Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Syriusly]

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

Read it again ... this time, absorb it for clarity ...

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”​

A gay person whose only marital option is someone he's not in love with because they're not the right gender is denying that gay person's vital personal rights, essential to the inalienable right to pursue happiness.

Yes, marriage is, government marriage is not.t

In the United States the only valid marriage is government marriage.

Anything else is a fiction of mutual consent. You can call your relationship to your car a marriage- but unless you have a valid marriage license- you are only married in the eyes of yourself and other car lovers.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Holyfuckingshit!

Who do you think Reagan inherited the economy from if not Carter? King George III??



You're a fucking rightard. Don't ever forget that.

You actually are eight, aren't you? I can't keep up with your continually shifting positions. When you pick one, let me know

How terribly ironic.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Well, the courts do have a way of doing, grownups call it the law and often obey it even if they don't approve.

 

[Syriusly]

[

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.

That is a limitation on marriage that only serves the purpose of denying gays the right to marry according to their sexual orientation.

You give a man a right to marry a woman, but you don't give a woman the right to marry a woman. That is gender discrimination.

Good argument for the legislature. But since it's literally not treating people different due to their orientation since straight woman can't marry a woman either, it's not a job for the courts

The Supreme Court disagrees.

They may ultimately agree with your position- but the Supreme Court absolutely believes it is their job to decide whether denying same gender couples equal access to marriage is Constitutional.

 

[Faun]

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

Holyfuckingshit!

You are seriously one dumb fucking retard. Yup, there is no doubt about it as you prove it repeatedly.

Dumbfuck.....

I linked a post if yours claiming "tax revenues doubled from the start of Reagan's presidency to the end."

... the only way that's true is if you're talking about nominal figures. Real figures come nowhere close to "double."



If you had a functioning brain in your head, I wouldn't have to be explaining this to you for a second time now (and counting, you still don't get it).

Strawman?
Irrelevant?
Off-topic?

What's your latest excuse for being such a dumb shmuck?

Yes, of course, I should have read the entire thread you linked to and figured out which post you were referring to, vagina

Seriously, douche, are you this stupid for sympathy? Cause I'm feeling bad, like I'm arguing with a three year old.

... moron ... you needed to look no further than the post I linked to know you were referencing nominal figures. You know you used nominal figures so why do you pretend like that post wasn't enough information for you?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Yes, and zero gays had who they could marry change based on being gay, so the 14th was not applicable

When being gay became "legal" that opened the door to gays having rights. The 14th clarifies what rights the states can and can't restrict. Get over it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Kaz,

You are INCORRECT that there is any kind of special tax break for Married couples so this whole thread is for NAUGHT.

In FACT there is a tax PENALTY for being married filing jointly....when you reach the higher income levels

Two people being taxed vs one person being taxed....Joining income does not save you in taxes, it actually makes you go in to a HIGHER tax bracket with less combined income than two single people filing that live together.

Marriage penalty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Under these tax rates, two single people who each earned $87,850 would each file as "Single" and each would pay a marginal tax rate of 25%. However, if those same two people were married, their combined income would be exactly the same as before (2 * $87,850 = $175,700), but the "Married filing Jointly" tax brackets would push them into a higher marginal rate of 28%, costing them an additional $879 in taxes.

In the most extreme case, two single people who each earned $400,000 would each pay a marginal tax rate of 35%; but if those same two people filed as "Married, filing jointly" then their combined income would be exactly the same (2 * $400,000 = $800,000), yet $350,000 of that income would be taxed as the higher 39.6% rate, resulting in a marriage penalty of $32,119 in extra taxes ($16,100 for the 39.6% bracket alone, plus the remainder is due to the higher phase out of the lower brackets.)

So complete exemption from the death tax is not a tax break? How do you figure that?

And really, you don't know how tax rates work for married people? What you said doesn't contradict me. If the wife stays home, they pay a lower tax rate. What you are talking about is if they both work and earn relatively equal salaries.

However, I said the "concept" of marriage is having a family, in that case they pay a lower rate, which is clearly a tax break no matter how you slice it. Your scenario is them not doing that

Are childless spouses denied the death tax exemptions?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.
t

No- couples get the marriage exemption- regardless of procreation.

You want to deny the 'marriage bennies' that you get- only to homosexual couples. While they pay for your bennies.

You think a pair of 80 year old newly weds are eligible for 'marriage bennies' but not a lesbian couple with 5 kids.

Like I said- you are fine with getting yours- but don't want other people to get it.

If they are gay.

Again, how does it make sense I want benefits when I oppose the benefits? Is all the spinning you're doing making you dizzy?

If you wanted to talk about your opposition to marriage benefits in general, why did you single out gays?

 

[RKMBrown]

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.

Which is money, so the point stands, you think not giving someone money is an attack on them. Typical leftist ideology. John Wayne would certainly not agree with that

No. It's already been established that gay people are people and as such are able to file the same GOD DAMN EXEMPTIONS IN TAX FORMS THAT EVERYONE ELSE GETS TO FILE. I put it in all caps since you don't like quotes for emphasis. If you don't want marriage tax deductions take it up with your senator.

 

[Faun]

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?

Holyfuckingshit!

Who do you think Reagan inherited the economy from if not Carter? King George III??



You're a fucking rightard. Don't ever forget that.

You actually are eight, aren't you? I can't keep up with your continually shifting positions. When you pick one, let me know

That's funny. You think my position has changed because you're too stupid to know that Reagan inherited the economy from Carter.

That was Jimmy Carter. Just clarifying to avoid you being any more confused than you already are.

Oh, and let's not forget ... this stems from you lying and claiming I blamed Reagan for the 1981-82 really recession even though I never said that.

 

[Seawytch]

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.
t

No- couples get the marriage exemption- regardless of procreation.

You want to deny the 'marriage bennies' that you get- only to homosexual couples. While they pay for your bennies.

You think a pair of 80 year old newly weds are eligible for 'marriage bennies' but not a lesbian couple with 5 kids.

Like I said- you are fine with getting yours- but don't want other people to get it.

If they are gay.

Again, how does it make sense I want benefits when I oppose the benefits? Is all the spinning you're doing making you dizzy?

If you wanted to talk about your opposition to marriage benefits in general, why did you single out gays?

Support from anti gay bigots and more click worthy...

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Why do you think I would hand you an unloaded question? BTW you loaded that question all I did was pull the trigger.

No, my avatar does not bother me.

That makes no sense, how did I load the question about "hating" singles? Are you trying to up the stupid in your posts? That's a lofty standard

You stated that married hetero couples are the optimal family unit. Married hetero couples are not single parents. You do the math. While it is understood that you intended to attack only gay people based on your homophobia, that's not what you did. You also attacked single parents based on your self-ascribed superiority over everyone else.

 

[Faun]

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

Read it again ... this time, absorb it for clarity ...

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”​

A gay person whose only marital option is someone he's not in love with because they're not the right gender is denying that gay person's vital personal rights, essential to the inalienable right to pursue happiness.

Yes, marriage is, government marriage is not. Positive rights are not rights for anyone, that's ridiculous. The SCOTUS has a lengthy list of ridiculous rulings to it's credit

The only marriage we're talking about; and the only marriage the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over IS government marriage. That is to say, a marriage recognized by the state by issuance of a marriage license.

And as you've been shown, marriage is a vital right, essential to the inalienable right to pursue happiness.

Such pursuit is only possible if an individual can marry the person, regardless of gender, race, creed, religion, etc..., whom they love and want to be married to. Since the state has to treat everyone the same under the law ... and since the state cannot deny us our rights without legitimate cause and due process ... the state has no alternative to issue marriage licenses with ease to gays as it does to straights.

And get this ... your ignorance is not a barrier to that cause.

 

[Faun]

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.
t

No- couples get the marriage exemption- regardless of procreation.

You want to deny the 'marriage bennies' that you get- only to homosexual couples. While they pay for your bennies.

You think a pair of 80 year old newly weds are eligible for 'marriage bennies' but not a lesbian couple with 5 kids.

Like I said- you are fine with getting yours- but don't want other people to get it.

If they are gay.

Again, how does it make sense I want benefits when I oppose the benefits? Is all the spinning you're doing making you dizzy?

Since you're against those benefits, do you give the proceeds to charity or do you just send them back to the government.

 

[Faun]

Kaz,

You are INCORRECT that there is any kind of special tax break for Married couples so this whole thread is for NAUGHT.

In FACT there is a tax PENALTY for being married filing jointly....when you reach the higher income levels

Two people being taxed vs one person being taxed....Joining income does not save you in taxes, it actually makes you go in to a HIGHER tax bracket with less combined income than two single people filing that live together.

Marriage penalty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Under these tax rates, two single people who each earned $87,850 would each file as "Single" and each would pay a marginal tax rate of 25%. However, if those same two people were married, their combined income would be exactly the same as before (2 * $87,850 = $175,700), but the "Married filing Jointly" tax brackets would push them into a higher marginal rate of 28%, costing them an additional $879 in taxes.

In the most extreme case, two single people who each earned $400,000 would each pay a marginal tax rate of 35%; but if those same two people filed as "Married, filing jointly" then their combined income would be exactly the same (2 * $400,000 = $800,000), yet $350,000 of that income would be taxed as the higher 39.6% rate, resulting in a marriage penalty of $32,119 in extra taxes ($16,100 for the 39.6% bracket alone, plus the remainder is due to the higher phase out of the lower brackets.)

So complete exemption from the death tax is not a tax break? How do you figure that?

And really, you don't know how tax rates work for married people? What you said doesn't contradict me. If the wife stays home, they pay a lower tax rate. What you are talking about is if they both work and earn relatively equal salaries.

However, I said the "concept" of marriage is having a family, in that case they pay a lower rate, which is clearly a tax break no matter how you slice it. Your scenario is them not doing that

Gay couples have families.

Oh, no! Now what??

 

[kaz]

Kaz,

You are INCORRECT that there is any kind of special tax break for Married couples so this whole thread is for NAUGHT.

In FACT there is a tax PENALTY for being married filing jointly....when you reach the higher income levels

Two people being taxed vs one person being taxed....Joining income does not save you in taxes, it actually makes you go in to a HIGHER tax bracket with less combined income than two single people filing that live together.

Marriage penalty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Under these tax rates, two single people who each earned $87,850 would each file as "Single" and each would pay a marginal tax rate of 25%. However, if those same two people were married, their combined income would be exactly the same as before (2 * $87,850 = $175,700), but the "Married filing Jointly" tax brackets would push them into a higher marginal rate of 28%, costing them an additional $879 in taxes.

In the most extreme case, two single people who each earned $400,000 would each pay a marginal tax rate of 35%; but if those same two people filed as "Married, filing jointly" then their combined income would be exactly the same (2 * $400,000 = $800,000), yet $350,000 of that income would be taxed as the higher 39.6% rate, resulting in a marriage penalty of $32,119 in extra taxes ($16,100 for the 39.6% bracket alone, plus the remainder is due to the higher phase out of the lower brackets.)

So complete exemption from the death tax is not a tax break? How do you figure that?

And really, you don't know how tax rates work for married people? What you said doesn't contradict me. If the wife stays home, they pay a lower tax rate. What you are talking about is if they both work and earn relatively equal salaries.

However, I said the "concept" of marriage is having a family, in that case they pay a lower rate, which is clearly a tax break no matter how you slice it. Your scenario is them not doing that

You were Kaz, stop your dancing....not many women stay home and don't work...and there is a PENALTY for being married and earning high incomes.

As far as the estate tax, two people don't die together at the same time....and most all people in the nation do NOT have $5,000,000 plus in their estate when they die.

it's utter bull crap that you have posted on this and taxes.

You didn't contradict anything I said, but it's "utter bull crap." Yeah

 

[kaz]

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

That isn't a response. You have a civil marriage license issued by a U.S. state. It's valid in all 50 states. My civil marriage license issued by a U.S. state is not. Even an anti gay bigot like you can see that's unconstitutional.

Don't understand the Full Faith and Credit clause, do you slut?

I do bigot, but apparently you don't.

What you just said shows that's a lie, slut

Really? My marriage license issued by the state of CA is treated differently than my brother's, despite both being issued by the state of California, his is valid in all 50 states while mine is not.

A 40 year old Dugger relative marries his 15 year old 1st cousin in Arkansas...THAT marriage is valid in all 50 states. DOMA violates FF&C.

Actually READ the Full Faith and Credit cluase, don't just say oh yeah, I know what that says. You don't, slu

And yes- marriage laws absolutely do change who someone can marry based upon gender.

Name one

Sure.

Marriage bans based upon race or gender.

Virginia: forbid marriage between two persons of different races.
Georgia: forbid marriage between two persons of the same gender.

Race or gender change who someone could marry- a white man couldn't marry a black woman, a man can't marry a man- race and gender.

Those statement sound the same on the surface, but race is not equal to gender no matter how much you want to equate gays not getting tax breaks with blacks being segregated, lynched and shot with water canons. Being Being black changed who you could marry. Being gay did not. End of legitimate involvement of the courts

 

[Seawytch]

That isn't a response. You have a civil marriage license issued by a U.S. state. It's valid in all 50 states. My civil marriage license issued by a U.S. state is not. Even an anti gay bigot like you can see that's unconstitutional.

Don't understand the Full Faith and Credit clause, do you slut?

I do bigot, but apparently you don't.

What you just said shows that's a lie, slut

Really? My marriage license issued by the state of CA is treated differently than my brother's, despite both being issued by the state of California, his is valid in all 50 states while mine is not.

A 40 year old Dugger relative marries his 15 year old 1st cousin in Arkansas...THAT marriage is valid in all 50 states. DOMA violates FF&C.

Actually READ the Full Faith and Credit cluase, don't just say oh yeah, I know what that says. You don't, slu

Slu? What's a slu...or a cluase, Bigot?

I do know what it says and I know where you think you've got wiggle room. We'll see in a couple weeks, shall we?

 

[kaz]

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.
t

No- couples get the marriage exemption- regardless of procreation.

You want to deny the 'marriage bennies' that you get- only to homosexual couples. While they pay for your bennies.

You think a pair of 80 year old newly weds are eligible for 'marriage bennies' but not a lesbian couple with 5 kids.

Like I said- you are fine with getting yours- but don't want other people to get it.

If they are gay.

Again, how does it make sense I want benefits when I oppose the benefits? Is all the spinning you're doing making you dizzy?

I never implied that any of your bigotry makes sense.

Let's just go with, non-sequitur

You want to deny the 'marriage bennies' that you get- but only to homosexual couples. While they pay for your bennies.

How is that possible when I want everyone to pay the same tax rate?

You think a pair of 80 year old newly weds are eligible for 'marriage bennies' but not a lesbian couple with 5 kids.

True, and the lesbian couple are entitled to 5 child tax exemptions and the gezzers aren't entitle to any

Like I said- you are fine with getting yours- but don't want other people to get it.

You said that, yes, and since I don't support any one paying a different tax rate, it's yet another demonstration of your overt stupidity that you said it at all much less repeated it

If they are gay[/QUOTE]

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Duggars are a very traditional family and marriage. Care to update your comments or let em stand?