"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&R Block and get their taxes done, they just can't do it online.  

Obviously changing the software isn't profitable, and this whole lawsuit is a scam.

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, and there are several other businesses I know of that have gone out of their way to seek gay customers - not because they sell a specifically gay product, either, but because they want the extra business.  How expensive is it to add this detail to the income tax program?  It is, after all, the business they are in, they might as well do their job.

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 state couples,so the market is small. (I notice only 380 last year. Gays care a lot about having gay 'marriage', but they aren't really interested in getting gay married.)

I also notice homo-hating H&R Block provides domestic partner benefits.

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 detail to the program so that it can deal with those customers?  Even if the same-sex market is not profitable in this particular case, I would still say that it shows poor judgment for an income-tax filing business to exclude it, since that at least suggests intolerance, even if the actual motive is that there doesn't seem to be enough profit in that particular niche.

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 as they're open and honest about their phobias I can respect them and enter into a discussion.  On one hand, they strive to keep American moral life on the straight (npi) and narrow...but on the other hand, even all of these cons must recognize the many lucrative business opportunities that could emerge once gay marriage is accepted.  Travel, wedding planing, catering (or Gaytering if you prefer)...the list goes on.  Not only that, but think of how we could put a dent in abortions while at the same time clearing away the backlog of children waiting to be adopted.  And of course, since gays and lesbians are, except for sexual orientation, no different than any other type of couple, lawyers who are sensitive the the needs of the gay divorcee will be in high demand.

I hope that our right-wing brethren can navigate the rocky shoals of their "we hate their orientation, but we love their money" outlook.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

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.

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 the case as you assert that "homosexuals aren't really interested in getting married".  Many are quite interested.  And even if it should only be a minority of homosexuals who have matrimonial aspirations, there is no reason to thwart them.

There is a difference between forming a civil union, which is the uncomfortable compromise crafted by a homophobic society, and the full equality of marriage.  I think that many gay couples in the US are well aware that even if they form a civil union, they will still be regarded as an illicit couple, by people such as yourself.  This has a somewhat inhibiting effect.

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 figures from Statistics Netherlands, for the first six months, same-sex marriages made up 3.6% of the total number of marriages: a peak of around 6% in the first month followed by around 3% in the remaining months: about 2,100 men and 1,700 women in total. By June 2004, more than 6,000 same-sex couples had married.[6] In March 2006, Statistics Netherlands released estimates on the number of same-sex marriages each year - 2,500 in 2001, 1,800 in 2002, 1,200 in 2004, and 1,100 in 2005.[7]"

Note that the only reason for those percentages are as high as that is that heterosexuals are not the interested in getting married in the Netherlands, either

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 wonder if straight marriage were to drop precipitously would that cause it to be illegal?   I mean, since we're talking about the correlation between numbers and validity.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

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, the percentage of marriages in the Netherlands (or anywhere) between same-sex couples would be zero.  Why are they doing it at all, if it doesn't interest them?

If homosexuals don't actually want to get married, then the whole issue of same-sex marriage is academic, because even if it were legalized, no one would ever actually do it.  And yet, people ARE doing it.  Obviously not all homosexuals want to get married, and indeed, not all heterosexuals want to get married either.  But some do.  The institution of marriage exists for the benefit of those who wish to marry.  It really doesn't matter that there are also people who don't wish to marry.

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 advancing a certain agenda it would sue them, too.

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 discriminatory against homosexuals who, as citizens, are guaranteed to have the same legal rights as any other citizen.  Since homosexuality isn't a crime (even in the generally homophobic US) it therefore does not provide a legitimate reason to deprive someone of their civil rights.  This reasoning has also been upheld by the courts of some US states (which, however, have only allowed same-sex civil unions, not marriages, because of federal legislation to prohibit same-sex marriage).  

Your statement that "our society is predicated upon certain social arrangements" is true, but it does not mean therefore that we can never change those arrangements or introduce new arrangements.  At one time, travel in the US was predicated upon horses.  Agriculture was predicated upon slavery.  And so forth.  These things can change.

"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.

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 Gord...if it wasn't for the meddlings of politicians and such, you might have the opportunity to lynch teh gays today.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

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.

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 same-sex marriage.  Tolerant people neither desire to murder people for being gay, nor to prevent them from getting married if they so desire.  And when you tell me in your previous comment that same-sex marriage is "contrary to the will of the people" I would like to point out that homosexuals are also people, just in case you forgot.  And I think that if two consenting adults want to get married, it is THEIR will which is relevant, and not the will of those who want to run everybody else's lives according to their own narrow-minded prejudices.

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 multiple wives relevant? There are probably more people who want to have polgyamic marriages than there are people who want to have homosexual marriages.

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 for your own opposition is your desire to respect the will of the people, and the people whose will you wish to respect are intolerant.  There are also tolerant people in our world, whose will seems to matter less to you.  True democracy (or liberal democracy as it is sometimes called) does not consist ONLY of majority rule, it also includes a respect for the legitimate rights of the minority.

The issue of polygamy is somewhat complex, and it has been discussed at length in other threads and other web-sites, but I will give you a brief summary of the issue.  As currently practiced (mostly by Mormon splinter-groups) polygamy usually involves the abuse of women who are socially coerced into marriages in which they are little more than the slaves of their husband.  So that is a problem.  In theory, if more than two people wanted to create a family together, which was based upon a fully consensual arrangement without coercion or abuse, that would be as reasonable as anything else.  But I also think that for most people, one spouse is enough.  Indeed, given the high divorce rate, it would seem that just getting along with a single spouse is often more than people can handle.  Getting along with several spouses creates an even more complicated social challenge.  But doubtless there are at least some people who are up to it.  We do have to be more careful about polygamy than about same-sex marriage, because polygamy as an institution is more prone to being abused.  I do not buy your implicit argument that once we allow same-sex marriage, all restraint fails and anything goes.  That really does not follow.  Different varieties of social arrangement can still be judged independently upon their own merits or failings.

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 minority."

Except there's no right to homosexual marriage. I'm not really interested in debating that again.

"I do not buy your implicit argument that once we allow same-sex marriage, all restraint fails and anything goes. That really does not follow."

It does follow from the arguments typically advanced for homosexual marriage.

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.  That is the main purpose.  Also, the creation of an accepted mechanism for sexual exclusivity is helpful for people's lives, cuts down on the risks associated with sexual promiscuity, and satisfies some people's emotional needs.  And the needs of individuals are what collectively constitute the needs of societies which are, after all, only collections of individuals.

You blandly assert that there is no right to homosexual marriage, and then add that you are not interested in debating the matter.  Who knows, perhaps you are infallible.  Pope Benedict XVI, is that you?  There is, of course, no reason why you should have to justify or support your opinions in any way.  As long as you have said it, it must be true, your holiness.

Homosexuals have rights because they are citizens of countries whose constitutions guarantee certain rights to all citizens.  That's how it works, if you were willing to debate the issue, which you are not.  At least we can all stop arguing now, and go back to watching television.  Survivor is on.

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.

but right now I have to go perform an exorcism.

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

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

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 we say, odd that you do express an opinion, but don't wish to support that opinion because you are tired of debating something that you have debated previously.  

A little while ago I had an incredibly lengthy and arduous debate on the often recurring topic of Israel, which arrived at no real conclusion, after which I stated that I would never bring up the subject again, and I won't.  And even if you bring it up, I'm not going to discuss it.  I am finished with that subject forever (or until such time as I am elected President of the United States, at which time my opnions will gain new relevance).  And I won't express any opinion, adding that I don't want to bother explaining it.

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 know some judges and legal scholars do find such a right, but I see no reason to take what they do seriously, as anything other than imposing their personal political and moral beliefs under the guise of ruling on the law.

Quoting myself:

A society has the right to recognize certain basic social institutions that are essential to its existence, among them marriage and family structures. A family structure of one man married to one woman has been proven over time to be the most effective social arrangement for the type of society (of limited republican government, freedom and individual rights) we wish to have, other forms of family arrangement produce a different type of citizen (such as the Spartan) as well as affecting citizens relationship with the state (see the governments of polygamist societies). Homosexual marriage may or may not be harmful, but since the best that can be argued is that homosexual marriage is irrelevant to larger society, it is therefore not discriminatory for homosexual marriage not to be recognized. Regardless of the interests of certain individuals, the state has no interest in recognizing homosexual marriage because it holds no benefit for the state.

Note that the marriage of two people of the same sex is not the only alternate form of family structure that our society chooses not to recognize, and note that no one ever argues that such lack of recognition in those cases amounts to discrimination (though in the event that homosexual marriage is recognized, I would expect that polygamists, at least, would immediately begin to claim discrimination)... [Continued]

Should we recognize same sex marriage? Given the importance of marriage, I would rather wait and see how it works out elsewhere. But if we do recognize it, it should be enacted through the democratic process, not by judges.

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 marriage can do for yourselves, ask what it can do for your country!  But seriously folks, marriage is (unlike the army) not something that people enter into in order to benefit the state, it is an arrangement that the state offers for the benefit of individuals.  Furthermore, since every state is made up of individuals, anything that benefits individuals also has some benefit for the state.  If some same-sex couples benefit from being married, and if such benefits do not come at the expense of a commensurate degree of harm to others, then the state is indeed benefiting because the members of that state are benefiting.

You also take a cautious wait-and-see attitude, that we might as well see how same-sex marriage is working out in those countries where it is allowed, before taking the radical step of introducing it into the US.  You don't say how long you have to wait in order to be suitably reassured.  I do know that there is so far no indication of any problems resulting from same-sex marriage.  Countries which allow it have not fallen into moral or social anarchy, there are no mass conversions of the population to homosexuality with consequent collapse of all reproduction, straight couples are still getting married and their marriages still have exactly the same significance and the same workability that they used to have when only straight couples were allowed to marry.  But maybe you want to wait longer.  Since I personally see a moral imperative to treat the gay population fairly and to respect their civil right to equal protection under the law, I don't think that the wait should be unduly protracted.

As for your preference that any change should arise from the democratic process (presumably by the election of candidates such as Dennis Kucinich who support same-sex marriage) rather than by judicial rulings, that would be ideal.  I do know that in Canada, the process began with the judiciary but was eventually confirmed by Parliament.  When it comes to the correction of injustice, I am happy for that to happen however it happens.  Justice is always better than injustice, even when it depends upon mere judges to bring it about.  But I would certainly like to see voter support for this as well, and suitable legislation, not just judicial rulings.

To refuse to allow homosexuals to participate in social institutions as equals just seems bigoted and mean-spirited to me.  Nobody actually benefits from the repression of homosexuals, it does not enhance the lives of homophobes, beyond the extent to which some people take pleasure in the unhappiness of others.

"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 a matter of individualsim. Homosexuals can already arrange their lives as individuals how they want, what they are demanding is the rest of society recognize their arrangements. Society as a whole can choose to reject doing this if it wants.

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 woman, there is really nothing else in there that a same sex couple couldn't do.  And society would benefit just fine.

And of course, before you go rattling off with, "Yeah, but they can't have children!", just stop before you start.  Yes, I know they can't have children in a conventional brick and mortar fashion.  But they can adopt.  Actually...rather than some "oops, we're pregnant" couple generating a life they didn't plan and can't, in the words of Bill Hicks, "figure out this food/air deal", homosexual couples can provide a ginormous benefit to society simply through adoption.  Of course, homosexuals have a hard time adopting  because they're "perverts"*.

And no, I don't think that allowing homosexuals to marry will be a bright shiny salvation for societies ill.  They, on the whole, will probably do just as well, and if not better (for reasons illustrated in a previous link), then straight parents.

So, if gay couples can, through marriage, have a positive effect on society, why is society making such a fuss?  So far, I can only see two possible reasons:

1. Too much of the national dialog on homosexuality is driven by the words of the fundamentalistas invisible sky friend and the supportive and/or vote toadying politicians.

2. American society is basically homophobic.

And finally, the thing that really gets a belly laugh from me is listening to conservatives..."get government out of the lives of the individual" conservatives rail against gay marriage.  What they seem to lack the nuance to grasp is this...there is a fine line between "making" someone get married in a certain way, and "letting" someone get married in a certain way.

.
*This part makes me chuckle...during one of Maine's hotly contested gay rights votes, one of the mental deficients running the "Yes" campaign actually took out a full page ad stating that homosexual behavior made your brain smaller.  Of course, this "homosexual behavior" fell along the fellatio/cunnilingus/anal sex axis.  I guess no one told him or his 10 children that the missionary position was declasse.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

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 adoption"

Given the numbers, not really.

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 married?"

I tell ya folks, the jokes just write themselves.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

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

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 intolerant, they are not coerced into sanity.  The Civil Rights Act of 1965 prohibited various forms of racial discrimination but did not cause racism to disappear.  It is the obligation of government to offer equal legal rights to all of its citizens, the only exception being criminals who forfeit some rights as a result of criminal convictions.  That is simply fairness on the part of the government, it is not a form of coercion of the population who, as individuals, can cling to their idiot prejudices if they so desire.  Parents can sternly warn their children that they must never indulge in homosexuality, and can disown those children if such demands are ignored; the destruction of families as a result of homophobic intolerance is a familiar drama, much loved by narrow-minded Americans, and the legalization of same-sex marriage would not alter that.  Of course, it is indeed possible that some people might wish to re-examine their prejudices if they see that same-sex couples are extended equal rights by the government.  Legal reform is a possibly inspiring example.  But that is not the same as coercion.

It's interesting how anti-gay prejudice seems so entirely reasonable to you, when similar discrimination against other minority groups would seem obviously wrong.  Perhaps the institution of marriage is TOO inclusive.  Maybe it should be restricted to Roman Catholics only.  After all, if we allow Protestants to marry, then you will have Jews wanting to marry, and then perhaps Muslims, and in the end even atheists will claim a right to marry, thus overturning the Natural Order of Things.  God would never approve.

And as Lou has pointed out, every social benefit which you recognize in heterosexual marriage can also result from same-sex marriage.  With regard to child-raising, Lou was only thinking of adoption, which is very socially beneficial; after all, we do still have orphans in the US who do need parents, and who would benefit if adopted by a gay couple, and who would have a reasonable chance of growing up to be productive members of society, certainly as good a chance as the children of straight couples do.  It is also true that lesbians can become mothers and give birth to their own children.  In a lesbian couple, aspiring lesbian mothers might resort to a sperm bank or to a temporary sexual liaison, but they can still become pregnant.  And their children, like the adopted children of two gay men, also have the same opportunity to grow up to become productive members of society that any one else's children would have.  So gay families, like straight families, contribute to the future of society.

Of course, there are same-sex couples who have no children and do not want any.  But that happens with heterosexual couples as well.  Just because two people marry, does not compel them to have children.  Children are an option.

I find it interesting that if two homosexuals want to engage in sex just for fun, rather than for reproduction, that is deemed by people like yourself to be horribly offensive and sinful, whereas if a straight couple wants to engage in sex just for fun rather than for reproduction, and therefore uses some means of birth control to prevent conception, that is entirely acceptable.  One is not any more sinful than the other.  Homophobic bigots are extremely hypocritical about this.  Typically, they place no limits on their own sexual pleasure (indeed, we even have cases of conservative Republican Congressmen who engage in gay sex even as they support anti-gay legislation!) while seeking the repression of the gay population in general.

Many strange and spurious arguments are advanced in suppport of anti-gay prejudice.  God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!  This is a rather ridiculous argument based upon an obsolete mythology, which fails to explain where Steve comes from, if he is not also a child of God.  Or, homosexuality causes AIDS - not true, AIDS is caused by a virus, and can be transmitted by heterosexuals as well as homosexuals if they do not take suitable precautions.  Or, biology clearly has designed human genitalia for the purpose of heterosexuality, not homosexuality.  But if homosexuality were not an inherent possibility of human biology, then nobody would have either the desire or the capability of engaging in it.  And so on.  No legitimate argument has yet to be devised, by which the xenophobic intolerance of homosexuality can be supported.  Therefore, we must at the very least grant equal legal rights to homosexuals, there is no reasonable basis to deny such rights.

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, bigamist can marry...what about pederasts...beastialitists... scatologists...what about those guys who like to feel an insect die in their mouths while a dominatrix grinds a heel into their balls???"

Debater - 1 "What? Wait, what?!.  Aw fuck it...where's the bar?"

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

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 marriage. They say restricting marriage to "one man and one woman" is discrminatory, and that "man" and "woman" should be changed to "person". Polygamists say that "one" is discriminatory.

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?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

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 imagine if George Bush Sr. had 10 wives, as befitting a man of his stature. Then imagine if some of his wives, and some of the wives of his numerous sons, were married into other prominent political families...