Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[RKMBrown]

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?

Rkmbrown is no liberal. You

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

If that's how you need to frame "equal protection," how sad for you.

Equal protection for me is being treated equally. Gays have that now

LOL- in a thread where you specifically argue that gay couples should not be treated equally with straight couples.

In a thread where you argue that gay couples should be forced to pay you to be married- while you do not have to pay them for their marriage.

How exactly is that being 'treated equally'?

Strawman, gays are treated exactly like straights. The issue is you don't want them to be. At least start by being honest

Repeating your lies doesn't help you. Never has ... never will.

They are not treated the same. For heterosexuals, the government allows them to legally marry the person they love; but not for homosexuals.

Kaz claims to be a libertarian but for some reason sees religious issues as left wing or right wing political platform issues. Odd huh? One would think someone claiming to be "libertarian" would have figured out that this is not a left vs right issue but a liberty of a minority group vs a religious majority who have decided to take away the liberty of said minority group issue. I don't see how you can be for liberty of all but the groups you don't like. That is the antithesis of what libertarians and the libertarian party is about. The libertarian party is for gay rights wrt marriage. Kaz is not. Which means Kaz is really just an authoritarian who sides with libertarians when they are defending his religious group and against libertarians when they are defending the groups his religious group is attacking.

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Nope. My lead designer who works for me in my business had always been told she and her husband cannot have children. Not sure which one, she didn't say. They were on the verge of adopting when ... you guess it ... she got pregnant. And her first biological grandson was just born last year.

Usually anecdotal stories are meaningless, but in this case, not. Let's check the scoreboard.

Children of infertile heterosexual couples personally known by kaz - 1
Children of gay sex in the history of mankind - 0

Ouch, that's you going down the hard way, all your evidence loses to one anecdotal example. That smarts

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.

I did not advocate gay couple not get child credits, so this is still irrelevant, just like every other time you brought it up

Got ya beat Kaz...90 year old grandpa married his 80 year old girlfriend...0 chance of resulting children. He died last year...no kids.

My brother and his wife both got married knowing they were never going to have children. They are both fixed, her a hysterectomy and him a vasectomy. 0 kids will result in their marriage. I am the only child bearer in the family.

You ARE advocating that straight people get the married tax breaks (like you for example) but gay married people like me don't.

You know we have sort of been trapped into legitimizing these peoples' absurd premise that there is any child requirement for marriage in the first place.

Ayup... which has been an attack on anyone that is not married, be they single or wanting to be married in a same sex relationship. Careful NYC you folks on the left are treading dangerously close to a light bulb moment in understanding the importance of liberty over tyranny

 

[kaz]

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.

That link didn't show me using nominal numbers, moron

 

[kaz]

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.

Yes, I love the bit where if I believe you are serious then I think you are 10 times as stupid than if I think you are a liar. You believe people think the concept of marriage is that people sharing costs and cutting expenses already need more money. It has nothing to do with their going on and having kids. No one thinks of procreation of the species with marriage. You actually want people to think that's what you believe.

You obviously aren't bouncing your stupid statements off people you know. But then you are lying, so why bother?

 

[kaz]

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??

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

Once again your lame lies show the idiot that you are. None of those quotes said Reagan didn't get a recession from Carter, they say he didn't inherit a recession. You never get tired of looking stupid, do you?

 

[kaz]

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.

Yes, because liberty is getting other people's money of course

 

[kaz]

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

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.

Being black changed who you could marry for every black. Being gay changes who you can marry for zero gays. Yeah, that's the same, Rosa Parks

 

[kaz]

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...........

Since I have answered that question of yours multiple times- would rather be a waste of time to do so again- wouldn't it?

You object to continuing to ask a question that's already been answered multiple times? When did that standard suddenly appear for you? Does that mean you're going to stop doing it to me?

 

[kaz]

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

Yes but why should they when you believe that father/mother households are the only legitimate way to raise children?

Strawman

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

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.

Being black changed who you could marry for every black. Being gay changes who you can marry for zero gays. Yeah, that's the same, Rosa Parks

Since this argument has died all over the nation, why do you keep making it?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Yes, because liberty is getting other people's money of course

The money that you believe to be yours, isn't. Part of it is ours. Just the cost of doing business so pay up and shut up.

 

[kaz]

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?

You calling someone retarded is like Jerry Falwell calling someone a religious nut

 

[kaz]

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?

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 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?

The taxes aren't dodged, dummy, the rich just don't pay enough, my stupid child...

Man up to the question, Darlene. Should Republicans who support the Iraq invasion get out of paying for it?

The question is simple, my dear child. Get it now?

 

[kaz]

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.

Pure projection...

You actually think you are a grownup in conversations? You are an intellectual child

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

You calling someone retarded is like Jerry Falwell calling someone a religious nut

You calling Jerry Falwell a religious nut... priceless.

 

[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?

Can we stick to the points, gay boy? I know you want to talk about feelings. Maybe you can just have a white whine spritzer and snap it out and come back when you can focus on the discussion points.

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.

And still the reality is that some two million children are living in same sex homes and 4% of all adoptions are by gay couples.

Anti gay argument fail #143.

No, 2 million have at least one gay parent according to liberal studies. Most of them are faking it. You need to repent, you are doomed to hell. it's probably too late, but at least give salvation a shot. Slut

That's actually a decent point?

When she gets out of control I tell her that

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

Pure projection...

You actually think you are a grownup in conversations? You are an intellectual child

Then it must really suck for you, getting constantly spanked by me.

 

[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?

Can we stick to the points, gay boy? I know you want to talk about feelings. Maybe you can just have a white whine spritzer and snap it out and come back when you can focus on the discussion points.

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.

And still the reality is that some two million children are living in same sex homes and 4% of all adoptions are by gay couples.

Anti gay argument fail #143.

No, 2 million have at least one gay parent according to liberal studies. Most of them are faking it. You need to repent, you are doomed to hell. it's probably too late, but at least give salvation a shot. Slut

Oh Kaz...you're so transparent. Is this the new place for you to run when you can't counter the point? You go full on hateful bigot instead of just the little old "gays are icky" bigot you are? Tsk, tsk.

I had no idea the Census was a "liberal study". Interesting POV. Crazy, but interesting.

Again for the cheap and stupid seats...4% of ALL adoptions are by gay parents. That's like 65,000 kids right there.

It doesn't matter what I say when you overdo the kool-aid and get too buzzed to be responsive

 

[kaz]

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?

So...your in-home culture is Korean...and you live in Korea.

You're going to have to explain that one to me. Do I need to do jello shots like you first to understand it?

I was responding to the race whoring bitch Seawytch's claim perfect parents are white. Obviously that's not the case or since my ass is white, my kids would be white if I believed that

Nope..I said that using your logic, "ideal" parents would be rich and white. It's as valid a claim as your "straight parents are ideal".

Nothing I said was race, slut. So how is "white" my logic?

Come on Kazbigot, I know you're not stupid. I know you said nothing about race. You said straight parents are better than gay parents based solely on the fact that they're straight. You HAVE said time and again that straight parents, a mother and a father are "ideal". Are you trying to deny you've made those statements?

You know I said nothing about race, so you don't understand how I don't get your saying the ideal parents are white is my logic.



M'kay. Read the last post, slut...

 

[kaz]

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?

I don't answer loaded questions unless it's fun. But nowhere did I advocate removing child deductions. My OP post clearly addressed marriage. What you have there is a non-sequitur. The OP post is clear on what it does ... and doesn't ... address.

Here is a three step process that will greatly improve the quality of your life:

1) Grab stick

2) Pull

3) Remove

Wow, it would be a joy for you. And for the rest of the people who have to deal with you

It's your stick Kaz, not mine. You are the one running around with a stick shoving it up the asses of gay folk and now single folk attacking them for being less than a part of heterosexual married couples. You are the one attacking people for being less than worthy in YOUR eyes.

Saying I hate single people shows where the stick is firmly entrenched.

And that doesn't even include that I don't think singles should pay higher rates than married people. But I hate them. Do you read what you post ever? Maybe you should try sometime, it could be eye opening.

BTW, what's with the John Wayne logo? You realize he's a conservative, don't you?