It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let's Revoke The Rights and Protections Awarded to Heterosexual Married Couples

page: 21
29
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





Lesbian Widow Sues Over Estate Tax JONAH COMSTOCK - 10 November 2010. BY An 81-year-old gay woman whose partner of 44 years died last year sued the federal government today over the Defense of Marriage Act, which she called discriminatory and therefore unconstitutional. Edith Windsor is suing over a $350,000 federal estate tax that was levied against her, even though under federal law a spouse is exempt from paying estate taxes – the so-called “widow’s exemption.” cityherald.org...


Thanks for the link...

Very sad to read this.

It's just not fair. Can anyone justify this?

Can you put yourself in this women's place for one second?

This is the person she loved...




posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   
The gay lifestyle is unnatural, unhealthy, perverse and immoral. Why are we even having this debate.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by aardvark888
The gay lifestyle is unnatural, unhealthy, perverse and immoral. Why are we even having this debate.


It's an orientation - - - birth right - - - how the body is wired. Basically - - how God made them.

Who the hell are you or your personal belief system - - to dictate what is moral?

Its your belief - nothing more.

Lifestyle - - is how someone lives their life. What career they have - what car they drive - what movies they like - etc etc etc.





edit on 9-9-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by aardvark888
The gay lifestyle is unnatural, unhealthy, perverse and immoral. Why are we even having this debate.


Because the GLT community is upset that they don't get to have the same PRIVILEGES that are given to Heterosexual couples. It is a "legal status" that they are upset about getting that they do not have.
The GLT community does not follow or believe in Christian or biblical life, rules and Laws of God.
If the did, they would not be doing whatever it is they are in defiance of God's will.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Labrynth2012

The GLT community does not follow or believe in Christian or biblical life, rules and Laws of God.
If the did, they would not be doing whatever it is they are in defiance of God's will.


The final decision in the case of Prop8.

God has no validity in denying Equal Rights.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 

Watch me avoid your point completely.

She must have had an estate of $6,000,000 or more. The IRS exempts the first $5 million from estate taxes. If you're getting older with an estate that size and haven't done any estate planning, then you're being careless. And from the article, she knew about the problems of not being married in the US, another reason to plan ahead.

To your point, though. One of the worst words in the political and economic vocabulary is "fair." Nobody knows what it means precisely, but it trumps all existing laws and rules. If someone breaks a law, the cry is (sometimes) "But the law isn't fair."

Maybe I've spent too much time in threads discussing this issue. But if you want to say a law is "unconstitutional," fine, file your court documents and let's see. Calling something "fair" is about the worst reason for supporting a law that I know of.

Again, forgive me for exploding like this. I try to keep my cool. I think I'll go have a drink.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by whyamIhere
 

Watch me avoid your point completely.


I don't get YOUR point on this Charles.

The point is - - if her marriage was recognized Federally - - she would not have to pay. THAT WAS THE POINT.

Yes - she had enough money. I know that. So what?

Would you like an update?


Second Circuit rejects BLAG’s motion to suspend oral arguments in Windsor v. USA

August 23, 2012 - Jacob Combs

In a one sentence order released today, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request by the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) to suspend oral arguments at the appellate court in the DOMA case Windsor v. USA that are currently scheduled to take place in New York on September 27.

Edie Windsor, a New York widow forced by DOMA to pay over $360,000 in estate taxes following the death of her wife, won a district court ruling striking down DOMA and ordering her taxes be repaid. Windsor had appealed the case to the Second Circuit and requested an expedited appeal schedule, but she also filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to have the case heard there before it is taken up by the Second Circuit. BLAG asked the appeals court to put the case on hold pending a Supreme Court decision on the Windsor petition; the Ninth Circuit recently vacated arguments in another DOMA case, Golinski v. OPM, that had been appealed directly to the Supreme Court. www.prop8trialtracker.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by whyamIhere
 

Watch me avoid your point completely.

She must have had an estate of $6,000,000 or more. The IRS exempts the first $5 million from estate taxes. If you're getting older with an estate that size and haven't done any estate planning, then you're being careless. And from the article, she knew about the problems of not being married in the US, another reason to plan ahead.

To your point, though. One of the worst words in the political and economic vocabulary is "fair." Nobody knows what it means precisely, but it trumps all existing laws and rules. If someone breaks a law, the cry is (sometimes) "But the law isn't fair."

Maybe I've spent too much time in threads discussing this issue. But if you want to say a law is "unconstitutional," fine, file your court documents and let's see. Calling something "fair" is about the worst reason for supporting a law that I know of.

Again, forgive me for exploding like this. I try to keep my cool. I think I'll go have a drink.


I respect your opinion.

I can tell you if you were in her spot.

You might see it differently.

I can handle respectful disagreements...I just don't like bigots.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Labrynth2012

Originally posted by aardvark888
The gay lifestyle is unnatural, unhealthy, perverse and immoral. Why are we even having this debate.


Because the GLT community is upset that they don't get to have the same PRIVILEGES that are given to Heterosexual couples. It is a "legal status" that they are upset about getting that they do not have.
The GLT community does not follow or believe in Christian or biblical life, rules and Laws of God.
If the did, they would not be doing whatever it is they are in defiance of God's will.


If we are talking about God's will.

We would realize through his son's teachings.

It is not up to us to make this decision nor to judge anyone.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 09:41 PM
link   
It's funny when others freak out after the threat of taking their privileges away, yet continue to go on about how equality is wrong.



posted on Sep, 9 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

Dear Annee,

Thanks for the update. That helped. I like the idea that they're petitioning the Supremes for an expedited decision. I'm kind of split on whether they'll get it. I would wager that they will hear it though, and that's a good thing for at least three reasons.


The point is - - if her marriage was recognized Federally - - she would not have to pay. THAT WAS THE POINT.
You're absolutely right, I agree completely. That's why I said at the beginning of my post that I was avoiding the point. It's certainly true. But, by itself, it kind of ends the discussion. It's like noting that the water is wet.

I'm not sure that I had a definite point, but I wanted to make a few observations that have been made before. Be gentle with me, Annee, I'm an old man.

Leaving aside questions of orientation, anybody with that much money could have avoided the estate tax with very little work. Apparently, she didn't do any work. It's not surprising that she got hit with a tax.

My other observation was that I'm perfectly willing to accept the idea that all this may be unconstitutional. If it's found to be, then people will find ways to cope. But, I really have a tough time with anyone relying on the claim that something isn't "fair."

I think I'll stop here, I've got to stop practicing shorter responses. (By the way, when my skin is feeling particulary thick, you're one of my favorites. Not the favorite, but you're way up there.)

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by aardvark888
The gay lifestyle is unnatural, unhealthy, perverse and immoral. Why are we even having this debate.


It's an orientation - - - birth right - - - how the body is wired. Basically - - how God made them.



That's just an opinion. God didn't say he made them this way, either. At least the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God is very clear on how he made man, what sexual orientation he designed into man, he says it right in the book of Genesis "man shall leave his mother and father and cleave onto his wife", he could have said "Adam shall leave his parents and cleave onto Steve" , but he didn't.




Who the hell are you or your personal belief system - - to dictate what is moral?


You do realize, of course, that you yourself are determining what is moral? Your opinion is homosexual behavior is moral and righteous, and you're promoting your view. Who the h**l are you to "reverse" the centuries old moral laws and introduce your own? See?

Is it good or bad for people to eat other people? Is rape good or bad? We have lots of traditional moral views that are all about to change. Who the h**l is anybody to dictate which of these things are morally right?

Let all follow their own impulses, and let us all accept whatever may be the consequences. Be Free, People, be Free. Don't let any moral laws dictate what you do. Create your own morality, and live by it. Let the people be damned if they disagree.







Its your belief - nothing more.


Well, this is partly right. It is our belief. But, there is something more. There's the commonly held belief, the collective belief, and if there's a supreme being, then there's his belief to consider too. So, it's not just one person's belief at work here, but the beliefs of the multitudes and the supreme deities.




Lifestyle - - is how someone lives their life. What career they have - what car they drive - what movies they like - etc etc etc.


The secret of the whole world is found in the answer to this riddle:

There are four types of people on the planet: the strong, the smart, the wise, and the foolish.

The smart defeat the strong, by changing the rules of the game.
The wise defeat the smart, by changing the meaning of the rules.
The fools defeat the wise, by lacking understanding.
And the strong defeat the fools, by shear strength.
Who is the wisest of them all?








edit on 9-9-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by aardvark888
The gay lifestyle is unnatural, unhealthy, perverse and immoral. Why are we even having this debate.



What exactly is the "gay lifestyle"?

You mean the Christian gay lifestyle?

christiangays.com...

Or do you mean the gay-couples-who-adopt-children-and-raise-them-in-loving-homes lifestyle?

www.washingtonpost.com...

Or perhaps you mean the gays-giving-more-to-charity-than-straights lifestyle?

www.thenonprofittimes.com...

Your statement is based on ignorance. The "gay lifestyle" is as diverse as any other group of people. Gays go to work, they have homes, and apartments, they live in the suburbs, and the cities, they have families, they go to church, they sin, they dream, they hope, they laugh, they cry, they love, they pray. There is no one "gay" lifestyle, just like there is no one "straight" lifestyle.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by aardvark888
The gay lifestyle is unnatural, unhealthy, perverse and immoral. Why are we even having this debate.


You know that gays or what ever you wanna nick name someone, have been on this planet as long as we have, and that in greeke cultures it was perfectly exceptable, and romans and ect ect.. Even the spartans encouraged homosexuality in soldiers to make them better. So if it is so unnatural, why has it been here so naturally? and immoral? to you maybe, but for others its nothing more then another beautifull day.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreatOwl

That's just an opinion. God didn't say he made them this way, either. At least the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God is very clear on how he made man, what sexual orientation he designed into man, he says it right in the book of Genesis


I make statements from the knowledge I've accumulated over many years of reading and research.

"Born this Way" - - "as God made them" - - - are expressions to make a point. I am not making any reference to believing in a god or god belief.

Sexual orientation is not a choice.

Our government is secular - - - god is not relevant in regards to a government contract.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952

Leaving aside questions of orientation, anybody with that much money could have avoided the estate tax with very little work. Apparently, she didn't do any work. It's not surprising that she got hit with a tax.


But that is a different argument - - not related to the point of the unfairness in Legal marriage.

As she states: "If she was Theo instead of Thea - there would be no estate tax".



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
[
Sexual orientation is not a choice.




Sorry, but that's just your belief. You state it as if it is a proven fact. But, it's all opinion, and repeated opinion.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by GreatOwl

Originally posted by Annee
[
Sexual orientation is not a choice.




Sorry, but that's just your belief. You state it as if it is a proven fact. But, it's all opinion, and repeated opinion.



No - - it is not my belief.

There are enough indicators in scientific research to point to sexual orientation being part of early fetus development and possibly even later.

Studies indicate it comes through the mother. There's a pattern that's still being studied.

There are studies with Fruit Flies - - - where sexual attraction is changed by manipulating brain chemicals.

And there is the word of gays themselves.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Many animals exhibit homosexual behaviour.

So it does exist in nature.

That seems like it could be considered "natural" in a small percentage of mammals.

I realize there are other factors like dominance.

I'm just throwing this out there. I have no facts, just speculation.



posted on Sep, 10 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by whyamIhere
 


Homosexuality and even more so bisexuality exists all across the animal kingdom. It is 100% natural. The entire reason 'man' began demonizing it was for spreading religion/customs/slaves etc... indoctrination by procreation.


But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom.


National Geographic (2004)



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join