights. That decision does affect current law with the interest of the State. The fact that they allowed an argument to remove the definition of law and knowing that there were other remidies in place again shows the courts affect in granting superior rights to a law. You keep infering the "same" rights. But that is untrue. If it were just a question of being the "same" then all that apply can and will be married. From this point forward until there is an actual definition anything goes. Poligimy, child / adult marriges all of it. Is that really how we want to be in this country? Without definition of law there can be no law. If its inequality that you seek keep pressing to protect classes of people based on whatever so you can grant superior rights and what you end up with is a lawless unprotected society. If you were to truly promote equality then you will also have to resist superior rights and seek out the normal chain of law to get your remidies. Otherwise were all going to end up criminals of some kind where everything is against the law or we will become completely lawless.

Expand your thinking. Granting superior rights to one class then others will be in line for those same rights because after all its not fair until everyone is equal right ?

Redefine marriage and make it only church sanctioned. Civil unions would be non-religious.

Why can't a civil union (non-religious union between two adults) confer the same rights and privileges as marriage (church-sanctioned union between two adults) does?

State and federal tax laws conflict for same-sex couples

Before DOMA was struck down civil unions were not recognized as far as filing joint federal returns. Separate was not equal in this area of the federal law and could never be equal. Does this open the door for other marriage unions? I don't know, but people have already been practicing there preference. Legal or not. The states already have their own rules regulating marriage, and some still do not allow for gay marriage nor recognize them, so the superior protected class still has no rights but can now file a federal return.

The whole notion of anything goes and protected classes and superior rights smacks in the face of equality, and justifies denying federal rights to a class of people while another class of the more traditional citizens have enjoyed superior right than other's for centuries.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

Redefine marriage and make it only church sanctioned. Civil unions would be non-religious.

Why can't a civil union (non-religious union between two adults) confer the exact same rights and privileges as marriage (church-sanctioned union between two adults) does?

Why can't gay people use the term marriage and why should a definition be the exclusive domain of religion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

State and federal tax laws conflict for same-sex couples

Before DOMA was struck down civil unions were not recognized as far as filing joint federal returns. Separate was not equal in this area of the federal law and could never be equal. Does this open the door for other marriage unions? I don't know, but people have already been practicing there preference. Legal or not. The states already have their own rules regulating marriage, and some still do not allow for gay marriage nor recognize them, so the superior protected class still has no rights but can now file a federal return.

The whole notion of anything goes and protected classes and superior rights smacks in the face of equality, and justifies denying federal rights to a class of people while another class of the more traditional citizens have enjoyed superior right than other's for centuries.

Why can't gay people use the term marriage and why should a definition be the exclusive domain of religion?

The problem with the civil unions could have been taken to the next step and been recognized if that were the plan. But the plan was never to have the same rights. It was to appear "normal". Anything short of calling it marriage and opening an avenue to attatck churches is the true message. Why couldn't civil unions have been elevated through the existing system and left the definition of marriage alone? They have huge advocacy in political circles. So why the need to destroy one in favor of another and open a pandoras box?

You seem to keep going back to objecting that gay people calling their unions marriages. I will ask why civil unions weren't elevated to the same federal status of marriages as a civil union between a male and female has the same consequences as a gay civil union does it not?

I don't think polygamy, and marrying a minor is even at the same level as gay marriage is given how long it took gays to arrive at this stage and have a ways to go. Marriage as an exclusive domain of man and woman is barely half a success in America, so to think gays will be any more successful is a stretch I think and hopeful at best. Besides fear that it leads to even more uncomfortable stuff for religious types.

I mean what do you expect when married filing jointly is a cash cow for couples even though for straight people it's a temporary arrangement and any shack for an alternative. Still waiting for an explanation that makes gay marriage superior to straight marriage. Besides the fear of religious people that more people they are uncomfortable with get a shot at the cash cow of federal benefits and taxes.

Big difference between religious beliefs, and economic opportunity and options. And marriage is more than JUST a religious institution as far as the secular government is concerned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Why can't gay people use the term marriage and why should a definition be the exclusive domain of religion?

I was trying to make those other guys here happy.

How about "religious marriage" and "civil marriage" as terms to use?

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

Still waiting for an explanation that makes gay marriage superior to straight marriage. Besides the fear of religious people that more people they are uncomfortable with get a shot at the cash cow of federal benefits and taxes.

Big difference between religious beliefs, and economic opportunity and options. And marriage is more than JUST a religious institution as far as the secular government is concerned.

I had never said it was a superior marriage for gays to be married. I said that a superior right was inposed in the decision. Opening the pandoras box.

Quote:

Originally Posted by talaniman

I don't think polygamy, and marrying a minor is even at the same level as gay marriage is given how long it took gays to arrive at this stage and have a ways to go. Marriage as an exclusive domain of man and woman is barely half a success in America, so to think gays will be any more successful is a stretch I think and hopeful at best. Besides fear that it leads to even more uncomfortable stuff for religious types.

In a span of less then 30 years there has been many changes and a lifestyle has moved into a protected class. Its not much of a leap that the next wave of "I want rights too" is coming down the pike. Why should it in your opinion be illegal for anyone to marry based on the decision that knocked out DOMA ?

Ref: LGBT social movements - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1987–present[edit]

Some historians posit that a new era of the gay rights movement began in the 1980s with the emergence of AIDS, which decimated the leadership and shifted the focus for many.[15] This era saw a resurgence of militancy with direct action groups like AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP), formed in 1987, as well as its offshoots Queer Nation (1990) and the Lesbian Avengers (1992). Some younger activists, seeing gay and lesbian as increasingly normative and politically conservative, began using queer as a defiant statement of all sexual minorities and gender variant people—just as the earlier liberationists had done with gay. Less confrontational terms that attempt to reunite the interests of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people also became prominent, including various acronyms like LGBT, LGBTQ, and LGBTI, where the Q and I stand for queer or questioning and intersex, respectively.

On June 24, 1994, first Gay Pride march was performed in Asia in the Philippines. In the Middle East, LGBT organizations remain illegal, and LGBT rights activists face extreme opposition from the state.[citation needed] The 1990s also saw the emergence of many LGBT youth movements and organizations such as LGBT youth centers, gay-straight alliances in high schools, and youth-specific activism, such as the National Day of Silence. Colleges also became places of LGBT activism and support for activists and LGBT people in general, with many colleges opening LGBT centers.[32][dead link]

Hello dad:

Quote:

Why should it in your opinion be illegal for anyone to marry based on the decision that knocked out DOMA ?

It isn't. Why do you believe that adults shouldn't be able to make those decisions for themselves?

Before we get all Bill O'Reilly here, keep in mind that dogs and children can't enter into contracts.

Excon

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello dad:
It isn't. Why do you believe that adults shouldn't be able to make those decisions for themselves?

Before we get all Bill O'Reilly here, keep in mind that dogs and children can't enter into contracts.

excon

Actually your only partially right. Dogs can't but under certain circumstances children can. If a child were to have a child then they are the legal parent and can sign contracts and make medical decisions even though they are below the age of emancipation. Also there could be an argument made that by not allow a child to marry that is age based discrimination. When you open pandoras box there is no end to what may come of it.

Also in the case of polygamy then adults are involved and it is still illegal. My point being that this goes much further when you remove the definition and leave it open to opinion.

Quote:

When you open pandoras box there is no end to what may come of it.

Not for 'reasonable people" which is the legal term oft used. It seems to be exclusively the rightys that bring up these "marry your horse" or "marry a child" arguments, why is that?

I've already pointed out that Polygamists are happy with the DOMA ruling and is easy to see why.

Ask Me Help Desk - View Single Post - Big week for SCOTUS

You guys fought for this and said there would be no slippery slope, called us silly for thinking gay marriage might open the door to other arrangements. I think a foot just got in the door.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Not for 'reasonable people" which is the legal term oft used. It seems to be exclusively the rightys that bring up these "marry your horse" or "marry a child" arguments, why is that?

See above. When you make the definition of something fluid it can mean anything.

Quote:

there would be no slippery slope

There isn't. Nothing has changed concerning polygamy.

Yet. I believe I said "a foot in the door." cdad said "Pandora box." Camel's nose under the tent. Take your pick, if it's no longer one man and one woman the possibilities are endless by the same legal argument.

See my post: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post3499470

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

if it's no longer one man and one woman the possibilities are endless by the same legal argument.

I see polygamy possible, but not man and dog.. Does a multiple marriage hurt your marriage like gay marriage did?

Ex

If two men and two women can mary so can a man and a dog.. or a horse... or his TV.

If you can't legally define marriage.. you can't legally deny that from happening.

Quote:

If two men and two women can mary so can a man and a dog.. or a horse... or his TV.

If you can't legally define marriage.. you can't legally deny that from happening.

Thanks for proving my point. LOL!

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

I see polygamy possible, but not man and dog.. Does a multiple marriage hurt your marriage like gay marriage did?

ex

And it begins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

See my post: https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post3499470

See my arguments above. Ex doesn't seem to think there is anything unreasonable about polygamy, he's using the same argument he did for gay marriage so take it up with him, he just made my point for me.