Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Namibian court rules against gay couples
#1
Namibian court rules against gay couples seeking legal recognition

Namibia's High Court on Thursday ruled against two gay couples fighting for their marriages to be recognised under domestic law, with the judge saying that while she agreedwith the couples' position, she was powerless to change the situation.

The ruling centered on the cases of partners Daniel Digashu and Johan Potgieter and a second couple, Anette Seiler-Lilles and Anita Seiler-Lilles. Digashu, a South African, and German-born Anita had applications for a work permit and permanent residency respectively denied based on their same-sex marital status.

Namibia's legal system does not recognise same-sex marriages and criminalises sexual conduct among non-heterosexual couples, though the law is seldom enforced. Both couples secured their legal partnerships outside of Namibia, where they now live together.


https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/nam...022-01-20/
[Image: 51806835273_f5b3daba19_t.jpg]  <<< It's mine!
Reply
#2
That is a bit unsettling to say the least. It is unfortunate that many of countries are very backwards socially towards LGBTQ and probably will for quite some time.
"I’m not expecting to grow flowers in a desert, but I can live and breathe and see the sun in wintertime"
Check out my stuff!
Reply
#3
Insofar as a state establishes rights for domestic/sexual partners, gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples, but I prefer to reach this goal by removing privileges of straight couples. Why does a wealthy man or woman receive a large tax break for supporting a domestic/sexual partner who doesn't work otherwise? I mean ... if you're very wealthy and will pay me to be your sexual partner, I'm definitely interested, but I don't understand the tax break. Why not give tax breaks to people without sexual partners instead?
Reply
#4
(01-21-2022, 08:14 PM)doubletrouble Wrote: Insofar as a state establishes rights for domestic/sexual partners, gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples, but I prefer to reach this goal by removing privileges of straight couples. Why does a wealthy man or woman receive a large tax break for supporting a domestic/sexual partner who doesn't work otherwise? I mean ... if you're very wealthy and will pay me to be your sexual partner, I'm definitely interested, but I don't understand the tax break. Why not give tax breaks to people without sexual partners instead?

It would seem that the incentive is for the couple to have kids. I would agree that any married couple should get the tax break and regardless of whether it is a gay couple or otherwise should get the same benefits. However, our Christian conservative neighbors think otherwise. See, Google Chrome insisted I capitalize Christian.

Right now, in the US and many other countries, people aren't having kids. The difference is that when my great grandparents were having kids they lived on a farm and it made sense to have 10-12 kids because they ended up helping to provide and sustain the family farm. Now, having kids is an expense that many can't afford....unless you're making near six figures you're probably not doing your kid any favors. Like, I couldn't imagine trying to raise a kid on my salary.
"I’m not expecting to grow flowers in a desert, but I can live and breathe and see the sun in wintertime"
Check out my stuff!
Reply
#5
(01-25-2022, 01:34 PM)InbetweenDreams Wrote:
(01-21-2022, 08:14 PM)doubletrouble Wrote: Insofar as a state establishes rights for domestic/sexual partners, gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples, but I prefer to reach this goal by removing privileges of straight couples. Why does a wealthy man or woman receive a large tax break for supporting a domestic/sexual partner who doesn't work otherwise? I mean ... if you're very wealthy and will pay me to be your sexual partner, I'm definitely interested, but I don't understand the tax break. Why not give tax breaks to people without sexual partners instead?

It would seem that the incentive is for the couple to have kids. I would agree that any married couple should get the tax break and regardless of whether it is a gay couple or otherwise should get the same benefits. However, our Christian conservative neighbors think otherwise. See, Google Chrome insisted I capitalize Christian.

Right now, in the US and many other countries, people aren't having kids. The difference is that when my great grandparents were having kids they lived on a farm and it made sense to have 10-12 kids because they ended up helping to provide and sustain the family farm. Now, having kids is an expense that many can't afford....unless you're making near six figures you're probably not doing your kid any favors. Like, I couldn't imagine trying to raise a kid on my salary.

I'd reserve the tax break for people supporting children. Giving a tax break to straight, childless couples makes no more sense than giving it to gay, childless couples, so take it away from the straight, childless couples.
Reply
#6
(01-27-2022, 03:08 AM)doubletrouble Wrote: I'd reserve the tax break for people supporting children. Giving a tax break to straight, childless couples makes no more sense than giving it to gay, childless couples, so take it away from the straight, childless couples.

I mean sure it makes sense to give tax breaks to people raising kids.

Is there really a tax break for couples who don't have kids? I mean I really don't know.
"I’m not expecting to grow flowers in a desert, but I can live and breathe and see the sun in wintertime"
Check out my stuff!
Reply
#7
The difference between filing a joint income tax return as a married couple and two single returns can be very substantial regardless of any obligation to support children. I don't see why a wealthy man employing a prostitute full-time should receive a tax break.
Reply
#8
(02-07-2022, 02:35 AM)doubletrouble Wrote: The difference between filing a joint income tax return as a married couple and two single returns can be very substantial regardless of any obligation to support children. I don't see why a wealthy man employing a prostitute full-time should receive a tax break.

I'll have to look into it and see what the differences are. Not sure what qualifies as someone being wealthy but I would venture to say that a wealthy person is probably doing a lot of things to avoid paying taxes such as taking up a residence in a state that doesn't have a state income tax, moving assets around, or like Elon Musk who now doesn't have a home is just avoiding paying property taxes.

I agree on the whole bit that people should pay their fair share of taxes, but not sure I agree on the whole married with or without kids is the culprit when it comes to tax disparity.

Is the "game" rigged? Absolutely. What seems to happen every time something is done that is supposed to get wealthy people to pay more taxes ends up becoming a burden on the poor and middle class.
"I’m not expecting to grow flowers in a desert, but I can live and breathe and see the sun in wintertime"
Check out my stuff!
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Gay marriage declared legal across the US in historic supreme court ruling artyboy 24 2,657 06-29-2015, 07:34 AM
Last Post: trywait
  Grammys to Feature On-Air Weddings of 34 Couples CellarDweller 0 918 01-27-2014, 12:22 AM
Last Post: CellarDweller
  We win! Supreme Court Chase 7 963 06-26-2013, 10:59 PM
Last Post: ardus
  Nebraska Ruling Clarifies Custody Rights for SS Couples azulai 0 1,766 08-27-2011, 11:59 PM
Last Post: azulai

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)