Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[NYcarbineer]

It's weird when pretend libertarians like kaz are obsessed with getting the government to assure that gays don't have equal rights.

 

[Seawytch]

You people who want a flat tax, a true one, would lose all your financial bennies from having children.

Are you cool with that?

Yes, I'm against all government marriage, retard. You no long term memory because you know that

Sure you are.....you keep saying that....but won't answer my frequently asked question about what you are doing about it......except talking the talk.

I've answered the question so many times, you dumb bimbo, I'm sick of answering it. I am trying to change minds. I've had many people tell me they never thought of that before, but I make sense, they are open to it. You want to grab a sign with a stick and go masturbate with a bunch of other liberals, that is ineffective.

you can not like my answer, but stop being such a dumb slut and process it. You keep saying I didn't answer it, I did, wench.

Obviously I have struck a nerve with you. If you truly felt as strongly as you "claim" about government marriage, you would be BRAGGING about what you are actively doing to get rid of it.....instead of getting pissy about my asking you.

So...this pretty much sums up your REAL position on legal marriage:
You: I'm against gay marriage...oh, and I'm against government marriage.
Me: What are you actively doing to get rid of government marriage?
You: More blather about gay marriage...did I mention I'm against government marriage?
Me: What are you actively doing to get rid of government marriage?
You: Even more blather about gay marriage....oh, and I'm against government marriage.
Me: So you don't even have a government marriage yourself because you are against it, right?
You: Gays take our money, blah, blah, blah....I've always been against government marriage.
Me: Hello? What have you been doing to get rid of government marriage since you keep saying you are against it?
You: You %^*$#! I answered your *#^&$ question already, you #$&**@!

Nailed him!!! (You gotta add "strawman" and "begging the question" to get the true tap dance that is Kaz!)

 

[RKMBrown]

Does ANYONE on this board know what kaz is talking about? Or should we write it off to simple garden variety incoherent ignorance and let it go at that?

Yes, Kaz want's to know what the federal filing tax status will be for married gay folk and if they will be able to enter their children as exemptions like the rest of the breeders. I think he does not understand that even single people file exemptions for their children. Marriage is only a requirement for selecting married filling joint return which is used to select the rate box for same when filing jointly.

Strawman. How's the vagina? Enjoying having your own?

Huh? Where's the strawman in my statement? Are you mentally handicapped?

 

[kaz]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

First of all you are mixing apples and oranges- which doesn't surprise me. You talk about gays and sex- but not straights and sex. So is your thread about sex- or marriage?

Secondly- based upon purely a financial question- not the moral one- then you are in agreement then that marriage benefits should only go to couples who have children and live together?

But you want to exclude homosexual couples- because their children don't deserve the benefits of the state?

This is the problem with the anti-homosexual agenda. You have issues with consistency.

If we looked at this purely from your pure financial point of view- we would not allow any such benefits to any couple who does not have children- and then we would provide that financial benefit to any couple who does have children.

But you just want to give the financial benefits to straight couples.

Because you approve of how they have sex.

^That.

God hates gays more than murderers, it's an abomination to humanity. At least murderers only kill one person. Gays not only do not procreate but they poison the rest of society

Ah...here it is...the "it's a abomination" argument. Bases completely on your interpretation of your religion......and not based in any shape or form on law.

Yes, government should not be funding abominations. We should be arresting gay sand putting them in solitary confinement to save their souls. At least if they can still be saved

 

[Syriusly]

This whole thread has devolved into Kaz masturbating to his anti-gay fantasies in public.

 

[bendog]

Yes, it's a rehash of the gays don't procreate and it's icky argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

I'm missing something here. What is it being paid for?

He can't say. He got caught again thinking that no one would notice how stupid a thread he'd started.

 

[G.T.]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

First of all you are mixing apples and oranges- which doesn't surprise me. You talk about gays and sex- but not straights and sex. So is your thread about sex- or marriage?

Secondly- based upon purely a financial question- not the moral one- then you are in agreement then that marriage benefits should only go to couples who have children and live together?

But you want to exclude homosexual couples- because their children don't deserve the benefits of the state?

This is the problem with the anti-homosexual agenda. You have issues with consistency.

If we looked at this purely from your pure financial point of view- we would not allow any such benefits to any couple who does not have children- and then we would provide that financial benefit to any couple who does have children.

But you just want to give the financial benefits to straight couples.

Because you approve of how they have sex.

^That.

God hates gays more than murderers, it's an abomination to humanity. At least murderers only kill one person. Gays not only do not procreate but they poison the rest of society

Ah...here it is...the "it's a abomination" argument. Bases completely on your interpretation of your religion......and not based in any shape or form on law.

Yes, government should not be funding abominations. We should be arresting gay sand putting them in solitary confinement to save their souls. At least if they can still be saved

And this is why arguing with kooks can only serve to bring out the kooky in the kook.

 

[kaz]

Does ANYONE on this board know what kaz is talking about? Or should we write it off to simple garden variety incoherent ignorance and let it go at that?

Yes, Kaz want's to know what the federal filing tax status will be for married gay folk and if they will be able to enter their children as exemptions like the rest of the breeders. I think he does not understand that even single people file exemptions for their children. Marriage is only a requirement for selecting married filling joint return which is used to select the rate box for same when filing jointly.

Strawman. How's the vagina? Enjoying having your own?

Huh? Where's the strawman in my statement? Are you mentally handicapped?

Strawman 1) Kaz want's to know what the federal filing tax status will be for married gay folk and if they will be able to enter their children as exemptions like the rest of the breeders.

Strawman 2) I think he does not understand that even single people file exemptions for their children

 

[Seawytch]

If there is a societal benefit to civil marriage, it applies to gays and straights. If there isn't a societal benefit, it ain't the gays fault.!

Nope, gay sex doesn't lead to children

So? My brother's straight sex doesn't either. My grandpa's straight sex didn't either. Nobody tried to deny them a marriage license.

My partner and I do have children. They are ours legally and emotionally. Your argument is destroyed by two simple facts:

1. A lot of gays do have children
2. A lot of married straights don't.

That actually doesn't contradict anything I said

It invalidates your OP premise.

There is either a benefit to civil marriage or there isn't...orientation irrelevant.

 

[kaz]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

I'm missing something here. What is it being paid for?

He can't say. He got caught again thinking that no one would notice how stupid a thread he'd started.

OK, if you perverts don't back off the circle jerk I'm leaving for a while until it's over

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes, it's a rehash of the gays don't procreate and it's icky argument.

When they put a procreation requirement clause in EVERY marriage license, then kaz's argument will have a grain legitimacy.

 

[RKMBrown]

Does ANYONE on this board know what kaz is talking about? Or should we write it off to simple garden variety incoherent ignorance and let it go at that?

Yes, Kaz want's to know what the federal filing tax status will be for married gay folk and if they will be able to enter their children as exemptions like the rest of the breeders. I think he does not understand that even single people file exemptions for their children. Marriage is only a requirement for selecting married filling joint return which is used to select the rate box for same when filing jointly.

And the joint return is a benefit unrelated to gay or straight, child or childless.

There is no gay subsidy going on here.

Ayup... IOW Kaz' problem is gays existing at all. He wants them ... dead or rehabilitated.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

I'm missing something here. What is it being paid for?

He can't say. He got caught again thinking that no one would notice how stupid a thread he'd started.

OK, if you perverts don't back off the circle jerk I'm leaving for a while until it's over

Try the tall grass. I hear it's safe there.

 

[Seawytch]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

I'm missing something here. What is it being paid for?

He can't say. He got caught again thinking that no one would notice how stupid a thread he'd started.

But he'll blame it on everyone else's reading comprehension.

 

[kaz]

If there is a societal benefit to civil marriage, it applies to gays and straights. If there isn't a societal benefit, it ain't the gays fault.!

Nope, gay sex doesn't lead to children

So? My brother's straight sex doesn't either. My grandpa's straight sex didn't either. Nobody tried to deny them a marriage license.

My partner and I do have children. They are ours legally and emotionally. Your argument is destroyed by two simple facts:

1. A lot of gays do have children
2. A lot of married straights don't.

That actually doesn't contradict anything I said

It invalidates your OP premise.

There is either a benefit to civil marriage or there isn't...orientation irrelevant.

It doesn't contradict my premise, so how can it invalidate it? What premise are you making up in your mind it contradicts?

 

[rightwinger]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

People are allowed to form the families they choose

What business is it of yours?

 

[RKMBrown]

Does ANYONE on this board know what kaz is talking about? Or should we write it off to simple garden variety incoherent ignorance and let it go at that?

Yes, Kaz want's to know what the federal filing tax status will be for married gay folk and if they will be able to enter their children as exemptions like the rest of the breeders. I think he does not understand that even single people file exemptions for their children. Marriage is only a requirement for selecting married filling joint return which is used to select the rate box for same when filing jointly.

Strawman. How's the vagina? Enjoying having your own?

Huh? Where's the strawman in my statement? Are you mentally handicapped?

Strawman 1) Kaz want's to know what the federal filing tax status will be for married gay folk and if they will be able to enter their children as exemptions like the rest of the breeders.

Strawman 2) I think he does not understand that even single people file exemptions for their children

1) is straight from your OP.... it is the crux of your question.
2) is stated as my opinion.. I'm not asking for anyone to support it. Thus it's just my opinion. Opinions expressed as opinions using words such as "i think" are not strawmen.

 

[kaz]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

I'm missing something here. What is it being paid for?

He can't say. He got caught again thinking that no one would notice how stupid a thread he'd started.

But he'll blame it on everyone else's reading comprehension.

Here's how you use my secret decoder ring:

1) When you do a strawman, I say strawman

2) When you beg the question, I say begging the question

3) When you don't grasp what I said, I said you have a readig comprehension problem.

Pretty wild, isn't it? You may want to print that and keep it by your computer

 

[Syriusly]

More of Kaz masturbating in public about gay sex.