Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Syriusly]

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?

]

You currently are receiving the benefits that you supposedly oppose. You are fine with getting your benefits- you don't

And you want to deny those same benefits to other couples- but only if they are gay- that is the topic of this thread you started:
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?

Those are the facts.

You are fine with getting your bennies- you want to deny them to other couples.

If they are gay.

 

[Syriusly]

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
]

Do you want to talk about child exemptions now- or marriage benefits?

This thread is your whine about you having to pay 'marriage benefits' to homosexual couples- as you make a very strained argument that marriage is supposed to be about 'procreation'.

As I pointed out- and will continue to point out tough- you only care about the 'procreation' issue when it comes to homosexuals.

A pair of 80 year olds who marry get those bennies even though they will never procreate.

a pair of lesbians who want to marry- and who each have children using the exact same methods that heterosexual couples use when the male cannot provide viable sperm- you want to deny the lesbian couple 'bennies'

Just because they are lesbians.

 

[Syriusly]

[
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
]

Once again- this entire thread is your impassioned plea that you should not have to pay higher taxes so gay couples can have the same bennies as you have. You are fine with gay couples being charged 'higher taxes' to pay for your marriage bennies- you just oppose having to pay higher taxes so that they can have the same bennies as you enjoy.

Kaz:
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

 

[Syriusly]

[
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

LOL- I love how you move the argument from gender at the beginning of the paragraph to sexual identity at the end of the paragraph- without actually once making an argument other than 'its not equal'.

As I pointed out- the argument before the Supreme Court is whether or not states can ban marriages based upon gender.

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.

You have completely failed to address my argument.

Big fail.

 

[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?

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.

Back to the ... playground ... for you!

 

[kaz]

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.

Well, when you define "valid" as "government" it's a truism that only government marriage is valid.

As for in general, the government in my marriage is irrelevant to me, so that only government marriage is valid is false

 

[kaz]

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.

Yes, grownups don't think for themselves, they let others do it for them. I see why you call yourself a grownup

 

[kaz]

[

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.

Same sex couples weren't "denied" access to marriage until the courts started legislating, then it was a response to that. Before that it just wasn't recognized

 

[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

How terribly ironic.

Back to the ... playground ... for you!

Translation: kaz is spanked and he knows it.

 

[kaz]

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?

Using nominal or binary figures is not always right or always wrong. It's funny how you go on a childish rant while calling me a 3 year old and your big point is I used nominal numbers in a post.

Reagan doubled revenue over his eight year term. My point was that all your crap about tax cuts is bilch, congress spent too much. Nominal budget numbers are the right terms for when discussing nominal spending, kiddie poo

 

[kaz]

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.

Yes, it gave gays the rights everyone else had. What you want them to have are rights others don't have. No one could "marry" the same sex. Including my grandmother who took care of her sister for 10 years and got no marriage break, childcare break or any other break. And you think that's the same as blacks getting water canons and tear gas shot at them.

And also what you want for them is only because of progressive taxes. I oppose progressive taxes, they should be flat. But I'm a big-ot for not letting liberals out of your own trap. You are a big-idi-ot...

 

[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

Are childless spouses denied the death tax exemptions?

You want the death tax, homey, not me. End it and no one will be denied death tax exemptions including straight and supposedly "married" gays

 

[kaz]

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

That's pretty lucid for you. Granted I've addressed it repeatedly, but it's not on the actual op. Progress.

Because gays are a trap you are in of your own making.

You want progressive taxes and the death tax.

You then want gays excepted from it when they couple because straights have that and you want to send them the you're gay and that's OK message.

Why would I want to let you out of your own trap? End progressive taxes and the death tax for everyone. And if you won't, why does leftist social engineering get to be the determinant factor?

This answer is clear, direct and simple. You didn't get it, did you? I'll give $100 to the ACLU if you can accurately in your own words tell me what I just said. You don't have to agree with it, just be accurate what I am saying

 

[kaz]

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.

Exactly, that has been established. But it's not what you want, you want tax exemptions others don't get to file

 

[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?

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.

Um...you said three times Reagan did not get handed an economy in recession. Then you said you did not say Reagan did not get handed an economy in recession. Now you're trying to weasel your way out of it with more crap on whether Carter or Volker is to blame. That's irrelevant to the point, you said Reagan didn't get handed a recession, the reset is you just dancing

 

[kaz]

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...

Actually, slut, you want married gays to pay less tax than unmarried gays, but more if the unmarried gays have children, but less than married straights who have children, who should pay more if they don't have children.

I want everyone to pay the same rate. Which according to you between promiscuous romps in the sack with random strangers you get online and call bigotry. That I want everyone treated the same and you want everyone treated differently. I'm the bigot.

What an argument. For an idiot.

 

[Faun]

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.

Yes, it gave gays the rights everyone else had. What you want them to have are rights others don't have. No one could "marry" the same sex. Including my grandmother who took care of her sister for 10 years and got no marriage break, childcare break or any other break. And you think that's the same as blacks getting water canons and tear gas shot at them.

And also what you want for them is only because of progressive taxes. I oppose progressive taxes, they should be flat. But I'm a big-ot for not letting liberals out of your own trap. You are a big-idi-ot...

Regarding the part I highlighted .... what rights do gays seek that others don't?

 

[kaz]

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.

Seriously, you're arguing that it is irrelevant to kids whether they have one or two parents? Thinking one parent is as good as two means I hate them? You are a fucking retard. I did not hate my mother, bitch, because I thought having a father in addition to her would be ideal.

I hope you had two parents, because at least you would be massively naive and ignorant and ungrateful, but if you have one then you're just a flat out dick.

While it is understood that you intended to attack only gay people based on your homophobia, that's not what you did.

So now there are straight married people and gay people. Got it, retard

You also attacked single parents based on your self-ascribed superiority over everyone else.

Strawman. Again, grab, pull, remove. Three simple steps to improve your life and those around you

 

[kaz]

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.

Positive rights are a right only to leftist social engineers. No system has equality where some have the right to demand things of others, which by definition removes their rights. It's pure we are all equal, some are more equal than others, Napoleon

 

[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.

Um...you said three times Reagan did not get handed an economy in recession. Then you said you did not say Reagan did not get handed an economy in recession. Now you're trying to weasel your way out of it with more crap on whether Carter or Volker is to blame. That's irrelevant to the point, you said Reagan didn't get handed a recession, the reset is you just dancing

I said he didn't "inherit" an economy a recession. "inherit" implies it's what he started with. "Handed" implies it was given to him at any time.

It's not my fault you can't discern the distinction between "inherit" and "handed." It is, however, your problem to live with your struggles with comprehension.

And still, my position never waivered. Not once. Reagan inherited an economy from Carter that was not in recession. Some 6 months later, Reagan was handed a recession by Volker due to Fed policies.