Japanese government seeks to penalize Herbivore Men for peacefully opting out of Femtopia.

[Moonglow]

Folding the laundry is her job. Cook, clean and copulation (3 C's) are the three bare minimum things that she is expected to provide for all your other labors.

Wow. This here is sigline quote gold.

So what are you Archie -- three hundred years old?

He's an entire gold rush. I think he had a bad breakup or divorce. Some vicious backstabbing *****. Give him some time and women will be goddesses again.

Not the sharpest knife in duh drawer either -- this is the same guy who started a thread whining that his bank, in New York, won't let him walk in packing an AK-47.

Ha! My bank, whose tellers address me by name when I walk in think nothing about the 9mm on my hip. I haven't tried it yet, but I'm sure if I came in one day with my AR-15 at shoulder-arms position, they would ask me what I'm hunting that day. He lives in the wrong state.

Maybe if you didn't goosestep when entering the bank...

 

[Moonglow]

Why no tax on single women? Why did Rome and Japan not consider this?

I had never heard of Rome and the bachelor tax before your thread. Interesting. I always thought of ancient Rome as mainly homosexual lifestyle - which the Roman Church has continued to perpetuate by its man made laws (forbidding priests / nuns to marry) and examples of homosexuals, paedophiles - even from the top of Vatican - popes - from its formation.

I'm reading a book called 'I, Claudius' by Robert Graves. In the book, Augustus often lectures young adults about the importance of marriage. He did indeed pass laws against adultery, male-on-male slave rape, and incentives for marriage and child birth.

Augustus lectures the young male royals;
"If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance; but since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure."

Hilarious.

I read the same book, 30 years ago....

 

[orogenicman]

More than 1/3 (over 40%) of Japan's male population have voluntarily become "Herbivore Men." This means they abandon women altogether, forsaking all future relationships, most importantly marriage and children. The term "herbivore" is a Japanese reference to men that "will eat grass alongside women." Although it was initially laughed off by Japanese women and their government as a trend that could never grow or even sustain itself for long (because all those sex crazed rapists...men...can't withold themselves from sex), it turned out they were wrong. In fact very wrong.

The number of men that have decided to "opt-out" or "unplug from the matrix" in Japan has grown from 18% over 40% in less than two years. These men are not gay, and even the suggestion would be laughable since 40% of male population is certainly not going to be gay.

The Japanese herbivore culture is now coming to Caucasian nations as well, in America, Canada and the UK they go by the name MGTOW's (Men Going Their Own Way). These aren't a bunch of faggots who never had a girlfriend. They are actually men who have had several relationships in the past (or more) and can no longer tolerate the feminist bullshit plaguing modern women.

However, back to Japan. Instead of reversing the wrongs that led to their population and GDP decline by having over 40% of their male population opt-out of society, and after their shame-proganda backfired against Herbivores, by in fact producing more of them, the Women of Japan and their Daddy Government (whose running out of taxes) have decided to FORCE men into marriage and relationships by considering a Bachelor Tax.

Such was the way of ancient Rome when feminazi statutes came into effect as well. Rome imposed a massive bachelor tax that drove many men out of Roman provinces, who then took their knowledge of smithing and weapon-making to barbarian cultures.

No man wishes to be a slave. No self-respecting man would enter into a modern marriage contract. Divorce is a doom-hammer that is not wielded by men, but their spouses. We know what happens when one party wields a monopoly of power.

Question: Why not impose a Bacheleorette Tax on Women instead in Japan?

A bachelor tax not so unlikely

n theory, the tax applied to both men and women (regardless of their marital status) but in practicality, the tax was paid overwhelmingly by men. This is also clear due to the fact that everyone – men and women – referred to this tax in the common lexicon as taxa pe sulă (literally the tax on the dick).

The reasons for this had a lot to do with biology and with inherent gynocentrism. A woman could get a certificate of infertility fairly easy (even if she was fertile) and that certificate would exempt her from being subjected to this tax. Like in all communist countries, the doctors were State functionaries and were as corrupt as any other functionary in that era so for a few hundred lei or for a few packs of Kent (that cigarette brand was a common currency for many bribes) a doctor would write almost anything you needed on a certificate, as long as it was likely to be true. And given the poor state of the general health following the draconic rationalization plan implemented in 1981, it was quite likely for a woman to be infertile for a certain period of time. Also, due to gynocentrism, a doctor was more likely to accept to lie in a certificate when a woman requested it than when a man did the same.

The tax was levied independent of marital status. Fertile men married to infertile women would routinely be subjected to the celibacy tax. Divorce was, in theory, an option, but there were disincentives for divorce – like the danger of being relegated to a lower paid job for no longer being “morally reliable”.[5]

There was a documentary made by a British journalist about this very phenomemon. I saw it but don't recall its name. What struck me was the fact that there are entire natal wards in their hospitals that don't have any babies. What's worse, the hospitals in several major metropolitan areas have actually shut down their natal wards because they just don't have any babies to service. This seems to me to be a serious national issue for Japan, and so I can definitely see the concern it is causing. They are losing at the least, an entire generation all the while their population ages. This doesn't bode well for their economic future.

 

[Treeshepherd]

America has spent so much time on the gay marriage issue. Really, who cares if the State recognizes your marriage? Do you really need your governor's approval to feel validated?

The real issue there is taxation and other legal issues like visitation rights and maybe inheritance. In most cases, you get a tax penalty for being single. So, all this hemming and hawing over equal rights for gays, roughly 4% of the population.

What about equal rights for single people? What did we do wrong that we should be punished by the tax code? Why are we treated like 2nd class citizens? Why has a bachelor president never been elected? I'm calling bullshit. No taxation without representation.

 

[Skylar]

America has spent so much time on the gay marriage issue. Really, who cares if the State recognizes your marriage? Do you really need your governor's approval to feel validated?

If personal feelings of validation were the only possible motivate, you might actually have a point. But there's far more involved.

DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.

Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound. It prevents same-sex married couplesfrom obtaining government healthcare benefits they would otherwise receive. See 5 U. S. C. §§8901(5), 8905. It deprives them of the Bankruptcy Code’s special protections for domestic-support obligations. See 11 U. S. C. §§101(14A), 507(a)(1)(A), 523(a)(5), 523(a)(15). It forces them to follow a complicated procedure to file their state and federal taxes jointly. Technical Bulletin TB–55, 2010 Vt. Tax LEXIS 6 (Oct. 7, 2010); Brief for Federalism Scholars as Amici Curiae 34. It prohibits them from being buried together in veterans’ cemeteries. National Cemetery Administration Directive 3210/1, p. 37 (June 4, 2008).

For certain married couples, DOMA’s unequal effects are even more serious. The federal penal code makes it a crime to “assaul[t], kidna[p], or murde[r] . . . a member of the immediate family” of “a United States official, aUnited States judge, [or] a Federal law enforcement officer,”18 U. S. C. §115(a)(1)(A), with the intent to influence or retaliate against that official, §115(a)(1). Although a “spouse” qualifies as a member of the officer’s “immediate family,” §115(c)(2), DOMA makes this protection inapplicable to same-sex spouses.

DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. See 26 U. S. C. §106; Treas. Reg. §1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 1998). And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security. See Social Security Administration, Social Security Survivors Benefits 5 (2012) (benefits available to a surviving spouse caring for the couple’s child), online at http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf.

DOMA divests married same-sex couples of the duties and responsibilities that are an essential part of married life and that they in most cases would be honored to accept were DOMA not in force. For instance, because it is expected that spouses will support each other as they pursue educational opportunities, federal law takes into consideration a spouse’s income in calculating a student’s fed-eral financial aid eligibility. See 20 U. S. C. §1087nn(b). Same-sex married couples are exempt from this requirement. The same is true with respect to federal ethics rules. Federal executive and agency officials are prohibited from “participat[ing] personally and substantially” in matters as to which they or their spouses have a financial interest. 18 U. S. C. §208(a). A similar statute prohibits Senators, Senate employees, and their spouses from accepting high-value gifts from certain sources, see 2 U. S. C. §31–2(a)(1), and another mandates detailed financial disclosures by numerous high-ranking officials and their spouses. See 5 U. S. C. App. §§102(a), (e). Under DOMA, however, these Government-integrity rules do not apply to same-sex spouses.

*  *  *

Windsor V. the US

So the loss of dignity, diminished stability of basic personal relations, being publicly demeaned, the humiliation of 10s of thousands of children, making it more difficult for those children to understand the integrity and closeness of family, loss of government healthcare benefits, loss of bankruptcy protections, can't be buried together at veteran's cemeteries, makes filing taxes needlessly complicated, loss of the protection of law, increases the financial burden of children, raises the cost of healthcare for the family, and deprives one of liberty.

And these are only the harms noted by the United States Supreme Court. And with the possible exception of being buried together, anyone of those reasons would be more than adequate to justify demanding your rights. All of them together make it a no-brainer.

The feeling of personal validation is just frosting.

 

[Skylar]

More than 1/3 (over 40%) of Japan's male population have voluntarily become "Herbivore Men." This means they abandon women altogether, forsaking all future relationships, most importantly marriage and children. The term "herbivore" is a Japanese reference to men that "will eat grass alongside women." Although it was initially laughed off by Japanese women and their government as a trend that could never grow or even sustain itself for long (because all those sex crazed rapists...men...can't withold themselves from sex), it turned out they were wrong. In fact very wrong.

The number of men that have decided to "opt-out" or "unplug from the matrix" in Japan has grown from 18% over 40% in less than two years. These men are not gay, and even the suggestion would be laughable since 40% of male population is certainly not going to be gay.

The Japanese herbivore culture is now coming to Caucasian nations as well, in America, Canada and the UK they go by the name MGTOW's (Men Going Their Own Way). These aren't a bunch of faggots who never had a girlfriend. They are actually men who have had several relationships in the past (or more) and can no longer tolerate the feminist bullshit plaguing modern women.

However, back to Japan. Instead of reversing the wrongs that led to their population and GDP decline by having over 40% of their male population opt-out of society, and after their shame-proganda backfired against Herbivores, by in fact producing more of them, the Women of Japan and their Daddy Government (whose running out of taxes) have decided to FORCE men into marriage and relationships by considering a Bachelor Tax.

Such was the way of ancient Rome when feminazi statutes came into effect as well. Rome imposed a massive bachelor tax that drove many men out of Roman provinces, who then took their knowledge of smithing and weapon-making to barbarian cultures.

No man wishes to be a slave. No self-respecting man would enter into a modern marriage contract. Divorce is a doom-hammer that is not wielded by men, but their spouses. We know what happens when one party wields a monopoly of power.

Question: Why not impose a Bacheleorette Tax on Women instead in Japan?

A bachelor tax not so unlikely

n theory, the tax applied to both men and women (regardless of their marital status) but in practicality, the tax was paid overwhelmingly by men. This is also clear due to the fact that everyone – men and women – referred to this tax in the common lexicon as taxa pe sulă (literally the tax on the dick).

The reasons for this had a lot to do with biology and with inherent gynocentrism. A woman could get a certificate of infertility fairly easy (even if she was fertile) and that certificate would exempt her from being subjected to this tax. Like in all communist countries, the doctors were State functionaries and were as corrupt as any other functionary in that era so for a few hundred lei or for a few packs of Kent (that cigarette brand was a common currency for many bribes) a doctor would write almost anything you needed on a certificate, as long as it was likely to be true. And given the poor state of the general health following the draconic rationalization plan implemented in 1981, it was quite likely for a woman to be infertile for a certain period of time. Also, due to gynocentrism, a doctor was more likely to accept to lie in a certificate when a woman requested it than when a man did the same.

The tax was levied independent of marital status. Fertile men married to infertile women would routinely be subjected to the celibacy tax. Divorce was, in theory, an option, but there were disincentives for divorce – like the danger of being relegated to a lower paid job for no longer being “morally reliable”.[5]

There was a documentary made by a British journalist about this very phenomemon. I saw it but don't recall its name. What struck me was the fact that there are entire natal wards in their hospitals that don't have any babies. What's worse, the hospitals in several major metropolitan areas have actually shut down their natal wards because they just don't have any babies to service. This seems to me to be a serious national issue for Japan, and so I can definitely see the concern it is causing. They are losing at the least, an entire generation all the while their population ages. This doesn't bode well for their economic future.

Oh, they're taking the baby crisis very seriously. Japan is considering the unthinkable: significant immigration. Japan is one of a handful of nation states on earth. And to lose that vital character for their nation will be like cutting off a limb. Worse, the location that they'd most likely accept immigration would be Korea.

And in the mind of many of the older generation of Japan, the Koreans are beneath them.

Which is also why Japan is investing heavily in a field that sounds silly at first. But is genuinely an issue of national interest: robotics. They're actually trying to develop robots to do dumb manual labor to augment the effectiveness of their dwindling and aging population.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Oh, they're taking the baby crisis very seriously. Japan is considering the unthinkable: significant immigration. Japan is one of a handful of nation states on earth.

Why not go back to how they were. Evolution ("progressivism") usually gives rise to fatal mutations, not beneficial ones.

Why another progressive answer to a progressive problem. What happens when those immigrants become assimilated? 100 years down the line, what happens when there are no more immigrants (or not enough immigrants)? This is kicking the can down the road at best.

And even in the best state, it won't cause more Japanese births. Just a poor peasant class to support Japan's obligations to its original people. So basically you're setting a honeytrap for poor immigrants. Why is it that Progressives always resort to bailing-out their mistakes on the backs of the poor?

 

[Skylar]

Oh, they're taking the baby crisis very seriously. Japan is considering the unthinkable: significant immigration. Japan is one of a handful of nation states on earth.

Why not go back to how they were. Evolution ("progressivism") usually gives rise to fatal mutations, not beneficial ones.

Why another progressive answer to a progressive problem. What happens when those immigrants become assimilated?

Assimilation? You so don't get the Japanese at all.

One of the most disturbing things most Japanese people will plausible see in their lifetime.......is a foreigner who speaks Japanese fluently and can read kanji flawlessly. This freaks them the **** out. There is a real, tangible sense in Japan that the Japanese are separate, unique, special and better. That their language, culture and writing system are impenetrable walls that keep them separate from the rest of 'them'. The uchi-soto relationship is in their ******* bones.

They make a near exception for Americans due to our obliteration of their country during the war, and the deeply honorable (from their perspective anyway) manner with which we treated the Japanese after. Not bombing Kyoto, sparing the emperor and feeding their people went a long, long way with them. And they have an abiding cultural fascination with the British, and an almost storybook idea of France.

But other than that, its all just shades of 'less than us'. The idea of assimilation is anathema to most Japanese. As it deprives them of their fundamental sense of uniqueness. If being Japanese is something that you can LEARN rather than something that you ARE, then it cuts deeply into their entire world view.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Oh, they're taking the baby crisis very seriously. Japan is considering the unthinkable: significant immigration. Japan is one of a handful of nation states on earth.

Why not go back to how they were. Evolution ("progressivism") usually gives rise to fatal mutations, not beneficial ones.

Why another progressive answer to a progressive problem. What happens when those immigrants become assimilated?

Assimilation? You so don't get the Japanese at all.

One of the most disturbing things most Japanese people will plausible see in their lifetime.......is a foreigner who speaks Japanese fluently and can read kanji flawlessly. This freaks them the **** out. There is a real, tangible sense in Japan that the Japanese are separate, unique, special and better. That their language, culture and writing system are impenetrable walls that keep them separate from the rest of 'them'. The uchi-soto relationship is in their ******* bones.

They make a near exception for Americans due to our obliteration of their country during the war, and the deeply honorable (from their perspective anyway) manner with which we treated the Japanese after. Not bombing Kyoto, sparing the emperor and feeding their people went a long, long way with them. And they have an abiding cultural fascination with the British, and an almost storybook idea of France.

But other than that, its all just shades of 'less than us'. The idea of assimilation is anathema to most Japanese. As it deprives them of their fundamental sense of uniqueness. If being Japanese is something that you can LEARN rather than something that you ARE, then it cuts deeply into their entire world view.

What would a progressive like Skylar say if a white man ever thought about white culture like that?

 

[Skylar]

Oh, they're taking the baby crisis very seriously. Japan is considering the unthinkable: significant immigration. Japan is one of a handful of nation states on earth.

Why not go back to how they were. Evolution ("progressivism") usually gives rise to fatal mutations, not beneficial ones.

Why another progressive answer to a progressive problem. What happens when those immigrants become assimilated?

Assimilation? You so don't get the Japanese at all.

One of the most disturbing things most Japanese people will plausible see in their lifetime.......is a foreigner who speaks Japanese fluently and can read kanji flawlessly. This freaks them the **** out. There is a real, tangible sense in Japan that the Japanese are separate, unique, special and better. That their language, culture and writing system are impenetrable walls that keep them separate from the rest of 'them'. The uchi-soto relationship is in their ******* bones.

They make a near exception for Americans due to our obliteration of their country during the war, and the deeply honorable (from their perspective anyway) manner with which we treated the Japanese after. Not bombing Kyoto, sparing the emperor and feeding their people went a long, long way with them. And they have an abiding cultural fascination with the British, and an almost storybook idea of France.

But other than that, its all just shades of 'less than us'. The idea of assimilation is anathema to most Japanese. As it deprives them of their fundamental sense of uniqueness. If being Japanese is something that you can LEARN rather than something that you ARE, then it cuts deeply into their entire world view.

What would a progressive like Skylar say if a white man ever thought about white culture like that?

That you'd better start building robots.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Oh, they're taking the baby crisis very seriously. Japan is considering the unthinkable: significant immigration. Japan is one of a handful of nation states on earth.

Why not go back to how they were. Evolution ("progressivism") usually gives rise to fatal mutations, not beneficial ones.

Why another progressive answer to a progressive problem. What happens when those immigrants become assimilated?

Assimilation? You so don't get the Japanese at all.

One of the most disturbing things most Japanese people will plausible see in their lifetime.......is a foreigner who speaks Japanese fluently and can read kanji flawlessly. This freaks them the **** out. There is a real, tangible sense in Japan that the Japanese are separate, unique, special and better. That their language, culture and writing system are impenetrable walls that keep them separate from the rest of 'them'. The uchi-soto relationship is in their ******* bones.

They make a near exception for Americans due to our obliteration of their country during the war, and the deeply honorable (from their perspective anyway) manner with which we treated the Japanese after. Not bombing Kyoto, sparing the emperor and feeding their people went a long, long way with them. And they have an abiding cultural fascination with the British, and an almost storybook idea of France.

But other than that, its all just shades of 'less than us'. The idea of assimilation is anathema to most Japanese. As it deprives them of their fundamental sense of uniqueness. If being Japanese is something that you can LEARN rather than something that you ARE, then it cuts deeply into their entire world view.

What would a progressive like Skylar say if a white man ever thought about white culture like that?

Some "white men" have been thinking that about "white culture" for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

 

[Unkotare]

This means they abandon women altogether, forsaking all future relationships, most importantly marriage and children.

It's not an official designation. It's a term used by the media for the sake of sensationalism.

 

[Nutz]

Can I get a little extra cheese on ly salad...and go light on the onions if not take them away altogether. Thanks 2a, I will leave you a good tip.

 

[Treeshepherd]

America has spent so much time on the gay marriage issue. Really, who cares if the State recognizes your marriage? Do you really need your governor's approval to feel validated?

If personal feelings of validation were the only possible motivate, you might actually have a point. But there's far more involved.

DOMA’s principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency. Responsibilities, as well as rights, enhance the dignity and integrity of the person. And DOMA contrives to deprive some couples married under the laws of their State, but not other couples, of both rights and responsibilities. By creating two contradictory marriage regimes within the same State, DOMA forces same-sex couples to live as married for the purpose of state law but unmarried for the purpose of federal law, thus diminishing the stability and predictability of basic personal relations the State has found it proper to acknowledge and protect. By this dynamic DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.

Under DOMA, same-sex married couples have their lives burdened, by reason of government decree, in visible and public ways. By its great reach, DOMA touches many aspects of married and family life, from the mundane to the profound. It prevents same-sex married couplesfrom obtaining government healthcare benefits they would otherwise receive. See 5 U. S. C. §§8901(5), 8905. It deprives them of the Bankruptcy Code’s special protections for domestic-support obligations. See 11 U. S. C. §§101(14A), 507(a)(1)(A), 523(a)(5), 523(a)(15). It forces them to follow a complicated procedure to file their state and federal taxes jointly. Technical Bulletin TB–55, 2010 Vt. Tax LEXIS 6 (Oct. 7, 2010); Brief for Federalism Scholars as Amici Curiae 34. It prohibits them from being buried together in veterans’ cemeteries. National Cemetery Administration Directive 3210/1, p. 37 (June 4, 2008).

For certain married couples, DOMA’s unequal effects are even more serious. The federal penal code makes it a crime to “assaul[t], kidna[p], or murde[r] . . . a member of the immediate family” of “a United States official, aUnited States judge, [or] a Federal law enforcement officer,”18 U. S. C. §115(a)(1)(A), with the intent to influence or retaliate against that official, §115(a)(1). Although a “spouse” qualifies as a member of the officer’s “immediate family,” §115(c)(2), DOMA makes this protection inapplicable to same-sex spouses.

DOMA also brings financial harm to children of same-sex couples. It raises the cost of health care for familiesby taxing health benefits provided by employers to their workers’ same-sex spouses. See 26 U. S. C. §106; Treas. Reg. §1.106–1, 26 CFR §1.106–1 (2012); IRS Private Letter Ruling 9850011 (Sept. 10, 1998). And it denies or re-duces benefits allowed to families upon the loss of a spouseand parent, benefits that are an integral part of family security. See Social Security Administration, Social Security Survivors Benefits 5 (2012) (benefits available to a surviving spouse caring for the couple’s child), online at http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10084.pdf.

DOMA divests married same-sex couples of the duties and responsibilities that are an essential part of married life and that they in most cases would be honored to accept were DOMA not in force. For instance, because it is expected that spouses will support each other as they pursue educational opportunities, federal law takes into consideration a spouse’s income in calculating a student’s fed-eral financial aid eligibility. See 20 U. S. C. §1087nn(b). Same-sex married couples are exempt from this requirement. The same is true with respect to federal ethics rules. Federal executive and agency officials are prohibited from “participat[ing] personally and substantially” in matters as to which they or their spouses have a financial interest. 18 U. S. C. §208(a). A similar statute prohibits Senators, Senate employees, and their spouses from accepting high-value gifts from certain sources, see 2 U. S. C. §31–2(a)(1), and another mandates detailed financial disclosures by numerous high-ranking officials and their spouses. See 5 U. S. C. App. §§102(a), (e). Under DOMA, however, these Government-integrity rules do not apply to same-sex spouses.

*  *  *

Windsor V. the US

So the loss of dignity, diminished stability of basic personal relations, being publicly demeaned, the humiliation of 10s of thousands of children, making it more difficult for those children to understand the integrity and closeness of family, loss of government healthcare benefits, loss of bankruptcy protections, can't be buried together at veteran's cemeteries, makes filing taxes needlessly complicated, loss of the protection of law, increases the financial burden of children, raises the cost of healthcare for the family, and deprives one of liberty.

And these are only the harms noted by the United States Supreme Court. And with the possible exception of being buried together, anyone of those reasons would be more than adequate to justify demanding your rights. All of them together make it a no-brainer.

The feeling of personal validation is just frosting.

I thought most of Bill Clinton's DOMA law was struck down by the Supreme Court. Hooray for a teensie tiny majority of Americans. Roughly 300,000 gays are married.

About 100 million Americans over 18 years of age are unmarried. What if the single guy wants to be buried next to his drinking buddy? Why should the single guy be penalized by the tax code? Where is the government protection against the demeaning of singles? What if a gay guy likes doing gay stuff, but he has the common sense not to marry a hyper-emotional flaming drama queen? Huh, I ask you?

What do we want? Equal rights for singles! When do we want it? Now!

 

[Unkotare]

Why should the single guy be penalized by the tax code?

They aren't, they just don't get rewarded for not perpetuating civilization.

 

[Unkotare]

..... because I refuse to validate the Roman Catholic Church as Christian I am deemed a nutcase?

That's one reason.

 

[Freewill]

The problem with marriage is the old saw that everyone has heard a million times, She gets married hoping he changes, he gets married hoping she doesn't change, she does he doesn't.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

..... because I refuse to validate the Roman Catholic Church as Christian I am deemed a nutcase?

That's one reason.

It isn't a valid reason, Unkotare. I have already proven that according to biblical definition of Christianity - Catholicism is not Christian. Furthermore, the fruits of Catholicism are not Christian. You can park yourself in a garage at night and it won't make you a car either.

Catholicism does not teach the Doctrine of Christ. They teach idolatry, Mary worship and many false teachings - you will not find in the Old testament nor the new. Furthermore, the Roman Church has blood on its hands for the murder of Jews, Christians, and unbelievers during the inquisition and later during the holocaust ( which was not too long ago - need I remind you! ) The Roman Church is NOT a Christian Church. I make no apologies for speaking the truth and warning people about it.

 

[Unkotare]

..... because I refuse to validate the Roman Catholic Church as Christian I am deemed a nutcase?

That's one reason.

It isn't a valid reason, Unkotare. ...

It is completely valid, you loon.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

..... because I refuse to validate the Roman Catholic Church as Christian I am deemed a nutcase?

That's one reason.

It isn't a valid reason, Unkotare. ...

It is completely valid, you loon.

No, it is not. Do not call me names either. You can take a break from being rude. It's a New Year now. The change will do you good.