I've Got People ... Who Can't Do Online Civil Union Tax Returns (Trees And Things)

skeptic: Re: Benefits

Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:42:16 EST

Same-sex couples who wish to marry are not asking for any special privilege; they are asking for exactly the SAME privilege that is extended to opposite-sex couples. People who are intolerant of homosexuality will undoubtedly continue to be intoleran

Steve Urkel: Re: Benefits

Wed, 2 Apr 2008 01:01:10 EST

I don't know why, as I don't think they need to be, or, more importantly, that the government should.

Lou: Re: Benefits

Tue, 1 Apr 2008 22:49:52 EST

And why is it, Gord...that some individuals must be "coerced" into accepting such any group of people?

Given the numbers, not really.

This is rich..."If homosexual marriage would provide a benefit to society, then why aren't more homosexuals m

Steve Urkel: Re: Benefits

Tue, 1 Apr 2008 22:07:41 EST

Opposing same sex marriage is entirely consistent with aversion to government, because the purpose of enacting same sex marriage is to coerce moral acceptance of homosexuals.

"homosexual couples can provide a ginormous benefit to society simply through

Lou: Benefits

Tue, 1 Apr 2008 21:35:55 EST

Here is a link to the testimony from the co-director of the National Marriage Project. While she parses marriage as between a man and a w

Steve Urkel: Re: Some slightly longer arguments

Tue, 1 Apr 2008 17:58:10 EST

"marriage is (unlike the army) not something that people enter into in order to benefit the state"

No, but the only reason the state recognizes, encourages, and confers certain benefits on marriage is because it benefits society as a whole. This is not

skeptic: Re: Some slightly longer arguments

Tue, 1 Apr 2008 10:24:41 EST

Thank you for the full explanation of your opinion.

Your critique of same-sex marriage could possibly be boiled down to the claim that this type of marriage "holds no benefit for the state" which reminds me of President Kennedy; ask not what your marria

Steve Urkel: Some slightly longer arguments

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:22:20 EST

Is same sex marriage a right? Considering that sodomy was illegal everywhere at the time the Constitution was written, I find it impossible to take seriously claims that some hidden right to same sex marriage lurking in the penumbras of the Constitution. I

Steve Urkel: Re: I've heard this one before

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:03:38 EST

There are lots of places in the world where polygamy is practiced. What are those places like? You can also see the consequences of polygamy here in the US.

Or ima

profwhat: Give me marriage or nothing

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:56:21 EST

The problem here is not with H&R Block, but with civil unions. Civil unions are a compromise that make no one happy. The point was to give gays all the benefits of marriage while keeping the religiously charged word "marriage" exclusively for str

skeptic: Re: thank you, your holiness

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:40:44 EST

I have engaged in assorted internet-based debates for a number of years, and I have noticed that lots of arguments and topic keep coming up, over and over. But then, if you didn't want to discuss it, no one forced you to do so. I find it, shall

Lou: Re: Hope for the pope

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:37:58 EST

but right now I have to go perform an exorcism.

You and Ann got a date to drive out Hightowerezelbub out of a friend?

Steve Urkel: Re: thank you, your holiness

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:28:44 EST

It's not that I can't provide arguments, it's that I've done so at length in the past, and it's not the topic of this thread. Maybe later I will get back to you, but right now I have to go perform an exorcism.

skeptic: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:27:28 EST

If only 3.6% of marriages in the Netherlands are between same-sex couples, that is still a significant quantity of marriages. It hardly confirms your bizarre assertion that homosexuals are not interested in getting married. If that were true, t

Lou: Re: I've heard this one before

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:25:15 EST

Well, since you clarify like that...

Not to hi-jack the thread or anything...but really...what is the big deal about polygamy? If some guys wants multiple wives (or a woman wanting multiple husbands) why should we kick?

Lou: To lazy to look

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:21:11 EST

I wonder if the trend of any kind of marriage is dropping. You might be right in saying that gays might be interested in getting married...but I wonder if straights in the US are all that interested either.

And in further curiosity...I wond

skeptic: thank you, your holiness

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:20:03 EST

Actually, same-sex marriage IS important for society, and for (at least some of)the same reasons that opposite-sex marriage is. Both same-sex and opposite sex marriages can help parents (biological or adoptive) in raising children successfully.

Steve Urkel: Re: I've heard this one before

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:19:18 EST

I know you often hear such a "slippery slope" argument, but there's no need to resort to invoking marrying dogs or something, since polygamy is a legitmate concern and is the logical conclusion if one accepts the rights-based arguments for homosexual marri

Steve Urkel: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:11:53 EST

What countries are those? If you look at the Netherlands, for example, you see the same initial interest, and then it tapers off:

"According to provisional fi

Lou: I've heard this one before

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 13:08:07 EST

Debater - 1 "Gays should be allowed to married"

Debater - 2 "Well, if gays should be able to marry, then how about bigamists?"

Debater - 1 [If not quick enough to see what is happening offers a pro bigamy argument]

Debater - 2 "Well fine then, big

Steve Urkel: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:55:18 EST

The reason I gave is that marriage between heterosexuals is important to society, so society recognizes it. Marriage between homosexuals is not, so society has no obligation to recognize it.

"it also includes a respect for the legitimate rights of the m

skeptic: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:51:56 EST

If you look at data for countries in which same-sex marriage is legal, LOTS of homosexuals are getting married. I believe that marriage may never be entirely as popular in the gay community as it is in the straight community, but it is certainly not

skeptic: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:44:46 EST

I think that one can oppose same-sex marriage without wanting to kill homosexuals, but nonetheless, there is no valid reason to oppose same-sex marriage, and all those who oppose it do so for reasons of intolerance. The only reason you have offered f

Steve Urkel: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:25:47 EST

It is also true that one can oppose homosexual marriage and not be motivated by bigotry or want to kill homosexuals.

"if two consenting adults want to get married, it is THEIR will which is relevant"

Why only two? Isn't the will of people who want mu

Steve Urkel: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:21:05 EST

You can see the trend in that link. The number of civil unions dwindled after the initial novelty wore off. Because homosexuals aren't really interested in getting married.

Lou: The future

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:23:08 EST

Excellent points...and it causes me to reflect on the conundrum of some of our more hard core paleocon brothers and sisters.

While I vehemently disapprove of the inherent homophobia displayed by paleocons, neocons, and religious insane-o-cons, as long a

skeptic: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 10:15:35 EST

While you are now giving an exaggerated response as a form of sarcasm, it is nonetheless true that it is intolerance of homosexuals which motivates the murder of homosexuals (by Nazis or by contemporary gay bashers), which also motivates the rejection of s

skeptic: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:47:55 EST

Ah, but think of the future. There may be only 1750 civil unions in Connecticut as yet, but there could be many more to come. And even if the added business from same-sex couples is not of any great volume, how expensive is it to add another de

Steve Urkel: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:27:58 EST

And what about Hitler? He sent queers to deathcamps. Objecting to courts inventing a right to queer 'marriage' is really no different than sending queers to deathcamps.

Lou: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:11:46 EST

Unfortunately homosexual marriage has typically been imposed by activist courts contra the will of the people.

Much the way those wascally courts and politicians made it illegal to lynch people despite the will of the people.

Just think

Steve Urkel: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 22:32:07 EST

As in won't allow anyone but homosexuals. There are things like all gay resorts and vacation tours. They aren't, of course, discriminatory, in the same way that non-Kosher resturants don't discriminate against Jews. At least to me. If the ACLU wasn't advan

Steve Urkel: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:53:04 EST

If it were profitable they would have already changed it. Since 2005 Connecticut has granted only 1,750 Civil Unions, a lot of which were probably out of st

Steve Urkel: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:33:57 EST

"we can never change those arrangements or introduce new arrangements"

I agree, we should be allowed to determine our societal arrangements. Unfortunately homosexual marriage has typically been imposed by activist courts contra the will of the people.

postillion: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:22:18 EST

Why? There are businesses that cater exclusively to homosexuals.

How are you using exclusively? As in the sense that gays are the targeted market group or that they won't allow anyone else but gays?

skeptic: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:18:53 EST

Interestingly, if we examine the route by which same-sex unions became legal in Canada, we find that there first were a series of court decisions to the effect that we ARE obligated to allow same-sex marriages, because to prohibit same-sex marriage is disc

skeptic: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:11:29 EST

It is not obvious to me that changing the software isn't profitable. Even though homosexuals are a minority, they are a sizable enough minority that various regions seeking tourists have some advertising specifically addressed to that demographic, an

gerrymander: rinse, lather, repeat

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:12:30 EST

From the Courant link:

TurboTax has figured it out, he said.
"When you go through their website, not only do they support the return, they tell you it's cheaper to buy" the software, rather than to file online, Smith said.
The reason i

Steve Urkel: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:41:21 EST

"Why would they allow heterosexual couples to do business with them but not gay couples"

A better question is why, if H&R Block hates homosexuals, does it only want to do business with them in person? Because homos can still walk into any H&a

skeptic: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:26:24 EST

Your proposal is perfectly reasonable; civil unions for all couples, straight or gay, with marriage being reserved for the religious service that confers no additional legal status but does confer some religious status. As you say, this gives a very

skeptic: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:20:07 EST

I could easily believe that the reason the income-tax business doesn't have the software necessary to deal with civil unions is not due to any anti-gay prejudice, but merely due to an oversight. They may simply not have thought of this detail when se

Steve Urkel: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:23:29 EST

"it is also the responsibility of an income-tax preparing business to meet the needs of all of its clients"

Why? There are businesses that cater exclusively to homosexuals. Just because this business hasn't found it profitable yet to allow a certain cla

Steve Urkel: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 13:17:51 EST

Except the state has an interest in recognizing normal (i.e. heterosexual, non-polygmaic) marriage, because our society is predicated upon certain social arrangements. We can debate whether or not homosexual marriage is or is not harmful to society, but it

port1080: Re: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 12:43:23 EST

Similarly, despite all the wailing by those who want to protect the institution of marriage from the terrible damage that it would supposedly suffer in the event that same-sex couples are allowed to marry

The fundamental problem is that marria

postillion: Re: It's just not that simple

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:53:46 EST

The modifications, even if they could have been done by now might be very costly, and I imagine they might process a couple hundred CT civil union returns a year, if they are lucky. Seeing as how they can handle these few cases in their offices, I

joshv: It's just not that simple

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:33:48 EST
I can attest to the fact that modifying software that's known nothing but "marriage" for the past 15 years to accommodate something that's sort of like marriage, but not quite like marriage, can be a royal pain in the ass. Throw in state/federal spec

skeptic: same-sex marriage vs. civil union

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:10:46 EST
The institution of the "civil union" was devised as a compromise, so that on the one hand society grants civil rights to gay people rather than turning them into second-class citizens, but on the other hand, they are not allowed to claim the same status as

port1080: Re: I've Got People ... Who Can't Do Online Civil

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 08:50:06 EST
I can sort of understand the desire of H&R Block to charge more for this service - after all, it does require them to re-write their software and split up the federal and local returns, and all for a relatively small portion of their customer base at t