Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

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?

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.

Still a circular argument

 

[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.

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.

Strawman, when you say things like "Embracing the anti-gay marriage talking points of the Family Research Council" you bore the shot out of me it's so ridiculous. They don't say what am saying, you're just being an idiot

 

[kaz]

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

That's what I said you stupid putz

 

[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.

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

LOL- Kaz when he gets all Kazzie because his hypocrisy is being shown

Once again

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 though- 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.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Marriage was defined as between being between a man and a woman.

When, exactly, was that?

13 Facts on the History of Marriage

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/20/historical-marriage-definitions_n_4589763.html

Marriage A History Chapter 1 - Author Stephanie Coontz

 

[kaz]

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.

Strawman, I said I object when they go to the courts to do it instead of the legislature

 

[Syriusly]

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

That's what I said you stupid putz

You ignorant slut.

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

Stop whining like a Kaz and be a man.

 

[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

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

Strawman

 

[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?

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

You just worship yourself.

To think for myself is to worship myself. got it.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Strawman, I said I object when they go to the courts to do it instead of the legislature

So you object to when the Loves went to the courts instead of the legislature?

Oh thats right- you don't object in that case.

Because the Love's were not gay.

You object when people go to the courts, instead of the legislature- if they are gay.

 

[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?

]

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

I want an end to both progressive taxes and tax breaks. So I should not take tax breaks even though I still have to pay progressive taxes or I'm a hypocrite. Got it

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

To think for myself is to worship myself. got it.

Thinking for yourself is good, and so is dealing with reality.

 

[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

Strawman

On point.

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

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I want an end to both progressive taxes and tax breaks.

You should move then. Even Adam Smith approved of the rich paying more than their share, since they had more than their share. Sorry little buddy.

 

[Syriusly]

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

I want an end to both progressive taxes and tax breaks. So I should not take tax breaks even though I still have to pay progressive taxes or I'm a hypocrite. Got it

But in this thread you are not advocating for the end of progressive taxes

You currently are receiving the benefits that you supposedly oppose. You are fine with getting your benefits- you don't want gays to get those benefits.

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 as long as those bennies exist- but you want to deny them to other couples.

If they are gay

 

[kaz]

So you object to when the Loves went to the courts instead of the legislature?

Asked and answered

Oh thats right- you don't object in that case.

That case involved an actual violation of the Constitution

Because the Love's were not gay

Wether or not they were gay had nothing to do with the case

You object when people go to the courts, instead of the legislature- if they are gay.

Yes, I only object when gay people go to courts. Otherwise I'm good with whatever courts rule. That was very clever, do you write professionally?

 

[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

LOL- Kaz when he gets all Kazzie because his hypocrisy is being shown

Once again

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 though- 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.

More tears? I'll do you a solid and wait to respond so you have time to calm down.

 

[kaz]

Marriage was defined as between being between a man and a woman.

When, exactly, was that?

13 Facts on the History of Marriage

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/20/historical-marriage-definitions_n_4589763.html

Marriage A History Chapter 1 - Author Stephanie Coontz

Those don't say marriage wasn't between a man and a woman, they say the origin wasn't it was based on love

 

[kaz]

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

That's what I said you stupid putz

You ignorant slut.

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

Stop whining like a Kaz and be a man.

Bye bye, see you next April

 

[kaz]

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.

To think for myself is to worship myself. got it.

Thinking for yourself is good, and so is dealing with reality.

And you deal with reality? You'd be on my short list of people who don't