Jump to content

Two heterosexual Irish men marry to avoid inheritance tax on property


Ryusei the Morning Star

Recommended Posts

  On 12/24/2017 at 4:40 AM, White said:

Hi bby

 

I'm gonna need you to back back from moms.

 

 

  On 12/24/2017 at 4:22 AM, ' said:

Did they consummate the marriage?

 

I doubt it considering their ages.  But you never know.

 

 

  On 12/24/2017 at 4:20 AM, Watatsuki no Yorihime said:

To be fair, true friendship is the best kind of love.

 

Facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/24/2017 at 5:27 AM, ~ P O L A R I S ~ said:

"Heterosexual" indeed. This is the gayest thing I've ever heard.

 

Wait.  The article is gay?  Hmm.  Does this mean we need to start taking into account the sexual preferences of our documents?  This may be a new level of life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/24/2017 at 5:38 AM, ~ P O L A R I S ~ said:

Damn straight, and by straight I mean gay. Once one becomes enlightened, perceiving the sexual orientation of a blade of grass or a grain of sand becomes as natural as breathing the bisexual air around us. 

 

 eeg-brainwaves.jpg?auto=format%2Ccompres

 

...

 

This is a new level of shitpost and I'm only allowing it cuz I laughed.

 

Let's. . .get back on topic.  lmfao

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/24/2017 at 4:13 AM, White said:

Murphy, 83, intended to leave in his will to O’Sullivan, 58, who is his carer.

 

Guessing the former is focused on other things right now

Oh look, it's the Boston Legal finale. (In Ireland)

But I think the most important question is, will they have cake and will a bakery bake one for them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/26/2017 at 2:24 AM, Astolfo said:

>tfw someone is still trying to imply homosexuality/related behaviors is unethical in 2017 almost 2018

People are allowed to have different opinions?

 

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8121/fallacy-naming-the-current-year-century

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery

 

A logical argument (and usually when thus termed, considered an outright fallacy) describing the erroneous argument that the thinking, art, or science of an earlier time is inherently inferior to that of the present, simply by virtue of its temporal priority.

 

It could also be seen as unethical because you're trampling on what some see as a sacred union to fuel avarice. 

 

Tolerance and Empathy are often tested when we have to confront people we disagree with. That's a  2-way street

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/26/2017 at 3:03 AM, White said:

People are allowed to have different opinions?

 

https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/8121/fallacy-naming-the-current-year-century

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronological_snobbery

 

A logical argument (and usually when thus termed, considered an outright fallacy) describing the erroneous argument that the thinking, art, or science of an earlier time is inherently inferior to that of the present, simply by virtue of its temporal priority.

 

It could also be seen as unethical because you're trampling on what some see as a sacred union to fuel avarice. 

 

Tolerance and Empathy are often tested when we have to confront people we disagree with. That's a  2-way street

 

So because someone sees something else as sacred, two men can't get married?

 

Isn't that in and of itself unethical?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/26/2017 at 3:19 AM, Hi I'm Dad said:

So because someone sees something else as sacred, two men can't get married?

 

Isn't that in and of itself unethical?

Well I never said that; I said some people might see using marriage to fuel avarice as unethical 

 

I think my parents marrying each other to take advantage of a tax reform legislation and getting divorced multiple times to minimize their tax burden is unethical for example.

 

They clearly don't give a flying sheet about the institution, there's no need to make a mockery of it when others hold it dear...etc

 

But that's just my thoughts, nobody else has to live by my convictions 

 


 

As for your question. Depends on the ethics framework you're using. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/26/2017 at 3:21 AM, White said:

Well I never said that; I said some people might see using marriage to fuel avarice as unethical 

 

I think my parents marrying each other to take advantage of a tax reform legislation and getting divorced multiple times to minimize their tax burden is unethical for example.

 

They clearly don't give a flying sheet about the institution, there's no need to make a mockery of it when others hold it dear...etc

 

But that's just my thoughts, nobody else has to live by my convictions 

 


 

As for your question. Depends on the ethics framework you're using. 

 

I'm merely saying that ethics, in general, are bullshit.  It comes down to someone's precious feelings and we don't need that in law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  On 12/26/2017 at 2:24 AM, Astolfo said:

>tfw someone is still trying to imply homosexuality/related behaviors is unethical in 2017 almost 2018

 

You've never felt ashamed for loving as you do? Dirty, wrong and sick? If not, then you must try it! Each thrash is intensified by inward tension, each moan amplified by the devastating desecration of earnestly-internalized scripture. In fact, most churchgoers are perverted sex addicts working themselves up for feverish sessions of the sinfulness Christ died for.

 

Merry Christmas!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...