Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[NYcarbineer]

It's always fun to hear RWnuts argue in defense of an issue they secretly know they've lost on.

Wow, Spanky has a word of the day. RW. What's ironic is that in your stupidity needing to use talking points already created by the Democratic party for you since you think of your own, you call me an RW when in reality I am far worse than that. They only want to slow down your authoritarian leftism, I would crush you. You'd be earning your own living and paying your own bills. Right wingers just want to trim your government checks a bit

Tell the board where you got the misinformation to misrepresent my financial status.

 

[danielpalos]

Why should taxpayers subsidize gay mating?

Simply begging the question doesn't make you any more right; except nice girls do.

Tax payers are subsidizing fornication within the Institution of Marriage.

 

[Faun]

Wrong, rightard. Blacks couldn't marry whites ... gays couldn't marry the same gender

Right, which meant for blacks, being black changed who you could marry because whites could marry whites and blacks couldn't. Meanwhile, being gay didn't change who you could marry because straights couldn't marry the same sex either

WTF are you smoking now? Of course straights can marry the same sex once same-sex marriage is determined to be Constitutional.

It's the exact same thing as blacks not being able to marry whites.

Damn, you are stupid.

 

[Faun]

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

First, I want to say that you are a bloomin' idiot. Second...there is no second. You're just an idiot and that question shows the level of your ignorance and fear.

That's why this thread is approaching 2600 posts. Poking fun at that imbecile is quite entertaining.

 

[Faun]

I'll believe the folks that want the government out marriage are serious the second they stop chomping at the tax break trough that marriage affords. Until then it is mostly chest thumping bullshit.

That's what liberals do, do you? You oppose any solution to your views other than total victory? To accept a partial victory would be hypocrisy?

You must really hate Obama then taking what he could get when he wants single payer. It's all or nothing!!!!

In reality though that misses the point.

- Democrats want progressive taxes and the death tax

- Democrats want gays exempted from it in your you're gay and it's OK campaign

Why would I let you off the hook of your own dilemma? That's just stupid

I am not a Democrat so I guess I am not any hook. And yes, they are hypocrites concerning a wide range of issues. So is the GOP, which I why I am very unlikely to ever vote for either of them again. If you want the government out marriage then I suggest you decline all those cushy tax breaks you get. Lead by example; then again, whining about it all the while chomping at the trough is far easier for you.

He can't lead by example ... he's a hypocrite.

 

[Faun]

I'll believe the folks that want the government out marriage are serious the second they stop chomping at the tax break trough that marriage affords. Until then it is mostly chest thumping bullshit.

That's what liberals do, do you? You oppose any solution to your views other than total victory? To accept a partial victory would be hypocrisy?

You must really hate Obama then taking what he could get when he wants single payer. It's all or nothing!!!!

In reality though that misses the point.

- Democrats want progressive taxes and the death tax

- Democrats want gays exempted from it in your you're gay and it's OK campaign

Why would I let you off the hook of your own dilemma? That's just stupid

There's no dilemma ... Democrats want gays to be treated equally under the law. That supersedes letting them off on the death tax.

 

[GreenBean]

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?

Jew is a religious ethnic designation and not even remotely relevant to mentally diseased persons aka perverts aka homosexuals.

 

[GreenBean]

LESBIAN COUPLE IN CALIFORNIA CHEMICALLY ALTER THEIR 11-YEAR-OLD BOY TO PREP FOR SEX-CHANGE SURGERY

Lesbian Couple in California Chemically Alter Their 11-year-old Boy to Prep For Sex-change Surgery Joe For America

 

[Moonglow]

Why should taxpayers subsidize gay mating?

Simply begging the question doesn't make you any more right; except nice girls do.

Tax payers are subsidizing fornication within the Institution of Marriage.

Where the Hell do I sign up? I've not had the tax payers foot the hooker bill since the Army dayz...

 

[Faun]

LESBIAN COUPLE IN CALIFORNIA CHEMICALLY ALTER THEIR 11-YEAR-OLD BOY TO PREP FOR SEX-CHANGE SURGERY

Lesbian Couple in California Chemically Alter Their 11-year-old Boy to Prep For Sex-change Surgery Joe For America

Other than your bigotry, what does that have to do with the lesbian couple??

 

[danielpalos]

Why should taxpayers subsidize gay mating?

Simply begging the question doesn't make you any more right; except nice girls do.

Tax payers are subsidizing fornication within the Institution of Marriage.

Where the Hell do I sign up? I've not had the tax payers foot the hooker bill since the Army dayz...

Form an LLC and simply "retain" them on staff.

 

[danielpalos]

Here is my amateur ad for a professional relationship:

I am looking forward to working with nice girls who may want to explore a good help-meet and personal assistant relationship with me on an at-will basis to start with and get to know each other better and potentially progress to a for-Cause relationship on a long term basis, if it works out.

I can claim I am a practitioner of the Art of the Husbandman simply by being male.

I am looking for good help-meets who are able to be good personal assistants as well. We can role play whenever you want and it is convenient for both of us but remember, "life is real": the pay is lousy to non-existent for now, but the hours are as few or as many as you want or can handle, and the fringe benefits can be good if you like full body massage with happy ending and g-spot focus work, merely to help me meet any continuing education, quota, or for fun and therapeutic practice.

You must be able to multitask and barter and negotiate ideally, win-win solutions; be computer literate, able to work from home remotely and on your own initiative or your "home office" under general supervision and be open to continuing education in client relations, diversity, and stress management in a team oriented environment on a potentially for-Cause basis.

Age and race and looks unimportant depending on venture. However, due to current funding limitations, only local women will be considered for this (relationship) venture. Hopefully, we can develop a relationship that may pay both social and capital dividends through teamwork; and commitment, dedication, and loyalty to our ventures and Causes.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I've already proved you dead wrong on every aspect of your position.

What's hilarious is that you honestly think I have to make you say 'uncle'.

Denial that you've lost the argument is nothing more than the weeping noise of a sore loser.

And a sore loser is nothing more than a pathetic version of a loser.

Another crying liberal, here's a hanky, try to focus.

Obviously you realize you need to claim victory as even you know that didn't happen on the field of combat

See, there, you doing it now. lol

You lost the argument when you couldn't cite a single state that had a child producing requirement in its marriage laws.

That question had nothing to do with my argument.

It was a ... wait for it ... non-sequitur ...

That was the theme of your thread. Look at the title:

Why should taxpayers subsidize gay mating?

Answer: because the taxpayers subsidize non-gay mating, and gays are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

Case closed.

Yes, everything is as it seems on the surface, isn't it, Scoobie?

And he claims his argument hasn't been refuted. lol

 

[kaz]

Another crying liberal, here's a hanky, try to focus.

Obviously you realize you need to claim victory as even you know that didn't happen on the field of combat

See, there, you doing it now. lol

You lost the argument when you couldn't cite a single state that had a child producing requirement in its marriage laws.

That question had nothing to do with my argument.

It was a ... wait for it ... non-sequitur ...

That was the theme of your thread. Look at the title:

Why should taxpayers subsidize gay mating?

Answer: because the taxpayers subsidize non-gay mating, and gays are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

Case closed.

Yes, everything is as it seems on the surface, isn't it, Scoobie?

Make the case that gays do not deserve equal treatment under the law.

Non-sequitur, they have equal treatment under the law, that makes no sense

 

[kaz]

It's always fun to hear RWnuts argue in defense of an issue they secretly know they've lost on.

Wow, Spanky has a word of the day. RW. What's ironic is that in your stupidity needing to use talking points already created by the Democratic party for you since you think of your own, you call me an RW when in reality I am far worse than that. They only want to slow down your authoritarian leftism, I would crush you. You'd be earning your own living and paying your own bills. Right wingers just want to trim your government checks a bit

Tell the board where you got the misinformation to misrepresent my financial status.

Um...OK? Where did I say anything about your financial status?

As for your intelligence and reading ability though, wow, they are awful

 

[kaz]

Wrong, rightard. Blacks couldn't marry whites ... gays couldn't marry the same gender

Right, which meant for blacks, being black changed who you could marry because whites could marry whites and blacks couldn't. Meanwhile, being gay didn't change who you could marry because straights couldn't marry the same sex either

WTF are you smoking now? Of course straights can marry the same sex once same-sex marriage is determined to be Constitutional.

You are an idiot. Learn to read

It's the exact same thing as blacks not being able to marry whites.

Damn, you are stupid.

Is it? let's see:

Being black changed who you could marry for ... every ... black
Being gay changed who you could marry for ... zero ... gays

Yeah, that's the "exact same thing." Basic logic does not come to you easily, grasshopper

 

[kaz]

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

First, I want to say that you are a bloomin' idiot. Second...there is no second. You're just an idiot and that question shows the level of your ignorance and fear.

That's why this thread is approaching 2600 posts. Poking fun at that imbecile is quite entertaining.

Yes it is, and with you, Seawytch and Bodecea, I've had triple the fun!

 

[kaz]

I'll believe the folks that want the government out marriage are serious the second they stop chomping at the tax break trough that marriage affords. Until then it is mostly chest thumping bullshit.

That's what liberals do, do you? You oppose any solution to your views other than total victory? To accept a partial victory would be hypocrisy?

You must really hate Obama then taking what he could get when he wants single payer. It's all or nothing!!!!

In reality though that misses the point.

- Democrats want progressive taxes and the death tax

- Democrats want gays exempted from it in your you're gay and it's OK campaign

Why would I let you off the hook of your own dilemma? That's just stupid

I am not a Democrat so I guess I am not any hook. And yes, they are hypocrites concerning a wide range of issues. So is the GOP, which I why I am very unlikely to ever vote for either of them again. If you want the government out marriage then I suggest you decline all those cushy tax breaks you get. Lead by example; then again, whining about it all the while chomping at the trough is far easier for you.

He can't lead by example ... he's a hypocrite.

So you advocate higher taxes and don't pay them

I advocate lower taxes and don't pay higher taxes.

And I am the hypocrite

Got it. What grade did you drop out of school?

 

[kaz]

I'll believe the folks that want the government out marriage are serious the second they stop chomping at the tax break trough that marriage affords. Until then it is mostly chest thumping bullshit.

That's what liberals do, do you? You oppose any solution to your views other than total victory? To accept a partial victory would be hypocrisy?

You must really hate Obama then taking what he could get when he wants single payer. It's all or nothing!!!!

In reality though that misses the point.

- Democrats want progressive taxes and the death tax

- Democrats want gays exempted from it in your you're gay and it's OK campaign

Why would I let you off the hook of your own dilemma? That's just stupid

There's no dilemma ... Democrats want gays to be treated equally under the law. That supersedes letting them off on the death tax.

No, just like affirmative action you don't want equality "under the law." You want to go past that into favoritism

 

[kaz]

Another crying liberal, here's a hanky, try to focus.

Obviously you realize you need to claim victory as even you know that didn't happen on the field of combat

See, there, you doing it now. lol

You lost the argument when you couldn't cite a single state that had a child producing requirement in its marriage laws.

That question had nothing to do with my argument.

It was a ... wait for it ... non-sequitur ...

That was the theme of your thread. Look at the title:

Why should taxpayers subsidize gay mating?

Answer: because the taxpayers subsidize non-gay mating, and gays are entitled to equal treatment under the law.

Case closed.

Yes, everything is as it seems on the surface, isn't it, Scoobie?

And he claims his argument hasn't been refuted. lol

You can't even say what my argument is, Holmes. Even when I point out saying my argument doesn't mean you have to agree with it, you can't do it. Not remotely