Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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...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
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
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?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"
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.
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...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
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
I'm not straight, I'm gay. I have no interest in marrying a man anymore than Mildred Loving wanted to marry a black man.
I have a civil marriage license issued by my state, just like YOU DO. My license is treated differently thanks to the unconstitutional DOMA...which will be struck down in a few weeks.
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?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"
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.
And many don't. It ain't just gays making withdrawals from the sperm banks.
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...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
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
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...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
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
The 14th Amendment argument has found success with multiple judges appointed by conservatives- from Reagan to Bush 2.
Those of you advocating discrimination against homosexuals so you can enjoy your marriage benefits while denying them to homosexuals are going to be sad.
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.
And many don't. It ain't just gays making withdrawals from the sperm banks.
Far fewer by percentage than same sex couples.
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?Oh? Where did you answer my question in your post about your hatred for single parents?Clarifying.
Why? My OP post was clear on that
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.
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
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
The 14th Amendment argument has found success with multiple judges appointed by conservatives- from Reagan to Bush 2.
Those of you advocating discrimination against homosexuals so you can enjoy your marriage benefits while denying them to homosexuals are going to be sad.
It should find equal success when two same sex siblings wish the rights and benefits of marriage.
But then how do you justify opposite sex siblings from those rights and benefits? A procreation argument?
Nah, because...........
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?Oh? Where did you answer my question in your post about your hatred for single parents?Why? My OP post was clear on that
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.
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
1: Quote by POP23 "Only opposite sex coupling produce population. Without population there is no need for a government, and we question if same sex coupling should get tax benefits when the contribution is zero?" Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?
2: Quote by POP23 "100% of all children born come from male/female couplings, 0% of all children born come from same sex couplings." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?
3: Quote by POP23 "Where the children come from A same sex coupling has never produced a child. One coupling can One coupling cannot." Citation:
Gays Speak Against Gays Adopting, Politics Not Reported.
4: Quote by POP23 "Can't parent until a child is produced. And that always involves a male/female." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?
5: Quote by POP23 "Wouldn't 100% of all gay and lesbian couples with children have them outside of wedlock?" Citation:
Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...
6: Quote by POP23 "All that and you fail to realize that same sex couplings which would include same sex siblings cannot produce children." Citation:
Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?
All of these citations in "gay marriage" threads, every single one of them. Not one of them in a gay sex thread, not one, not a single one of them. Thus the context of EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT YOU MADE was to point out that there is no point to gay marriages since gay couples can't create children.
Full Definition of COUPLING
1: the act of bringing or coming together : pairing
In the context of gay marriage. The coming together of two people of the same sex in marriage. Which may also include having sex, having children, adopting children, raising families... etc.
Slam dunk.
Which Pop will ignore.
His is just a variation on trolling.
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?Oh? Where did you answer my question in your post about your hatred for single parents?Why? My OP post was clear on that
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.
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
1: Quote by POP23 "Only opposite sex coupling produce population. Without population there is no need for a government, and we question if same sex coupling should get tax benefits when the contribution is zero?" Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?
2: Quote by POP23 "100% of all children born come from male/female couplings, 0% of all children born come from same sex couplings." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?
3: Quote by POP23 "Where the children come from A same sex coupling has never produced a child. One coupling can One coupling cannot." Citation:
Gays Speak Against Gays Adopting, Politics Not Reported.
4: Quote by POP23 "Can't parent until a child is produced. And that always involves a male/female." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?
5: Quote by POP23 "Wouldn't 100% of all gay and lesbian couples with children have them outside of wedlock?" Citation:
Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...
6: Quote by POP23 "All that and you fail to realize that same sex couplings which would include same sex siblings cannot produce children." Citation:
Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?
All of these citations in "gay marriage" threads, every single one of them. Not one of them in a gay sex thread, not one, not a single one of them. Thus the context of EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT YOU MADE was to point out that there is no point to gay marriages since gay couples can't create children.
Definition of COUPLING
1: the act of bringing or coming together : pairing
websters
In the context of gay marriage. The coming together of two people of the same sex in marriage. Which may also include having sex, having children, adopting children, raising families... etc.
What I said to you pop was... So you admit your argument was baseless from the start? There is no requirement for "coupling" in a marriage. There is no requirement for marriages producing kids. The only requirement going on around here is that gays can't get married.. and that will soon end.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?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.
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
1: Quote by POP23 "Only opposite sex coupling produce population. Without population there is no need for a government, and we question if same sex coupling should get tax benefits when the contribution is zero?" Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?
2: Quote by POP23 "100% of all children born come from male/female couplings, 0% of all children born come from same sex couplings." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?
3: Quote by POP23 "Where the children come from A same sex coupling has never produced a child. One coupling can One coupling cannot." Citation:
Gays Speak Against Gays Adopting, Politics Not Reported.
4: Quote by POP23 "Can't parent until a child is produced. And that always involves a male/female." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?
5: Quote by POP23 "Wouldn't 100% of all gay and lesbian couples with children have them outside of wedlock?" Citation:
Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...
6: Quote by POP23 "All that and you fail to realize that same sex couplings which would include same sex siblings cannot produce children." Citation:
Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?
All of these citations in "gay marriage" threads, every single one of them. Not one of them in a gay sex thread, not one, not a single one of them. Thus the context of EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT YOU MADE was to point out that there is no point to gay marriages since gay couples can't create children.
Definition of COUPLING
1: the act of bringing or coming together : pairing
websters
In the context of gay marriage. The coming together of two people of the same sex in marriage. Which may also include having sex, having children, adopting children, raising families... etc.
And nowhere in that entire tirade can you find where I said gays can't procreate.
I'll be right back with your original quote.
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?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.
Single mothers get tax breaks for kids, they do not get marriage tax breaks. You have zero point
What I said to you pop was... So you admit your argument was baseless from the start? There is no requirement for "coupling" in a marriage. There is no requirement for marriages producing kids. The only requirement going on around here is that gays can't get married.. and that will soon end.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?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.
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
1: Quote by POP23 "Only opposite sex coupling produce population. Without population there is no need for a government, and we question if same sex coupling should get tax benefits when the contribution is zero?" Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?
2: Quote by POP23 "100% of all children born come from male/female couplings, 0% of all children born come from same sex couplings." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?
3: Quote by POP23 "Where the children come from A same sex coupling has never produced a child. One coupling can One coupling cannot." Citation:
Gays Speak Against Gays Adopting, Politics Not Reported.
4: Quote by POP23 "Can't parent until a child is produced. And that always involves a male/female." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?
5: Quote by POP23 "Wouldn't 100% of all gay and lesbian couples with children have them outside of wedlock?" Citation:
Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...
6: Quote by POP23 "All that and you fail to realize that same sex couplings which would include same sex siblings cannot produce children." Citation:
Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?
All of these citations in "gay marriage" threads, every single one of them. Not one of them in a gay sex thread, not one, not a single one of them. Thus the context of EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT YOU MADE was to point out that there is no point to gay marriages since gay couples can't create children.
Definition of COUPLING
1: the act of bringing or coming together : pairing
websters
In the context of gay marriage. The coming together of two people of the same sex in marriage. Which may also include having sex, having children, adopting children, raising families... etc.
And nowhere in that entire tirade can you find where I said gays can't procreate.
I'll be right back with your original quote.
Wait... did you just say the birds and the bees apply to gays too? Then why all the crazy arguments that gays can't have kids?]
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?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"
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.
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?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"
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.
So what?
What state marriage law requires fertility to qualify for a marriage license?
Name one.
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.
So what?
What state marriage law requires fertility to qualify for a marriage license?
Name one.
Several mumicipalities require the lack of the ability
What I said to you pop was... So you admit your argument was baseless from the start? There is no requirement for "coupling" in a marriage. There is no requirement for marriages producing kids. The only requirement going on around here is that gays can't get married.. and that will soon end.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?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.
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
1: Quote by POP23 "Only opposite sex coupling produce population. Without population there is no need for a government, and we question if same sex coupling should get tax benefits when the contribution is zero?" Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?
2: Quote by POP23 "100% of all children born come from male/female couplings, 0% of all children born come from same sex couplings." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?
3: Quote by POP23 "Where the children come from A same sex coupling has never produced a child. One coupling can One coupling cannot." Citation:
Gays Speak Against Gays Adopting, Politics Not Reported.
4: Quote by POP23 "Can't parent until a child is produced. And that always involves a male/female." Citation:
Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?
5: Quote by POP23 "Wouldn't 100% of all gay and lesbian couples with children have them outside of wedlock?" Citation:
Can someone tell me when it was that Gays had different drinking fountains?...
6: Quote by POP23 "All that and you fail to realize that same sex couplings which would include same sex siblings cannot produce children." Citation:
Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?
All of these citations in "gay marriage" threads, every single one of them. Not one of them in a gay sex thread, not one, not a single one of them. Thus the context of EVERY SINGLE STATEMENT YOU MADE was to point out that there is no point to gay marriages since gay couples can't create children.
Definition of COUPLING
1: the act of bringing or coming together : pairing
websters
In the context of gay marriage. The coming together of two people of the same sex in marriage. Which may also include having sex, having children, adopting children, raising families... etc.
And nowhere in that entire tirade can you find where I said gays can't procreate.
I'll be right back with your original quote.
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.
So what?
What state marriage law requires fertility to qualify for a marriage license?
Name one.
Several mumicipalities require the lack of the ability
Shall I repeat the question and give you the opportunity to show off your retardation even more?
The taxes aren't dodged, dummy, the rich just don't pay enough, my stupid child...No dancing there at all. Americans pay for America's wars, or China that is lately.These taxes, that you are so concerned with, name them?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?
kaz said:So what about Republicans who supported the Iraq war, should they not have to pay for it?
So answer the question
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
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?
