IRS: homosexuality is a choice, no tax deduction for gays


#1

What … No gay cakes from the IRS either? :howler:

What Morrissey is focusing on, however, is the words of the IRS agent who turned down his IVF tax deduction.

The IRS agent noted that Morrissey’s sexual orientation is a “choice.”

Morrissey’s lawsuit states, "Despite the IRS’s backward and archaic thinking, plaintiff is not homosexual by ‘choice.’"
Morrissey claims that the procedures "took nearly four years, seven IVF procedures, three surrogates, three egg donors, two clinics and more than $100,000.


#2

His argument is that homosexual males are infertile and therefore cannot conceive a child together. This guy missed a few sex-ed classes.


#3

[quote=“silliessis, post:1, topic:48129”]
What … No gay cakes from the IRS either? :howler:


[/quote]:banghead:


#4

I think this suit should succeed, after all, the IRS has a monoply on their service - no other agency to go to!!
(Sarcasm - for the dull-witted)


#5

I don’t really see why any of this qualifies for tax deductions in the first place. It’s entirely “by choice” for both gay and straight couples. There are plenty of other, cheaper options. Infertile straight couples could always adopt.

I wasn’t aware they gave tax deductions to infertile couples. If so, I would think they ought to qualify. If the government says “Can’t have your own biological children? Tax deductions for invitro!”, then it should apply in their case.


#6

why is this even news?


#7

In their case [MENTION=366]CWolf[/MENTION] the are not infertile.


#8

The reason that I thought that it was newsworthy is Not what is being discussed.

Think about it.

The government is behind the push to legitimize the ‘gay’ lifestyle and even go as far as punishing those who don’t ‘roll over’ and do their bidding … Remember that couple who had to shut down their bakery?

Well, you have a Government entity (IRS) telling a ‘Gay’ couple that ‘Gayness’ is a choice so don’t expect any breaks from us!

Clear now?


#9

Ru Ro Raggy.
The gays say they are born that way.
Kerfuffle soon to come no doubt.


#10

And yet, many “gays” chose that direction later in adulthood, after raising a family. And even if they were born with a tendency toward homosexuality (which I very much doubt), they still choose the behaviour. They want special “rights” based on behaviour, then try to liken their behaviour to someone born with a different skin color.


#11

Agreed.


#12

[quote=“Seravee, post:7, topic:48129”]
In their case [MENTION=366]CWolf[/MENTION] the are not infertile.
[/quote]They can’t have their own biological children through sexual reproduction. Same as a male-female couple that can’t have their own biological children through sexual reproduction.
With most “infertile” couples, only one of the people are infertile. Technically, this is still true. You have one person with viable sperm, but it simply can’t take hold in his partner.

So there you go, same in both overall meaning(incapable of conceiving) and same in the “sperm can’t impregnate” sense.

Whether it’s a choice or not, is rather immaterial. A straight person can also *choose *not to be with someone who is infertile. Just ask King Henry VIII. That is the primary reason we have both the Angilican Church, and the King James Bible, today


#13

Men cannot have children. It is biologically impossible. Infertile would imply that they are incapable of producing children. These men are not infertile they just do not understand how biology works. I have nothing against them. I could care less that they are gay. But trying to claim something they are not is ridiculous and stupid.

Whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not they did choose to be with someone they cannot have a child with. Their fertility is not changed by that choice.


#14

That doesn’t mean “infertile”, Cwolf. It means they are biologically INCAPABLE of reproducing with one another. Individual gays ARE usually capable of reproduction–they just have to reproduce with someone of the OPPOSITE sex. Simply put, reproduction CANNOT occur between two people of the same sex–or two rabbits of the same sex, or two flamingos, two lions or two elephants, for that matter. Reproduction requires a sperm and an egg…and males don’t produce eggs and females don’t produce sperm–neither do transgenders, either. I wasn’t aware that there WERE “tax breaks” for infertility treatments for hetero couples, but that has nothing to do with gay couples and THEIR “inability to reproduce.” There is NOTHING to indicate that gays are “born that way.” Not a scintilla of evidence and the issue has been studied for at LEAST 60 years now, if not longer. Gays CAN reproduce, but it requires someone of the opposite sex for that to happen.


#15

What the heck is that!! People of the same sex who are sexually attracted to each other are disordered and abnormal. A man attracted to a woman who might happen to be infertile is NOT disordered and abnormal. Give me a break. And don’t bring up the political lobbying group the APA, because them taking same-sex attraction off of the DMS was purely political and had no basis in medial facts at all.


#16

Maybe they should require these gays to have a fertility test (both of 'em). Unless both are infertile, they cannot make such a claim. And for all we know one of them may have been the donor of the sperm for the IVF.


#17

[quote=“Seravee, post:13, topic:48129”]
Men cannot have children. It is biologically impossible. Infertile would imply that they are
incapable of producing children.
These men are not infertile they just do not understand how biology works.
[/quote]This couple is “incapable of producing children”. There is an important difference between dictionary definition of words, and legal intent. The purpose of the rule is, the couple can’t have their own biological children though reproduction, so the tax break is offered so they can use technology in order to have their own biological children.

[quote=“TerryOfromCA, post:15, topic:48129”]
What the heck is that!! People of the same sex who are sexually attracted to each other are disordered and abnormal. A man attracted to a woman who might happen to be infertile is NOT disordered and abnormal.
[/quote]Actually, it is a glitch in the system. Sexual attraction stems from a biological drive to reproduce. Something you can’t do with either a man, or an infertile woman. Both are aberrations from the purpose of biological sexual attraction.
And this is also true of birth control. Birth control is a violation of the natural drive to reproduce. It is un-natural in every way. And it is also clearly not something God designed, since we never had this ability before the 20th century.

[quote=PapaDave]t means they are biologically INCAPABLE of reproducing with one another. Individual gays ARE usually capable of reproduction–they just have to reproduce with someone of the OPPOSITE sex.[/quote]And an infertile straight couple almost universally has only one infertile partner. The other partner is perfectly capable of reproducing with a different man/woman. This is a tax break provided to the couple, because the *couple as a unit *are incapable of having their own biological children together.


#18

Nope. Apples and Oranges.

A man attracted to a woman doesn’t know if she is fertile or not. Its the sexual attraction that is normal.
A man attracted to a man is abnormal and disordered from the outset.
There is absolutely no comparison between the two.


#19

However, NO AMOUNT of “fertility treatments” will allow a gay couple to have a child together…period. Now or EVER. Fertility treatments CAN, however, often help otherwise “infertile” hetero couples to have a child together.


#20

[quote=“Pappadave, post:19, topic:48129”]
However, NO AMOUNT of “fertility treatments” will allow a gay couple to have a child together…period. Now or EVER. Fertility treatments CAN, however, often help otherwise “infertile” hetero couples to have a child together.
[/quote]They used invitro, not fertility treatments. Invitro is covered for straight couples. Including women who have had hysterectomies.

[quote=Terry]A man attracted to a woman doesn’t know if she is fertile or not. Its the sexual attraction that is normal.
A man attracted to a man is abnormal and disordered from the outset.[/quote]People have argued the same about interracial couples. The IRS is mandated to treat mixed race, and same gender couples in the same manner as they do a straight, same race couple. Your personal moral views have nothing to do with the legal intent of the law.