Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[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.

Except that's not how you framed your OP. You took a decided anti gay position, bigot.

The point is to frame it in the context of your leftist agenda, slut

 

[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...

No. Putting your JACK BOOT ON THE NECK OF GAY COUPLES AND TELLING THEM THEY CANT GET MARRIED TO EACH OTHER, is not the same as them being allowed to marry each other. This is pretty basic stuff. I'm surprised you don't get it yet. Maybe you would if the JACK BOOTS WERE ON YOUR NECK.

Child care breaks are based on dependency, not marriage. How many times are you gonna fail at that one, before you get it right?

Are you actually complaining that the gays are not RIOTING? And instead are using the legal system like adults? ROFL You're nutz.. if you don't think we would use water cannons and tear gas on gays if they rioted.

As for all of the BULLSHIT LIES YOU KEEP MAKING UP ABOUT WHAT I THINK. Dude put it to rest everyone knows you are just a piece of shit liar.

Gay marriage is not about taxes, ya dumb ass.

You know what the beauty of the three step process of grab, pull, remove is? It provides instant relief. Now granted it could take a few days for the soreness to completely wear off, expecially when the stick is rammed in as far as yours is. But wow, you'll feel a lot better instantly

 

[kaz]

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?

No, nothing in a couple weeks affects this discussion at all. Unlike you, my intellect isn't controlled by others

A SCOTUS decision in a couple weeks makes your anti gay "discussion" moot. I'll wait for you to congratulate the gays on having marriage equality in all 50 states...just like you and the wifey.

And if they rule against you then you'll agree and support them on that since they are the SCOTUS and you worship them, right?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You are such an ignorant and/or deceitful slut.

No courts have ever legislated anything.

History Of Gay Marriage In The United States INFOGRAPHIC

In 1970 and 1975 marriage licenses were issued to same gender couples- courts ruled those licenses were invalid.

In 1993 the Supreme Court in Hawaii ruled that Hawaii's law was unconstitutional- but no marriage licenses were issued because Hawaii changed its Constitution to specifically allow its Legislature to ban same gender marriages.

So the first court-
2003- Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the Massachusetts marriage law violated the Massachusetts Constitution. ( a state court overturned a state law based upon the State's constitution)

And this was 30 years after the first marriage licenses were issued.

2004- San Francisco issues marriage licenses to same gender couples.

And that led eventually to the California Supreme Court finding that state bans on same gender marriage violated the California Constitution.

And that, you ignorant slut- is how it happened- first same gender marriage licenses were issued by localities- and rejected by the courts.

Then State Supreme Courts found that state marriage laws violated their own State constitutions.

And then finally- Federal Courts started finding that state marriage laws violated the U.S. Constitution.

 

[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

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.

They can claim whatever they want. What do you take from that, grasshopper? You care what the SCOTUS thinks, you care what the Duggars think. I care what kaz thinks. I am an individual. You are a collectivist, you are nothing even to yourself except a cog in the wheel

 

[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

Gender discrimination is just like racial discrimination

Gender discrimination has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. What are you smoking? First, the fags are trying to be race discrimination, now it's gender. Problem is you aren't discriminated against

 

[Syriusly]

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?

No, nothing in a couple weeks affects this discussion at all. Unlike you, my intellect isn't controlled by others

A SCOTUS decision in a couple weeks makes your anti gay "discussion" moot. I'll wait for you to congratulate the gays on having marriage equality in all 50 states...just like you and the wifey.

And if they rule against you then you'll agree and support them on that since they are the SCOTUS and you worship them, right?

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.

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

The only valid marriage in the United States is a legally valid marriage.

You can claim to be married to your sister- but if state law does not allow it, you are not married to your sister.

 

[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

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.

I care what kaz thinks. I am an individual.l

You care so much, you come to a board like this to try to argue your case on why you think homosexual couples should be discriminated against.

What an individual.

Embracing the anti-gay marriage talking points of the Family Research Council

What an individual.

 

[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

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

The obvious is so far beyond your grasp. That was a response to his telling me how I feel. If he's "clear and concise" then he should stick to the facts. How do you dress yourself being that dumb? I mean seriously

 

[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

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?

I'm sure she does, she's a leftist automaton like you. But I don't worship lawyers like you two so her agreement is irrelevant. I think what I think, not what I'm told to think. You wouldn't understand, you are told not to. Thinking would bring about the destruction of liberalism as you would realize the stupidity you are parroting

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Those are the exact same rights that others have sought out- that others have asked for judicial remedies(what you call judicial fiat when you disagree, but have no problem with when you agree)

You only object when homosexuals use the courts to ask for their Constitutional rights to be protected.

 

[kaz]

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

You are so anti-marriage, that you are willing to have gay couples pay you to be married

 

[kaz]

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?

It's just a tired word game. Marriage was defined as between being between a man and a woman. Denying something is when you say for example handicaps like blindness mean you cannot get a marriage license. The definition of marriage wasn't a denial to gays, it was a definition of who qualifies

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yeah- Kaz is being his usual intellectually deceitful self.

The case before the court is whether states can prohibit marriage between two people of the same gender.

As I pointed out:
Virginia: forbid marriage between two persons of different races.
Georgia: forbid marriage between two persons of the same gender

Race- gender- those are the issues before the court.

The Supreme Court has ruled on marriage three previous times- regarding mixed race marriage, inmate marriage(by the way that case blows his OP out of the water), and deadbeat dad marriage.

Kaz just thinks it is wrong when the Supreme Court consider same gender marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

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

You are so anti-marriage, that you are willing to have gay couples pay you to be married

You are so anti-marriage, that you are willing to have gay couples pay you to be married

 

[Syriusly]

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?

It's just a tired word game. Marriage was defined as between being between a man and a woman. Denying something is when you say for example handicaps like blindness mean you cannot get a marriage license. The definition of marriage wasn't a denial to gays, it was a definition of who qualifies

The States started defining marriage as between a man and a woman only after court cases threatened the presumptions in the law that were not defined.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

. But I don't worship lawyers like you two so her agreement is irrelevant. I think what I think

You just worship yourself.

 

[kaz]

You are such an ignorant and/or deceitful slut

Straight up, guy. Seawytch started that with the "bigot" rants. She knows what I'm doing and she is continuing to press it. She knows how to end it. You are not involved. Stay out of it. If you're going to turn it into a liberal circle jerk and start spattering your cum on my shoes, you will disappear. Just so you know, I have amnesty every April (my birthday month) for people who don't piss me off and just annoy me, so you would come back then next year until you do it again

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You currently are not paying taxes you advocate. And you take benefits other people don't get. You are fine with getting your benefits- you just want other people to pay your bills

I am currently paying taxes I advocate.

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 are such an ignorant and/or deceitful slut

Straight up, guy. Seawytch started that with the "bigot" rants.

No- you started using the slut word- in response to Seawytch calling you a bigot.

I called you an ignorant slut- in response to you calling me a dumbass.

Stop whining like a Kaz and be a man.