Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

Does ANYONE on this board know what kaz is talking about? Or should we write it off to simple garden variety incoherent ignorance and let it go at that?

Yes, Kaz want's to know what the federal filing tax status will be for married gay folk and if they will be able to enter their children as exemptions like the rest of the breeders. I think he does not understand that even single people file exemptions for their children. Marriage is only a requirement for selecting married filling joint return which is used to select the rate box for same when filing jointly.

Strawman. How's the vagina? Enjoying having your own?

Huh? Where's the strawman in my statement? Are you mentally handicapped?

Strawman 1) Kaz want's to know what the federal filing tax status will be for married gay folk and if they will be able to enter their children as exemptions like the rest of the breeders.

Strawman 2) I think he does not understand that even single people file exemptions for their children

1) is straight from your OP.... it is the crux of your question.
2) is stated as my opinion.. I'm not asking for anyone to support it. Thus it's just my opinion. Opinions expressed as opinions using words such as "i think" are not strawmen.

Eeehhhh, that saying it's your opinion and therefore not a strawman is a stretch, particularity when you are saying the opinion with so few words and there's one tiny "I think"

 

[G.T.]

Ita wild that you think the concept of marriage perpetuates the existence of human beings. Thats whats wild

But the thing is, you dont think that. Youre just trying to wrassssle new pulp out by squeezing into your bigoted little brain.

 

[kaz]

More of Kaz masturbating in public about gay sex.

I want it stopped as the deviant behavior that it is. Gay is a disease, we need to do research and solve it. And in the mean time, lock them up

 

[kaz]

Ita wild that you think the concept of marriage perpetuates the existence of human beings.

I don't think that and I didn't say that, moron

 

[kaz]

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

People are allowed to form the families they choose

What business is it of yours?

Non sequitur

 

[G.T.]

More of Kaz masturbating in public about gay sex.

I want it stopped as the deviant behavior that it is. Gay is a disease, we need to do research and solve it. And in the mean time, lock them up

So you are an anti freedom sick fuck.

Next time, have the balls to put these sentiments directly into your op pussy, so tht instead of destroying your faulty logic, all that really needs to be done is mock the fuck out of your neanderthal baby brain.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Gays can feel free to lobby their representatives in congress to pass bills favorable to gays.

That and they can also exercise their first amendment right.


>>>>

 

[NYcarbineer]

If there is a societal benefit to civil marriage, it applies to gays and straights. If there isn't a societal benefit, it ain't the gays fault.!

Nope, gay sex doesn't lead to children

So? My brother's straight sex doesn't either. My grandpa's straight sex didn't either. Nobody tried to deny them a marriage license.

My partner and I do have children. They are ours legally and emotionally. Your argument is destroyed by two simple facts:

1. A lot of gays do have children
2. A lot of married straights don't.

That actually doesn't contradict anything I said

It invalidates your OP premise.

There is either a benefit to civil marriage or there isn't...orientation irrelevant.

It doesn't contradict my premise, so how can it invalidate it? What premise are you making up in your mind it contradicts?

Your premise was that perpetuation of the species was a benefit from marriage.

That 'benefit' is highly rewarded by our tax system already.

That gays without children don't get that reward is the opposite of what you then claim about gays.

 

[G.T.]

Perpetuation of the species has nothing to do with marriage. One doesnt preclude the other.

So, the op to me is a non starter until he can show that people will cease to know how to procreate and would allow themselves to become extinct, while sentient and all, because straight marriage as sanctioned by govt doesnt exist.

Wow, great point. Instead of saying government marriage perpetuates the species, I should have said that's the concept of marriage. Oh, wait, I did. Thanks for being retarded, it makes merely stupid people feel smart.

Cuz....thats weird.

Poor fucking argument.

LOL, the guy who didn't grasp my first sentence says this, classic

The concept of marrage is to perpetuate the species?

Thats just fucking boiler plate idiocy for a zillion fucking reasons.

Wow

If you are saying you don't know most people think marriage is about perpetuating the species, then I am calling you a liar. You do know that

Umm...yea you said it moron.

 

[orogenicman]

I didn't say that, and you shouldn't put words in other people's mouths.

Read the post you quoted

You said that there is no financial benefit to society to fund gay marriage. I asked why there has to be a financial benefit to doing the right thing? A question you've yet to respond to

I stated in the op and in my answer this is a financial thread. You want to demand an answer to another question, here's what you do. Start another thread and mention me. I'll try to address it.

And yet you posted it in the politics forum. All I am asking is for you to support your claims.

You didn't know funding government is political?



Yeah

Secondly, you have made two unsupported claims in your post. The first, that there is no financial benefit to society, and the second, that society is funding gay "mating". You should support your claims, otherwise, people will think you are just making it up.

It's a question to you, shit for brains. I'm calling you a liar for your claims to write academic papers. There is no fucking way in hell anyone would publish a paper with your name on it. You can't follow simple logic. There are lots of ways to argue my post. You are just flat out not comprehending it

My papers get published because I provide verifiable support for my claims. You? Not so much. Oh, and who is "votto"? I posted those words. Not some fictional character from your own mind.

It has nothing to do with supporting your claims, it has to do with your consistent inability to follow simple logic. Jarod Diamond for example has all your liberal bigotries and biases, but he can clearly follow logic. You continually prove you can't[/QUOTE]

And yet, you still haven't support your claims. Look. It is simple. Support your claims or admit that you were mistaken. Those are your choices.

 

[G.T.]

Foot in mouth syndrome

 

[Seawytch]

If there is a societal benefit to civil marriage, it applies to gays and straights. If there isn't a societal benefit, it ain't the gays fault.!

Nope, gay sex doesn't lead to children

So? My brother's straight sex doesn't either. My grandpa's straight sex didn't either. Nobody tried to deny them a marriage license.

My partner and I do have children. They are ours legally and emotionally. Your argument is destroyed by two simple facts:

1. A lot of gays do have children
2. A lot of married straights don't.

That actually doesn't contradict anything I said

It invalidates your OP premise.

There is either a benefit to civil marriage or there isn't...orientation irrelevant.

It doesn't contradict my premise, so how can it invalidate it? What premise are you making up in your mind it contradicts?

Jesus fucking Christ...you don't even know what your own premise is? Why am I not surprised?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one is subsidizing anyone. The real deflection is that Soggy and Kaz believe they can order us to accept what is marriage, when, in fact, that is exactly what is happening to them. Neither of them are injured in anyway by Marriage Equality, and they have no choice about it at all.

 

[kaz]

More of Kaz masturbating in public about gay sex.

I want it stopped as the deviant behavior that it is. Gay is a disease, we need to do research and solve it. And in the mean time, lock them up

So you are an anti freedom sick fuck.

Next time, have the balls to put these sentiments directly into your op pussy, so tht instead of destroying your faulty logic, all that really needs to be done is mock the fuck out of your neanderthal baby brain.

Tuck your panties back in your pants, I only say that to nitwits like Syriously and Bodedica when they continually go on ignoring what I said in their liberal religious fervor and they stop processing everything that I say. Here's another thread I started. Note most of the liberals aren't reacting to it, they are used to me doing that.

What is wrong with being gay exactly US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Seawytch]

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

I'm missing something here. What is it being paid for?

He can't say. He got caught again thinking that no one would notice how stupid a thread he'd started.

But he'll blame it on everyone else's reading comprehension.

Here's how you use my secret decoder ring:

1) When you do a strawman, I say strawman

2) When you beg the question, I say begging the question

3) When you don't grasp what I said, I said you have a readig comprehension problem.

Pretty wild, isn't it? You may want to print that and keep it by your computer

We understand your perception is your reality...it's not everyone else's reality. Our reality is that you throw out "strawman begging" as a deflection.

 

[NYcarbineer]

More of Kaz masturbating in public about gay sex.

I want it stopped as the deviant behavior that it is. Gay is a disease, we need to do research and solve it. And in the mean time, lock them up

See, there it comes out. The boil is lanced.

 

[kaz]

Nope, gay sex doesn't lead to children

So? My brother's straight sex doesn't either. My grandpa's straight sex didn't either. Nobody tried to deny them a marriage license.

My partner and I do have children. They are ours legally and emotionally. Your argument is destroyed by two simple facts:

1. A lot of gays do have children
2. A lot of married straights don't.

That actually doesn't contradict anything I said

It invalidates your OP premise.

There is either a benefit to civil marriage or there isn't...orientation irrelevant.

It doesn't contradict my premise, so how can it invalidate it? What premise are you making up in your mind it contradicts?

Jesus fucking Christ...you don't even know what your own premise is? Why am I not surprised?

Wow, lack of reading comprehension. That is fallacy #3 you like to commit.

BTW, let's add #4, non-sequitur. You missed that one.

And here's the secret code. I say that when you say something that doesn't logically flow from the post you responded to.

This is like having magic revealed for you, isn't it?

 

[G.T.]

More of Kaz masturbating in public about gay sex.

I want it stopped as the deviant behavior that it is. Gay is a disease, we need to do research and solve it. And in the mean time, lock them up

So you are an anti freedom sick fuck.

Next time, have the balls to put these sentiments directly into your op pussy, so tht instead of destroying your faulty logic, all that really needs to be done is mock the fuck out of your neanderthal baby brain.

Tuck your panties back in your pants, I only say that to nitwits like Syriously and Bodedica when they continually go on ignoring what I said in their liberal religious fervor and they stop processing everything that I say. Here's another thread I started. Note most of the liberals aren't reacting to it, they are used to me doing that.

What is wrong with being gay exactly US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I dont care that youre so sexually confused bro

 

[kaz]

More of Kaz masturbating in public about gay sex.

I want it stopped as the deviant behavior that it is. Gay is a disease, we need to do research and solve it. And in the mean time, lock them up

See, there it comes out. The boil is lanced.

Yes, gay is a disease. It's researched by the CDC. They say it's a disease. The D in CDC is disease, you know

 

[NYcarbineer]

I chose not to sign up for the mandated gay subsidy payment policy.

I pay the fine instead.

lol