(06-26-2019, 04:10 PM)TJBender Wrote:

(06-26-2019, 02:47 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: I'm not sure if you know what reparations means.

The bill that Pocahontas introduced implies that "married" gay individuals were somehow "wronged" via the income tax system outside the statute of limitations.

Much like the student loan debt forgiveness scheme it's nothing more than pandering and vote-buying.

And here we come back to the philosophical impasse between us. I don't care who you sleep with, and government shouldn't have gotten involved in the first place. You...well...do.

Contrary to your comment, I have nothing against gay individuals.  I don't have a problem with them having legal "unions" for legal purposes.  I do have a problem with calling it a "marriage" for personal (religious) reasons.  We won't discuss that since discussion of religion is against board rules.  The only thing that I will say about it is it's just my opinion and what I believe.

I do have a problem when you have a candidate running for President trying to pander and buy votes from a select small percentage of the population.  Once individuals are legally "married" then they should be able to file their taxes just like any heterosexual couple after they are "married".  They (gay couples) should not be allowed to amend their taxes outside the statute of limitations in order to claim a different status under former year's tax law in order to get a benefit and "free money" from the federal government.  That's what the bill introduced by Pocahontas specifically states and by definition that is paying "reparations".

---