Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[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

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

They are a left wing bigot's view of a "traditional family."

Why would any anecdotal example change my view? Liberal arguments are so sad. You change your views by single examples? Obviously not, you're just making a disingenuous argument

Except they are the ones claiming to have traditional family values...they are the face of the Family Research Council. The most traditionally of the traditional.

 

[bodecea]

anti gay position, bigot.

That's an Oxymoron - you moron .

Nope. Would someone who was against legal marriage of Jews be considered an anti-semite? Or not?

 

[kaz]

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.

Sorry I made you cry again, get back to me when you calm down

 

[kaz]

[
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

I said come back when you stop trying, I'm not getting into this with you while you're so hysterical. Take deep breaths and breathe into a paper bag if you have to

 

[kaz]

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

Virginia: being black changed who you could marry for ... every ... black
Georgia: being gay changed who you could marry for ... zero ... gays

They are not comparable, Chuckie

 

[Seawytch]

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

Virginia: being black changed who you could marry for ... every ... black
Georgia: being gay changed who you could marry for ... zero ... gays

They are not comparable, Chuckie

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. Gender discrimination is just like racial discrimination. Some blacks wanted to marry whites but were prohibited. Some men want to marry men and some women want to marry women but are prohibited. Racial discrimination/Gender discrimination = Same/Same.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Sorry I made you cry again, get back to me when you calm down

It IS amusing that you think his clear and concise post is what you would call "crying".

 

[bodecea]

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

Virginia: being black changed who you could marry for ... every ... black
Georgia: being gay changed who you could marry for ... zero ... gays

They are not comparable, Chuckie

You keep saying that, but it isn't true. Gender discrimination is just like racial discrimination. Some blacks wanted to marry whites but were prohibited. Some men want to marry men and some women want to marry women but are prohibited. Racial discrimination/Gender discrimination = Same/Same.

If his argument were in any way valid, it would have been used by those arguing against legal gay marriage in front of the Supreme Court. Don't you think?

 

[kaz]

"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?

The right to marry the same sex through judicial fiat rather than a Constitutional legislative process. I mean duh. Besides being butt obvious, I've pointed it out repeatedly. Do you have any long term memory at all? Do you have any long term memory at all? How many times did I just ask you that? LOL

 

[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

Gay couples have families.

Oh, no! Now what??

It cracks me up when you call me a 3 year old. The answer to your question is that they get tax exemptions for the kids. But you knew that, you are just a liar

Kaz, tell us, just exactly what are you willing to pay for???

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[kaz]

You're arguing they shouldn't be allowed to marry because that will provide them other tax advantages

Strawman. Read my OP post again. Or for the first time, whichever applies. How is it after over a 2,400 post discussion, you don't know what the discussion is about?

 

[kaz]

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.

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.

Look at the guy who only got married for nookie call a happily married woman a "slut", More Kaz hypocrisy on parade.

My God you are dumb. I hope you're hot, the only living you're making is on your back.

So ding dong, I keep calling her a slut because she keeps calling me a bigot. How on God's green earth can even someone as air headed as you not see that?

 

[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. 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

It's cute how you think you get to determine which rights people are entitled to.

OMG, a mirror would change your life. How do you never think "am I about to be a hypocrite" before you click?

As for your view I don't get a view, noted

 

[kaz]

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.

Right, Sparky. A low tax libertarian is a hypocrite for paying your progressive taxes then taking tax breaks.

You who advocate progressive taxes are not the hypocrite for taking the tax breaks. Even the ones not everyone gets like marriage and home deductions. No hypocrisy there. People who oppose the progressive taxes and tax breaks should pay more. Not the ones who want higher taxes

Idiot

I take this as a, no, you don't give any of those benefits you are against to charity.

Seems you "claim" you're against them ... even as you profit from them.

This actually sounds good to you?

kaz: I am against progressive taxes and tax breaks, taxes should be flat.

flaunting stupidity: Oh, well you shouldn't take the tax breaks then, you're a hypocrite

Meanwhile back at the farm, you evade the progressive taxes you advocate, but that's fine.

That actually sounds good? You read it and think you're kicking ass? Amazing

 

[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

LOL.....hmmmm now- your revisionist fictional history not withstanding.

Same sex couples were initially denied marriage by the courts.

From February 12 to March 11, 2004, under the direction of Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, officials of the City and County of San Francisco issued marriage licenses to approximately 4,000 same-sex couples. During the month that licenses were issued, couples traveled from all over the United States and from other countries to be married. On August 12, citing the mayor's lack of authority to bypass state law, the Supreme Court of California ruled that the marriages were void.[8]

Beyond that- multiple states passed specific laws and amendments to specifically deny marriage to same gender couples.

Such as Georgia's in 2004:
(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]
And of course this brings us back once again to the case before the Supreme Court.

Which is exactly where it should be.

Those dates are all after the courts started legislating gay marriage, dumb ass.

 

[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. 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

You can imagine anything you want. Like I said- you can claim to be married to your car- but the only valid marriage in the United States is a legal marriage.

The only valid government marriage is government marriage. Got it

Truisms add so much to discussions

 

[Syriusly]

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?

They are a left wing bigot's view of a "traditional family."

Why would any anecdotal example change my view? Liberal arguments are so sad. You change your views by single examples? Obviously not, you're just making a disingenuous argument

LOL.....why would any example- or evidence- or anything change your view? Your arguments are so sad- and predictable now.

You have this pathetic anti-marriage crusade that you use as an excuse to argue to deny marriage benefits to gay couples- and gay couples only- while you happily receive those same benefits.

You are so anti-marriage, that you are willing to have gay couples pay you to be married- while you want to be exempt to pay them for being married- because - and only because- they are gay.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

LOL.....hmmmm now- your revisionist fictional history not withstanding.

Same sex couples were initially denied marriage by the courts.

From February 12 to March 11, 2004, under the direction of Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco, officials of the City and County of San Francisco issued marriage licenses to approximately 4,000 same-sex couples. During the month that licenses were issued, couples traveled from all over the United States and from other countries to be married. On August 12, citing the mayor's lack of authority to bypass state law, the Supreme Court of California ruled that the marriages were void.[8]

Beyond that- multiple states passed specific laws and amendments to specifically deny marriage to same gender couples.

Such as Georgia's in 2004:
(a) This state shall recognize as marriage only the union of man and woman. Marriages between persons of the same sex are prohibited in this state.
(b) No union between persons of the same sex shall be recognized by this state as entitled to the benefits of marriage. This state shall not give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other state or jurisdiction respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other state or jurisdiction. The courts of this state shall have no jurisdiction to grant a divorce or separate maintenance with respect to any such relationship or otherwise to consider or rule on any of the parties' respective rights arising as a result of or in connection with such relationship.[3]
And of course this brings us back once again to the case before the Supreme Court.

Which is exactly where it should be.

Those dates are all after the courts started legislating gay marriage, dumb ass.

What part of the statement "same sex couples were initially denied marriage by the courts" confused you?

 

[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

You're not supposed to get anything out of a gay couple raising a family.

They just want you to stop telling them what to do, and stay away

Tell that to the baker who was fined $135,000.

I will tell the baker the same thing I would tell any business man who breaks the law:

"Break the law- face the consequences"- Christians don't get special exemptions from the law that they are protected by.

Moving the goalposts

no one is moving the goal posts. you just think you should have the right to impose your bigotry on others.

luckily we don't live by your version of "morality".

So does life suck when you're as clueless as you are and you don't get the things everyone else does? Or are you too clueless for that to bother you?

 

[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.
g

You claim to be opposed to taxes and marriage- but you embrace your own marriage and tax exemptions.

What does "embrace" them mean? I advocating people cheating on taxes any way possible, so that I am attached to any particular way people evade them is not a logical conclusion

Is evading and cheating on your taxes patriotic US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

You just want to exclude gays from those benefits- because a) they are gay and b) you already got yours.

You are fine with requiring gays to pay your benefits.

Strawman