Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

That's what the thread is about, Sparky. We have a marriage tax break because the concept of marriage is they will have children and hopefully the wife will stay home and raise them. There are other discussions your point would be valid in, but Pop is right on this thread

Incorrect, we have child tax breaks for those. And you don't have to be married to have child tax breaks. You are just making stuff up.

Right, people move in together and share expenses, so we want them to have another tax break for that. The concept of marriage is for piling tax breaks on people already cutting their expenses. That's what they want.

It's funny how leftists are so much like Christians. It's about faith, and you love nothing more than the chance to show that faith has led you believe fully something otherwise only an idiot would believe.

I guess you can't have two Gods, and yours is government. That's why you hate Christians, they are competition for the sheep you want to join your faith

I don't hate christians. I'm a christian. What I hate is your bigotry.

Yes, and you don't hate Republicans, they are bigots too, you know, you are one.

The thing with leftist Christians is the leftist comes first

Not all republicans are bigots. Not all Christians are bigots. But you are, clearly, bigoted against gays.

What am I bigoted against? Bigots?

Just as liberty is not the liberty to take rights away from people, like you are doing to gays, bigotry is not the hatred of bigots. See how that works?

I think gays "married" or not should pay the same tax rates as everyone else. That's hating them. Gotcha.

Again, three words to improve your life. Grab, pull, remove...

 

[Syriusly]

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

Which you are fine with getting- but don't want other people to get.

If they are gay.

 

[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

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.

No, they couldn't marry "the person they love" if they were straight either. Men can't marry men and women can't marry women, it doesn't matter if you are straight or not. Men can marry women, it doesn't matter if you are straight or not. That is the job of the courts. The rest is for the legislature.

And still you can't name a law that says "who you want" or any other variable that changes the law. Should I be able to fish in hunting season since I eat fish but I don't eat other meat? That's not suppose, I am vegetarian except I eat fish and seafood

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

Where did I say you hate single people? I asked you if you hated them. You do know the difference between a question and a statement right?

John Wayne? It's not all about politics Kaz. I'm a fan of the on screen characters that John Wayne portrayed. I used to have my own photo up... but then I saw some creepy stuff going on around here so I pulled it.

 

[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

If the state can find a compelling reason, that the courts will accept, you can discriminate. The courts have looked at your reasons for denying gays the right to marry each other, and found them to be invalid. So sad, for you that is.

Yes, the state needs to convince the courts not to legislate, that's in the Constitution, I remember that part

The courts don't legislate- that is in the Constitution.

The courts interpret the constitutionality of laws- like they have for marriage laws 3 times in the past.

That's why it's a crime, Sparky. The courts are violating the Constitution by legislating since even as you are aware they have no power to do that. Not liking legislation isn't authority for the courts to overturn it. That is a job for the ... wait for it ... legislature

Cite the statute that criminalizes certain Supreme Court decisions and cite the cases where the statute has been enforced.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Do you know what that's from?

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Kaz is just arguing for discrimination against gays.

Wrong, I'm not arguing for just that

Everything else is just window dressing.

Kaz enjoys his marriage bennies- and is happy to have gay couples raising kids pay for his marriage bennies.

Actually, you support progressive taxes, Sparky

Kaz is fine taking money away from homes with kids(if the parents are gay) to give to newly wed 80 year olds - as long as the 80 year olds are not gay.


Like I said- just all window dressing- Kaz has his- and he wants to discriminate against gays- and their children.

Strawman, I said nothing about eliminating child deductions for gays, just the marriage breaks

Yes- you are arguing exactly that- you are specifically arguing that gay couples should be discriminated against- even gay couples raising children

Strawman. Um...no. I said nothing about discriminating against gays. Not giving someone money for not doing anything for you is not "discriminating" against them. What an idiot.

Your entire thread is your argument as to why gays should be discriminated against.

You want gay couples treated differently than straight couples- period.

You want a gay couple to not have the marriage 'bennies' you talk about- while at the same time paying those marriage bennies to the newly wed 80 year olds- as long as they are straight.

You want a gay couple raising 5 kids to pay more taxes than a married straight couple raising 5 kids.

Because you have yours- paid for by gay couples- and want to ensure you don't have to pay out to them.

 

[kaz]

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.

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

You want gay couples to be denied joint filing, while hetero couples retain it.

That is discrimination.

No, because no two people of the same sex can get a tax break, it doesn't matter if they are gay or not.

My grandmother took care of her sister for a decade, why shouldn't they have been able to save on their taxes?

 

[RKMBrown]

Incorrect, we have child tax breaks for those. And you don't have to be married to have child tax breaks. You are just making stuff up.

Right, people move in together and share expenses, so we want them to have another tax break for that. The concept of marriage is for piling tax breaks on people already cutting their expenses. That's what they want.

It's funny how leftists are so much like Christians. It's about faith, and you love nothing more than the chance to show that faith has led you believe fully something otherwise only an idiot would believe.

I guess you can't have two Gods, and yours is government. That's why you hate Christians, they are competition for the sheep you want to join your faith

I don't hate christians. I'm a christian. What I hate is your bigotry.

Yes, and you don't hate Republicans, they are bigots too, you know, you are one.

The thing with leftist Christians is the leftist comes first

Not all republicans are bigots. Not all Christians are bigots. But you are, clearly, bigoted against gays.

What am I bigoted against? Bigots?

Just as liberty is not the liberty to take rights away from people, like you are doing to gays, bigotry is not the hatred of bigots. See how that works?

I think gays "married" or not should pay the same tax rates as everyone else. That's hating them. Gotcha.

Again, three words to improve your life. Grab, pull, remove...

No that's not hating them. The hate was referring to your stated position on gay marriage and your repeated denigration of same. If you are in flux on your position you did not make that clear. If you are a proponent of gay marriage you did not make that clear. You made it perfectly clear, to me, that you believe that gays don't have a right to marriage in your eyes, at least not a federal right. If I miss-read your statements.. please clarify.

 

[kaz]

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.

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.

Maria del Carmen Bousada de Lara was 66 years 358 days when she gave birth. Records are meant to be broken. And the last thing I want to have government do is think

 

[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?

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.

How were you trapped? It's your strawman

 

[RKMBrown]

If the state can find a compelling reason, that the courts will accept, you can discriminate. The courts have looked at your reasons for denying gays the right to marry each other, and found them to be invalid. So sad, for you that is.

Yes, the state needs to convince the courts not to legislate, that's in the Constitution, I remember that part

The courts don't legislate- that is in the Constitution.

The courts interpret the constitutionality of laws- like they have for marriage laws 3 times in the past.

That's why it's a crime, Sparky. The courts are violating the Constitution by legislating since even as you are aware they have no power to do that. Not liking legislation isn't authority for the courts to overturn it. That is a job for the ... wait for it ... legislature

Cite the statute that criminalizes certain Supreme Court decisions and cite the cases where the statute has been enforced.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Do you know what that's from?

Keep going, that document was amended. See the 14th amendment.

 

[kaz]

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

Yes, not giving people money is "an attack" on them. Oh yeah, I forgot you were a "Conservative," LOL

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Yes, not giving people money is "an attack" on them. Oh yeah, I forgot you were a "Conservative," LOL

No kaz, the attack is usurping the rights of people you don't like. Rolls eyes.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Yes, not giving people money is "an attack" on them. Oh yeah, I forgot you were a "Conservative," LOL

Not giving some people money that you give to everyone else- sure.

If we excluded sterile couples- but only if they were Jewish sterile couples- no one would deny that was an attack on Jews.

You argue that we should exclude homosexuals from the benefits of marriage- regardless of the number of children that they have- while giving those benefits to any married straight couple- regardless of their capability to have children or their intention to have children.

Yeah- thats an attack
Yeah thats discrimination

 

[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

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?

Because I don't let other people tell me what to think like you do

 

[kaz]

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.

Yes, people who don't agree with you should be silenced, Adolph

 

[kaz]

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.

I do, why you think he's not?

 

[kaz]

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.

Now that's funny. Get it now?

 

[kaz]

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

Which you are fine with getting- but don't want other people to get.

If they are gay.

They can get it when marriage leads to procreation. For me it did, twice.

Don't confuse that with the child exemption which they do get for raising children again, you are easily confused because you are not very smart

 

[kaz]

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?

Where did I say you hate single people? I asked you if you hated them. You do know the difference between a question and a statement right?

Google "loaded question"

John Wayne? It's not all about politics Kaz. I'm a fan of the on screen characters that John Wayne portrayed. I used to have my own photo up... but then I saw some creepy stuff going on around here so I pulled it.

OK, thought it might bother you having a conservative on your avatar on a political site