Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[bodecea]

Perpetuation of the species has nothing to do with marriage. One doesnt preclude the other.

So, the op to me is a non starter until he can show that people will cease to know how to procreate and would allow themselves to become extinct, while sentient and all, because straight marriage as sanctioned by govt doesnt exist.

Wow, great point. Instead of saying government marriage perpetuates the species, I should have said that's the concept of marriage. Oh, wait, I did. Thanks for being retarded, it makes merely stupid people feel smart.

Cuz....thats weird.

Poor fucking argument.

LOL, the guy who didn't grasp my first sentence says this, classic

The concept of marrage is to perpetuate the species?

Thats just fucking boiler plate idiocy for a zillion fucking reasons.

Wow

If you are saying you don't know most people think marriage is about perpetuating the species, then I am calling you a liar. You do know that

So...what is it about NOT having marriage available that prevents perpetuation of the species? Name that roadblock exactly.

 

[bodecea]

You people who want a flat tax, a true one, would lose all your financial bennies from having children.

Are you cool with that?

Yes, I'm against all government marriage, retard. You no long term memory because you know that

Sure you are.....you keep saying that....but won't answer my frequently asked question about what you are doing about it......except talking the talk.

I've answered the question so many times, you dumb bimbo, I'm sick of answering it. I am trying to change minds. I've had many people tell me they never thought of that before, but I make sense, they are open to it. You want to grab a sign with a stick and go masturbate with a bunch of other liberals, that is ineffective.

you can not like my answer, but stop being such a dumb slut and process it. You keep saying I didn't answer it, I did, wench.

Obviously I have struck a nerve with you. If you truly felt as strongly as you "claim" about government marriage, you would be BRAGGING about what you are actively doing to get rid of it.....instead of getting pissy about my asking you.

So...this pretty much sums up your REAL position on legal marriage:
You: I'm against gay marriage...oh, and I'm against government marriage.
Me: What are you actively doing to get rid of government marriage?
You: More blather about gay marriage...did I mention I'm against government marriage?
Me: What are you actively doing to get rid of government marriage?
You: Even more blather about gay marriage....oh, and I'm against government marriage.
Me: So you don't even have a government marriage yourself because you are against it, right?
You: Gays take our money, blah, blah, blah....I've always been against government marriage.
Me: Hello? What have you been doing to get rid of government marriage since you keep saying you are against it?
You: You %^*$#! I answered your *#^&$ question already, you #$&**@!

I'll take your advice on how I am supposed to react with all the weight it deserves

Hey! I heard you were against government marriage. Is that true?

 

[bodecea]

Does ANYONE on this board know what kaz is talking about? Or should we write it off to simple garden variety incoherent ignorance and let it go at that?

Yes, Kaz want's to know what the federal filing tax status will be for married gay folk and if they will be able to enter their children as exemptions like the rest of the breeders. I think he does not understand that even single people file exemptions for their children. Marriage is only a requirement for selecting married filling joint return which is used to select the rate box for same when filing jointly.

Strawman. How's the vagina? Enjoying having your own?

Didn't you claim this was a financial thread? What do vagina's and your mental focus on them have to do with finances?

 

[bodecea]

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

First of all you are mixing apples and oranges- which doesn't surprise me. You talk about gays and sex- but not straights and sex. So is your thread about sex- or marriage?

Secondly- based upon purely a financial question- not the moral one- then you are in agreement then that marriage benefits should only go to couples who have children and live together?

But you want to exclude homosexual couples- because their children don't deserve the benefits of the state?

This is the problem with the anti-homosexual agenda. You have issues with consistency.

If we looked at this purely from your pure financial point of view- we would not allow any such benefits to any couple who does not have children- and then we would provide that financial benefit to any couple who does have children.

But you just want to give the financial benefits to straight couples.

Because you approve of how they have sex.

^That.

God hates gays more than murderers, it's an abomination to humanity. At least murderers only kill one person. Gays not only do not procreate but they poison the rest of society

Ah...here it is...the "it's a abomination" argument. Bases completely on your interpretation of your religion......and not based in any shape or form on law.

Yes, government should not be funding abominations. We should be arresting gay sand putting them in solitary confinement to save their souls. At least if they can still be saved

So nice to see you being honest here.

 

[The Rabbi]

"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..."

Wrong.

You clearly don't 'get it' at all.

Infertile opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry, and older married opposite-sex couples are not compelled to divorce because they're no longer able to have children.

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state where the state participates as a party to the marriage contract, procreation has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the contract or marriage.

Consequently the premise of your thread fails as a straw man fallacy

You dont know what a strawman fallacy is.
Second, the vast majority of heterosexual couples who marry do in fact produce children. That some of them dont is irrelevant. A point I've made dozens of times but still seems to elude the morons here.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

Yes.

How so? Will homos eventually just die out?

No.

You realize you're typing on a machine capable of giving you answers to questions, right?

Yes, but how is that relevant to perpetuation of the species. I'm able to obtain endless amounts of information at other's expense. I didn't work for that information so discipline can and is easily thrown out as everyone thinks they know everything.

You keep forgetting about sentience. A pretty fucking large part of the equation.

We need literally zero straight people, at this point, to perpetuate the species.

Have you ever heard of milking a bull, by chance? His prostate. Not actual milk.

One would have to cease all scientific knowledge, want humanity to die, and or run out of men or women altogether.........at this point in order to stop perpetuating the species.

Can you think of any other creature on earth that voluntarily saves it's sperm or egg for future progeny?

 

[rightwinger]

"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..."

Wrong.

You clearly don't 'get it' at all.

Infertile opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry, and older married opposite-sex couples are not compelled to divorce because they're no longer able to have children.

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state where the state participates as a party to the marriage contract, procreation has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the contract or marriage.

Consequently the premise of your thread fails as a straw man fallacy

You dont know what a strawman fallacy is.
Second, the vast majority of heterosexual couples who marry do in fact produce children. That some of them dont is irrelevant. A point I've made dozens of times but still seems to elude the morons here.

What part of gay marriage will prevent them from continuing to do so?

 

[G.T.]

Yes.

How so? Will homos eventually just die out?

No.

You realize you're typing on a machine capable of giving you answers to questions, right?

Yes, but how is that relevant to perpetuation of the species. I'm able to obtain endless amounts of information at other's expense. I didn't work for that information so discipline can and is easily thrown out as everyone thinks they know everything.

You keep forgetting about sentience. A pretty fucking large part of the equation.

We need literally zero straight people, at this point, to perpetuate the species.

Have you ever heard of milking a bull, by chance? His prostate. Not actual milk.

One would have to cease all scientific knowledge, want humanity to die, and or run out of men or women altogether.........at this point in order to stop perpetuating the species.

Can you think of any other creature on earth that voluntarily saves it's sperm or egg for future progeny?

Why save it for the future?

The living walking gays would all also be infertile?

 

[The Rabbi]

They'll argue things like "fairness" and "equal protection." But your point is well taken. There is no benefit to society from gay marriage.

What benefit does "society" get from heterosexual marriage? Your being married to a woman is of no benefit to me or anybody else I know personally, and if a poll were taken I'd say the majority of Americans would say they derive no benefit from your marriage. I have no idea whether you're married or not, for the record, merely hypothesizing that you are.

That is wrong. Kaz dealt with the benefit in the OP.

Kaz said the propagation of the species, but your having children has zero benefit to me. Kaz merely stated that this was a benefit without defending it.

Actually I said that's the "concept behind it." If you are saying you don't know most people think the purpose of government marriage is children, I'm calling you a liar. You do know that

I'd be willing to put money on the idea that most people think the purpose of marriage is love for your spouse and a desire to bind yourself to them. If one's goal was merely to have children then marriage isn't necessary for that.

Thats not the same thing. He's talking about the gov'ts interest in marriage, not why people get married.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

If the minority population of gays in any given society were somehow tasked by nature to do all the reproducing for that society,

yes then it would be a problem.

The reality is that no human society has ever needed every member to reproduce in order to prosper, so yes, gays not reproducing is easily reconciled with Evolution.

If gays were tasked with reproducing in order to save humanity, theyd do it rather easily.

Yes, but they would need help.

 

[g5000]

Human beings do not need government intervention to hump each others brains out and produce children. There is absolutely no need for government to "encourage" procreation. It has always happened, and always will. We've gotten very, very good at it without government "help".

Therefore, government gifts for procreation are entirely unnecessary. They produce no addtional societal benefit whatsoever. They are a cost which come at the expense of others.

Government gifts for procreation are 100 percent wasteful spending. As are government gifts for marriage.

 

[G.T.]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

If the minority population of gays in any given society were somehow tasked by nature to do all the reproducing for that society,

yes then it would be a problem.

The reality is that no human society has ever needed every member to reproduce in order to prosper, so yes, gays not reproducing is easily reconciled with Evolution.

If gays were tasked with reproducing in order to save humanity, theyd do it rather easily.

Yes, but they would need help.

No they wouldnt.

There are gay women. Eggs.

There are gay men. Sperm.

What escapes you?

 

[g5000]

If there were no government gifts or legal protections extended to marriage, we would not be having any conversations about gay marriage at all.

The conversation would have ended over a decade ago when gay sex was decriminalized.


That's the true goal, you know. The bigots want to make gay sex illegal again.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

How so? Will homos eventually just die out?

No.

You realize you're typing on a machine capable of giving you answers to questions, right?

Yes, but how is that relevant to perpetuation of the species. I'm able to obtain endless amounts of information at other's expense. I didn't work for that information so discipline can and is easily thrown out as everyone thinks they know everything.

You keep forgetting about sentience. A pretty fucking large part of the equation.

We need literally zero straight people, at this point, to perpetuate the species.

Have you ever heard of milking a bull, by chance? His prostate. Not actual milk.

One would have to cease all scientific knowledge, want humanity to die, and or run out of men or women altogether.........at this point in order to stop perpetuating the species.

Can you think of any other creature on earth that voluntarily saves it's sperm or egg for future progeny?

Why save it for the future?

The living walking gays would all also be infertile?

Do you know of another species that can produce an egg and then implant it into its own without doing this the natural way?

 

[BluesLegend]

True, but more specifically is what is the financial benefit. If we are funding something with $$$, we should have a $$$ reason for doing it

There is no financially sane reason for giving government gifts to people who are going to marry, mate, and/or have children regardless of government intervention in their lives.

None.

It's a gimme gimme gimme boondoggle. Nothing more.

I keep having to remind the left, its not the government's money its the people's money and if the people have decided to encourage traditional marriage between men and women, to encourage the traditional family using a bit of the peoples money then so be it its their money.

And gays and gay couples are of the people too. Or don't you think so?

Gays can feel free to lobby their representatives in congress to pass bills favorable to gays.

Well, I must say, I'm surprised that you haven't noticed us doing that (and being quite successful at it too) over the last few decades. And when this June rolls around..................

Meh, makes no difference to me I have no interest in what gays are up to except when they go all militant in attacking businesses. They should take care to avoid over reaching and pissing off the majority.

 

[G.T.]

No.

You realize you're typing on a machine capable of giving you answers to questions, right?

Yes, but how is that relevant to perpetuation of the species. I'm able to obtain endless amounts of information at other's expense. I didn't work for that information so discipline can and is easily thrown out as everyone thinks they know everything.

You keep forgetting about sentience. A pretty fucking large part of the equation.

We need literally zero straight people, at this point, to perpetuate the species.

Have you ever heard of milking a bull, by chance? His prostate. Not actual milk.

One would have to cease all scientific knowledge, want humanity to die, and or run out of men or women altogether.........at this point in order to stop perpetuating the species.

Can you think of any other creature on earth that voluntarily saves it's sperm or egg for future progeny?

Why save it for the future?

The living walking gays would all also be infertile?

Do you know of another species that can produce an egg and then implant it into its own without doing this the natural way?

First of all - gays could fuck straight if they absolutely had to

Second of all, no other species doing has fuck all to do with our very REAL ability to do it.

Point won.

Straight people are not vital to perpetuating humanity. We are sentient enough to know.how to do it despite sexual orientation.

End of story. Its.not a threat.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

If the minority population of gays in any given society were somehow tasked by nature to do all the reproducing for that society,

yes then it would be a problem.

The reality is that no human society has ever needed every member to reproduce in order to prosper, so yes, gays not reproducing is easily reconciled with Evolution.

If gays were tasked with reproducing in order to save humanity, theyd do it rather easily.

Yes, but they would need help.

No they wouldnt.

There are gay women. Eggs.

There are gay men. Sperm.

What escapes you?

Nothing. Again, you're stating the obvious.

 

[bodecea]

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

I'm missing something here. What is it being paid for?

He can't say. He got caught again thinking that no one would notice how stupid a thread he'd started.

OK, if you perverts don't back off the circle jerk I'm leaving for a while until it's over

If we give you some tissues, will that help?

 

[G.T.]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

If the minority population of gays in any given society were somehow tasked by nature to do all the reproducing for that society,

yes then it would be a problem.

The reality is that no human society has ever needed every member to reproduce in order to prosper, so yes, gays not reproducing is easily reconciled with Evolution.

If gays were tasked with reproducing in order to save humanity, theyd do it rather easily.

Yes, but they would need help.

No they wouldnt.

There are gay women. Eggs.

There are gay men. Sperm.

What escapes you?

Nothing. Again, you're stating the obvious.

Youre the one who assumed we need straights in order to perpetuate the species. We dont, pretty clearly.

 

[Jarhead]

If the minority population of gays in any given society were somehow tasked by nature to do all the reproducing for that society,

yes then it would be a problem.

The reality is that no human society has ever needed every member to reproduce in order to prosper, so yes, gays not reproducing is easily reconciled with Evolution.

If gays were tasked with reproducing in order to save humanity, theyd do it rather easily.

Yes, but they would need help.

No they wouldnt.

There are gay women. Eggs.

There are gay men. Sperm.

What escapes you?

Nothing. Again, you're stating the obvious.

Youre the one who assumed we need straights in order to perpetuate the species. We dont, pretty clearly.

well then, we should all invest in Tissue brand paper goods.