Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

People are not just babysitters and maids. The idea for kids is a parent of each sex. It's how we evolved The child tax breaks are for food and clothing. The marriage tax breaks are for providing them the ideal environment. I did not say in my OP post we should remove child tax breaks, I said we should remove the marriage one. With heterosexuals we may or may not get the ideal environment for children we are paying for. With gay couples, we know we are not. So if they care for the kids, we pay for that. But we get nothing for paying for the "marriage"

Are you arguing single parents should not have the tax breaks for kids that married people do? Really? So your hatred is not just for gays but also for single parents?

Stretching?

Clarifying.

Nope, that's a stretch.

Yes or no, one parent is the ideal environment. Not a stretch to ask that question. Kaz said the ideal environment is two parents of opposite sex. That is the equivalent of saying less than two parents of opposite sex is not the ideal environment. Kaz is against same sex couples, I want to know if also against single parents. Let's get it all out in the open. What punishments are we to put onto single and gay parents?

You moved the goalposts. Everyone who raises kids gets that tax break. Ideal heterosexual couples, gay couples, singles. I never advocated removing that. You're too lost in dogma to see what I said accurately

 

[Syriusly]

ROFL ^ dumb ass thinks you have to be married to have kids.

Except that appears nowhere in the noted post.

Yes or no, pop, gays can have kids. You can't have it both ways. You can't say one group and one group only is necessary for our species to survive then say you didn't mean gays can't have kids and we'd all be dead if everyone was gay. Make up your mind, either all groups can have kids or not.

People are not just babysitters and maids. The idea for kids is a parent of each sex. It's how we evolved The child tax breaks are for food and clothing. The marriage tax breaks are for providing them the ideal environment. I did not say in my OP post we should remove child tax breaks, I said we should remove the marriage one. With heterosexuals we may or may not get the ideal environment for children we are paying for. With gay couples, we know we are not. So if they care for the kids, we pay for that. But we get nothing for paying for the "marriage"

Are you arguing single parents should not have the tax breaks for kids that married people do? Really? So your hatred is not just for gays but also for single parents?

I've answered this question repeatedly. How do we know ex-ante which of the 90% of heterosexual marriages will result in kids? When you can answer that, get back to me.

We do know that 100% of gay marriages won't.

We know that zero percent of infertile heterosexual marriages will bear children from both partners- and we don't care.

We do know that gay marriages can- and do have children the same way that millions of heterosexual marriages do.

But you want to exclude homosexual marriages entirely because they are homosexual- and for no other reason.

So you can get your bennies- and deny those bennies to them.

So that a gay couple raising 8 kids has to pay bennies to 2 80 year olds who get married on a whim in Las Vegas.

 

[RKMBrown]

Are you arguing single parents should not have the tax breaks for kids that married people do? Really? So your hatred is not just for gays but also for single parents?

Stretching?

Clarifying.

Why? My OP post was clear on that

Oh? Where did you answer my question in your post about your hatred for single parents?

Have you supplied the link yet where you claim I said gays can't have children?

Until then, you deserve nothing no matter how much you kick and scream.

Is your name Kaz? You said gay marriages can't result in procreation, multiple times. How many links do you want this time, before you run off crying like a baby like you did last time you demanded links?

 

[RKMBrown]

Are you arguing single parents should not have the tax breaks for kids that married people do? Really? So your hatred is not just for gays but also for single parents?

Stretching?

Clarifying.

Nope, that's a stretch.

Yes or no, one parent is the ideal environment. Not a stretch to ask that question. Kaz said the ideal environment is two parents of opposite sex. That is the equivalent of saying less than two parents of opposite sex is not the ideal environment. Kaz is against same sex couples, I want to know if also against single parents. Let's get it all out in the open. What punishments are we to put onto single and gay parents?

You moved the goalposts. Everyone who raises kids gets that tax break. Ideal heterosexual couples, gay couples, singles. I never advocated removing that. You're too lost in dogma to see what I said accurately

Cool then you admit child tax breaks have nothing to do with marriage. Maybe you want to start your argument over this time focusing on marriage tax breaks, instead of child tax breaks. Child tax breaks are for the kids and their environment. Marriage tax breaks do not include anything for kids or any requirement for having kids. Marriage tax breaks are for "being married." Which of course requires a marriage license.

 

[kaz]

But only opposite sex couples have to worry that the pleasure turns into a pregnancy.

Thanks for pointing out how vastly different these two groups are!

They aren't different except when intentionally trying to make a baby. Otherwise, they are all just fucking for the fun of it. Same difference.

As Seawytch pointed out, actually 90% of heterosexuals having married sex have babies. Zero percent of gays do

Wrong, bigot. 90% of married couples have children...nothing in that stat says they had their own children. In fact, about 1.5 million babies are born every year through assisted reproductive technology...like gays use to have their chidren...which they DO have, bigot.

Percentage wise that's still pretty small, and even of the adopted that doesn't mean the family didn't have more of their own children. An anecdotal story on that.

If you remember the Woody Allen movie "Radio Days," I babysat the kid who played the intelligent, nerdy kid that is mother compared him to as a kid in the movie. His family is good friends with ours. They are great people. He is a biological son of his parents, but they also adopted a son. So that family gets a pass on the "concept of marriage." LOL

Numbers-wise there are far fewer gay couples not having children than straight couples.

Your anti gay argument fails like all of them do.

What do nominal numbers have to do with anything? That's barely better than anecdotal stories. Percentages are the only relevant data

 

[kaz]

The gay couple wasn't having children either ex-post or ex-ante. The straight couple was 90% having children ex-ante. Decisions have to be made ex-ante, not ex-post. You keep ignoring my pointing that out. How do you go back and change the upfront choice?

You and the law do not care- whether the straight couple can or cannot have children- the man could be missing his nads and you would give him the bennies without any question. Two 80 year olds get marry- and you give them bennies without question

But a gay couples raising 5 kids- you would deny them the bennies you give to the two 80 year olds.

Just because they are gay- and since the result of doing that is to take money from their family- clearly you want to harm their children also.

I hate children too. That's funny. You're losing it now. It's best for children to be in a man/woman household. It's how we evolved.

It's funny how you get all jacked out of shape over creationism, you talk about how people evolved. But when it's pointed out we also evolved with man/woman parents, nuh uh, that doesn't matter. You are just as religious as the Christians, obviously we did

No Kaz, you don' t hate children..you don't even "hate" gays...you just think about the way they have sex and you get all hinky.

You're still an anti gay bigot, just not necessarily a hateful one.

It's "best" for children to be raised in rich, white homes...good thing it's not only them that gets to have children, eh?

Once again race whoring, are you? My children didn't grow up in a "white" home, my wife is Korean. Fuck the shit out of you. You can't not be a race slut, can you?

Uh oh...then yours isn't the "ideal" home. You're the one claiming that straight parents are "ideal". By your logic, straight white wealthy parents are "ideal".

You said white is ideal, I never said that. Once again the empty headed twit wants to equate gay and race. There is no comparison

 

[Faun]

"Liner time?"

Regardless, answer, "yes," and you're full of shit. Answer, "no," and that's why gays are entitled to the same benefits.

... and your answer was ... ?

Linear, idiot. You didn't know that was what I meant? Now you're down to spelling? Now that's desperation, you know you're getting your ass kicked

Moron, asking you to clarify your typo was not the extent of my post. You're losing it by harping on that.

So you can cry about typos but I can't respond to your crying about typos. Got it. And noted.

You didn't address my point, how do you make an ex-ante decision on a tax break when you don't know if they are part of the 90% of the heterosexual marriages that will have children or the 10% that won't until you have ex-post data on that? Simple question.

We do know ex-ante if gays will have babies where they are the biological parents. Since it's zero percent ex-post, it's zero percent ex-ante

You're still lying. The marriage tax break is not about having children.

When do you stop lying?

How big a liar am I on a scale from 1 to you? Remember this classic?

I never denied Reagan was handed a recession.

Let's go to the video tape...

Again ... Obama inherited an economy in recession ... Reagan did not

I point out how Reagan was handed an economy which wasn't in recession (which it wasn"t)

I said Reagan didn't inherit a recession because he didn't

There is no lie there by me but there sure is plenty of stupid by you.

You still can't understand when I was saying Carter handed Reagan an economy that was not in recession, I was not denying Volker handed Reagan a recession??

I told no lie and I'm certainly not responsible for your inability to comprehend.

That makes you an idiot AND a liar -- a two-time loser.

And get this ... if you're lucky, no one will have noticed you used that diversion to avoid addressing my point how your thread is a fail since the marriage tax break is not about procreation.

 

[kaz]

Yes, it is discrimination. Liberals think discrimination is always bad, it's not always bad. It can be highly justified, like not giving a blind person a drivers license. I like to screw with them on their lack of understanding of that word

What state denies marriage licenses to couples who can't reproduce?

Name one.

Can't? Got a point?

The point is, reproduction capability has no place in the gay marriage debate. Now explain that to kazhomophobe.

Gays that marry same sex partners can't reproduce. I thought you knew that?

But as PMH just pointed out, often when one demographic group can't do what another can, denying a license is just common sense.

Then how do single mothers reproduce? Makes no sense. If what you are saying is true, then single mothers can't get pregnant can they?

Single mothers get tax breaks for kids, they do not get marriage tax breaks. You have zero point

 

[Faun]

They aren't different except when intentionally trying to make a baby. Otherwise, they are all just fucking for the fun of it. Same difference.

As Seawytch pointed out, actually 90% of heterosexuals having married sex have babies. Zero percent of gays do

Wrong, bigot. 90% of married couples have children...nothing in that stat says they had their own children. In fact, about 1.5 million babies are born every year through assisted reproductive technology...like gays use to have their chidren...which they DO have, bigot.

Percentage wise that's still pretty small, and even of the adopted that doesn't mean the family didn't have more of their own children. An anecdotal story on that.

If you remember the Woody Allen movie "Radio Days," I babysat the kid who played the intelligent, nerdy kid that is mother compared him to as a kid in the movie. His family is good friends with ours. They are great people. He is a biological son of his parents, but they also adopted a son. So that family gets a pass on the "concept of marriage." LOL

Numbers-wise there are far fewer gay couples not having children than straight couples.

Your anti gay argument fails like all of them do.

What do nominal numbers have to do with anything? That's barely better than anecdotal stories. Percentages are the only relevant data

How funny is it watching you dismiss nominal figures after you used them yourself in the past...

kaz using nominal figures...

You should never use nominal figures when comparing numbers over a span of time. But you? You seem to switch between nominal figures and real figures based on which figures you like better.

 

[Faun]

What state denies marriage licenses to couples who can't reproduce?

Name one.

Can't? Got a point?

The point is, reproduction capability has no place in the gay marriage debate. Now explain that to kazhomophobe.

Gays that marry same sex partners can't reproduce. I thought you knew that?

But as PMH just pointed out, often when one demographic group can't do what another can, denying a license is just common sense.

Then how do single mothers reproduce? Makes no sense. If what you are saying is true, then single mothers can't get pregnant can they?

Single mothers get tax breaks for kids, they do not get marriage tax breaks. You have zero point

Married couples get that same tax break for kids. The marriage tax benefit is not about procreation. I don't care how stupid you are.

 

[Faun]

Stretching?

Clarifying.

Nope, that's a stretch.

Yes or no, one parent is the ideal environment. Not a stretch to ask that question. Kaz said the ideal environment is two parents of opposite sex. That is the equivalent of saying less than two parents of opposite sex is not the ideal environment. Kaz is against same sex couples, I want to know if also against single parents. Let's get it all out in the open. What punishments are we to put onto single and gay parents?

You moved the goalposts. Everyone who raises kids gets that tax break. Ideal heterosexual couples, gay couples, singles. I never advocated removing that. You're too lost in dogma to see what I said accurately

Cool then you admit child tax breaks have nothing to do with marriage. Maybe you want to start your argument over this time focusing on marriage tax breaks, instead of child tax breaks. Child tax breaks are for the kids and their environment. Marriage tax breaks do not include anything for kids or any requirement for having kids. Marriage tax breaks are for "being married." Which of course requires a marriage license.

It really annoys me that I agree with you. Just sayin'.

 

[kaz]

And btw, unmarried parents get virtually every government benefit related to children that married couples do.

So it's about patting fags on the back and saying you're gay and it's OK, is it? They need collective validation as I always said, at least someone finally admitted it

No, it's about making them equal before the law, as in, we have a state sponsored and approved contract called marriage, which you can also engage in even if your partner has the same parts. Pretty simple to understand, if you have morals that is. That would explain why you can't get this...

There is not one gay for whom being gay changes who they can marry

Being gay does change who you want to marry. I am married to a woman. My marriage should be treated exactly like yours. It isn't and that violates the 14th amendment.

If you were straight, your so called marriage to a woman would be treated exactly as it is. Your 14th argument is a fail to all but the leftist indoctrinated like you and RKMBrown who thinks he's a conservative

 

[kaz]

Most sex doesn't lead to babies and we all pay for things we don't like or approve of. Time to grow up now.

Asked and answered. The idea is you acknowledge my response and build on it, you don't repeat your deflections. The thread is about what taxpayers are paying for, they are paying for babies. Time go grow up. Get it now?

Taxpayers are paying for babies to perpetuate the species. Your argument really is shallow and vacuous, I guess it's all you have. Taxpayers as Seawytch pointed out get babies 90% of the time from heterosexual couples. That heterosexual couples have more sex and make waffles is irrelevant. It's the babies they paid for. Time to grow up. Get it now?

And marriage isn't about children, never has been. They are a byproduct of sex, not marriage.

OK, seriously, are you illiterate or do you just not bother to read. How do you possibly read my OP post and think I defined marriage? What is wrong with you? Seriously? The tax breaks are about babies. Again per your inane response to the first part of this post, couples can do other things. They already share expenses and save money. Tax breaks are not to give them more money for shacking up. The money is to support having kids and hopefully the wife staying home to raise them. Do you have any processing power at all?

And what about addressing my question?

So what about Republicans who supported the Iraq war, should they not have to pay for it?

So answer the question

These taxes, that you are so concerned with, name them?

Do singles and unmarried couples not get the same breaks? Yep, because as a society that needs children to have a future we support people getting married and making babies, which they very often do. Nothing shocking there...

You're a terrible dancer. The question is whether Republicans should have to pay for wars they support. My answer is yes, what is yours?

Just like you should pay the progressive taxes you support and not dodge them

No dancing there at all. Americans pay for America's wars, or China that is lately.

That's not the question, simpleton. The question is whether the people who support the wars should be able to dodge paying for them.

Just like those of you who support progressive taxes and the death tax should pay the taxes you advocate and not dodge them.

Time to grow up now and answer the question. See how that works? Get it now?

 

[kaz]

Clarifying.

Nope, that's a stretch.

Yes or no, one parent is the ideal environment. Not a stretch to ask that question. Kaz said the ideal environment is two parents of opposite sex. That is the equivalent of saying less than two parents of opposite sex is not the ideal environment. Kaz is against same sex couples, I want to know if also against single parents. Let's get it all out in the open. What punishments are we to put onto single and gay parents?

You moved the goalposts. Everyone who raises kids gets that tax break. Ideal heterosexual couples, gay couples, singles. I never advocated removing that. You're too lost in dogma to see what I said accurately

Cool then you admit child tax breaks have nothing to do with marriage. Maybe you want to start your argument over this time focusing on marriage tax breaks, instead of child tax breaks. Child tax breaks are for the kids and their environment. Marriage tax breaks do not include anything for kids or any requirement for having kids. Marriage tax breaks are for "being married." Which of course requires a marriage license.

It really annoys me that I agree with you. Just sayin'.

Why wouldn't a couple liberals agree?

 

[kaz]

They already have equal protection under the law. You can post your idiocy 10,000 times, but that won't make it a valid argument.

Until they have the right to marry the person they love

If Mike is gay and loves Steve, he cannot marry him. OK, let's try the equal protection test. If Mike is not gay, can he marry Steve? No. Your argument is fail

Ouch, I should have warned you about that loose plank. Sorry you stepped on it and it whacked you in the face.

And the whole concept laws would change based on you want something different is just retarded

Tell us, what other state-sponsored contract (used to) require one to be male and the other female? Oh right, there isn't one. Your argument is as dead as your dogma and your tiny mind. Luckily the grownups have taken over, meaning you, the child, has now lost.

Wow, you're a contortionist.

Women have a clear advantage in court for custody when parents split. Affermative action is allowed for women, not men. Women are allowed in locker rooms of male athletes because of discrimination accusations, not vice versa.

There are lots of laws that change based on sex. I really need to fix that loose plank, now it bashed you in the face when you stepped on it. Sorry, guy. Get how it works now? Time to grow up

Sweetcheeks, I am the grownup here. I, unlike you, can deal with reality, therefore gay people and equality.

Dude, you deal with reality?



And you couldn't be the grownup in a group of kindergarteners. You crack me up sometimes. Like now. I don't know whether it's funnier when you think you are sane or when you think you give a shit about anyone but yourself. Tough call.

You're right I have sweet cheeks though. No one is wrong all the time

 

[RKMBrown]

What state denies marriage licenses to couples who can't reproduce?

Name one.

Can't? Got a point?

The point is, reproduction capability has no place in the gay marriage debate. Now explain that to kazhomophobe.

Gays that marry same sex partners can't reproduce. I thought you knew that?

But as PMH just pointed out, often when one demographic group can't do what another can, denying a license is just common sense.

Then how do single mothers reproduce? Makes no sense. If what you are saying is true, then single mothers can't get pregnant can they?

Single mothers get tax breaks for kids, they do not get marriage tax breaks. You have zero point

I'm not the one that was claiming marriage is about the kids and for the kids that was you. You are the one claiming gays should not be able to get married because they can't have kids and should not be able to claim child tax breaks. Not me Kaz. Sorry for being the bearer of bad news, but your argument just does not hold water.

 

[RKMBrown]

Clarifying.

Nope, that's a stretch.

Yes or no, one parent is the ideal environment. Not a stretch to ask that question. Kaz said the ideal environment is two parents of opposite sex. That is the equivalent of saying less than two parents of opposite sex is not the ideal environment. Kaz is against same sex couples, I want to know if also against single parents. Let's get it all out in the open. What punishments are we to put onto single and gay parents?

You moved the goalposts. Everyone who raises kids gets that tax break. Ideal heterosexual couples, gay couples, singles. I never advocated removing that. You're too lost in dogma to see what I said accurately

Cool then you admit child tax breaks have nothing to do with marriage. Maybe you want to start your argument over this time focusing on marriage tax breaks, instead of child tax breaks. Child tax breaks are for the kids and their environment. Marriage tax breaks do not include anything for kids or any requirement for having kids. Marriage tax breaks are for "being married." Which of course requires a marriage license.

It really annoys me that I agree with you. Just sayin'.

Sorry Faun. Don't worry, we'll be at odds on the next subject. Well that is unless the democrats start getting consistent wrt. their views on liberty. I'll be on your side every time you side with liberty.

 

[RKMBrown]

Nope, that's a stretch.

Yes or no, one parent is the ideal environment. Not a stretch to ask that question. Kaz said the ideal environment is two parents of opposite sex. That is the equivalent of saying less than two parents of opposite sex is not the ideal environment. Kaz is against same sex couples, I want to know if also against single parents. Let's get it all out in the open. What punishments are we to put onto single and gay parents?

You moved the goalposts. Everyone who raises kids gets that tax break. Ideal heterosexual couples, gay couples, singles. I never advocated removing that. You're too lost in dogma to see what I said accurately

Cool then you admit child tax breaks have nothing to do with marriage. Maybe you want to start your argument over this time focusing on marriage tax breaks, instead of child tax breaks. Child tax breaks are for the kids and their environment. Marriage tax breaks do not include anything for kids or any requirement for having kids. Marriage tax breaks are for "being married." Which of course requires a marriage license.

It really annoys me that I agree with you. Just sayin'.

Why wouldn't a couple liberals agree?

I'm not liberal Kaz. I'm libertarian. As opposed to your "authoritarian" stance on gay marriage.

 

[Pop23]

Except that appears nowhere in the noted post.

Yes or no, pop, gays can have kids. You can't have it both ways. You can't say one group and one group only is necessary for our species to survive then say you didn't mean gays can't have kids and we'd all be dead if everyone was gay. Make up your mind, either all groups can have kids or not.

People are not just babysitters and maids. The idea for kids is a parent of each sex. It's how we evolved The child tax breaks are for food and clothing. The marriage tax breaks are for providing them the ideal environment. I did not say in my OP post we should remove child tax breaks, I said we should remove the marriage one. With heterosexuals we may or may not get the ideal environment for children we are paying for. With gay couples, we know we are not. So if they care for the kids, we pay for that. But we get nothing for paying for the "marriage"

Are you arguing single parents should not have the tax breaks for kids that married people do? Really? So your hatred is not just for gays but also for single parents?

I've answered this question repeatedly. How do we know ex-ante which of the 90% of heterosexual marriages will result in kids? When you can answer that, get back to me.

We do know that 100% of gay marriages won't.

We know that zero percent of infertile heterosexual marriages will bear children from both partners- and we don't care.

We do know that gay marriages can- and do have children the same way that millions of heterosexual marriages do.

But you want to exclude homosexual marriages entirely because they are homosexual- and for no other reason.

So you can get your bennies- and deny those bennies to them.

So that a gay couple raising 8 kids has to pay bennies to 2 80 year olds who get married on a whim in Las Vegas.

Ummmm, many infertile couples use in vitro to combine and produce a child from the couple.

 

[Pop23]

Stretching?

Clarifying.

Why? My OP post was clear on that

Oh? Where did you answer my question in your post about your hatred for single parents?

Have you supplied the link yet where you claim I said gays can't have children?

Until then, you deserve nothing no matter how much you kick and scream.

Is your name Kaz? You said gay marriages can't result in procreation, multiple times. How many links do you want this time, before you run off crying like a baby like you did last time you demanded links?

If I said it multiple times it should be easy to produce the links.

You can't, so you have just been proven a liar dood.

You've been