Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[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

People are allowed to form the families they choose

What business is it of yours?

Non sequitur

Strawman

It cracks me up when you do that, all you do is continue to show you don't know what the terms mean

 

[kaz]

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

LOL.....Kaz trolling again.

You know gay is a disease, right? The CDC says so

So much for your claim that this is a "financial thread".

It always cracks me up how liberals are too arrogant and stupid to process your being mocked. You think no one is smarter than you are, which makes you wrong about everyone...

 

[kaz]

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?

I'm guessing he's being intentionally obtuse. Now Kaz .... he's simply obtuse. LOL

I don't relate well to people with small minds

Self loather, eh?

Playground, bam! Guess it's not below anything else you write

 

[kaz]

Kaz, don't blame me for you're starting a I don't like gay marriage thread and, either intentionally or just stupidly, posing it as a govt finance issue.

That made no sense. It's a mocking liberals by applying your own standard to you thread. You wouldn't understand. You understand little about anything

 

[kaz]

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?

What do you care since you never answered the question?

 

[kaz]

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?

Yes

 

[kaz]

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.

Non sequitur

 

[kaz]

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.

LOL, check and mate, Seawytch

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Evolution did or did not provide us with the brains we use to overcome these reproductive issues, shall they arise?

I'm considering that but are we really overcoming reproductive issues if we're able to reproduce. Certain grasses and corns were able to do this when they were able to evolve to squeeze more CO2 out of a depleted atmosphere. I would say your example has more to do with emotion.

Umm, yes as a matter of fact - in terms of "perpetuating the species," which is the context in which reproduction was brought up - we have most certainly evolved to having the ability to perpetuate the species in spite of being gay or straight.

The knowledge will not now magically disappear. Its here, and we know it. End of "gays cant perpetuate the species" discussion. They can. Moot point.

There is no reproduction crisis among humans. We have simply learned how to fertilize an egg without the traditional method of copulation. Therefore, if has more to do with emotion.

 

[G.T.]

Evolution did or did not provide us with the brains we use to overcome these reproductive issues, shall they arise?

I'm considering that but are we really overcoming reproductive issues if we're able to reproduce. Certain grasses and corns were able to do this when they were able to evolve to squeeze more CO2 out of a depleted atmosphere. I would say your example has more to do with emotion.

Umm, yes as a matter of fact - in terms of "perpetuating the species," which is the context in which reproduction was brought up - we have most certainly evolved to having the ability to perpetuate the species in spite of being gay or straight.

The knowledge will not now magically disappear. Its here, and we know it. End of "gays cant perpetuate the species" discussion. They can. Moot point.

There is no reproduction crisis among humans. We have simply learned how to fertilize an egg without the traditional method of copulation. Therefore, if has more to do with emotion.

Which is irrelevant, since emotion is also product of evolution.

 

[Syriusly]

8 posts in a row of Kaz yanking on his own dick, fantasizing about gay sex and liberals.

 

[bripat9643]

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

If the fundie nutters get what they want, this is a first step in requiring heterosexual couples to reproduce in order for their marriage to be legally recognized and for them to get the couple's tax break.

Note to OP -

1. If you're not gay, you really can't say what their sex is like FOR THEM.

2. No one "subsidizes" stay-at-home mothers and, if they can afford it, there's no other reason why a gay parent cannot stay home with their child.

Gays make up less than 5% of our population. An even smaller percentage of those will get married. You really think this will amount to much money?

The hateful RWs really need to stop their meddling and MYOB.

Gay couples don't have children.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Non sequitur.

Does monogamous marriage reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Do child tax credits reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Do Social Security survivor's benefits reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Non sequitor

Marriage, child tax credits, or SS have nothing to do with evolution. Not following your line of thought.

That is exactly my point.

Gay marriage is a GOVERNMENT recognition and has nothing to do with evolution. All this bogus talk about evolution is a red herring. A non sequitur. All gays are asking for is the same government cash and prizes the rest of us get for being married, and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. If a gay couple gets Social Security survivor benefits, it affects evolution not at all.

So stop throwing out red herrings and stick to the issue.

So what do the rest of us get out of gays getting those things?

You neither gain nor lose a thing that you don't already gain or lose for married people getting those cash and prizes.

Exactly. If there is a societal benefit to marriage, then it exists regardless of the orientation of the individuals. If there isn't, it is also regardless of the orientation of the individuals.

The question should be:

Are there societal benefits in having the institution of civil marriage?

 

[The Rabbi]

Non sequitur.

Does monogamous marriage reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Do child tax credits reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Do Social Security survivor's benefits reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Non sequitor

Marriage, child tax credits, or SS have nothing to do with evolution. Not following your line of thought.

That is exactly my point.

Gay marriage is a GOVERNMENT recognition and has nothing to do with evolution. All this bogus talk about evolution is a red herring. A non sequitur. All gays are asking for is the same government cash and prizes the rest of us get for being married, and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. If a gay couple gets Social Security survivor benefits, it affects evolution not at all.

So stop throwing out red herrings and stick to the issue.

So what do the rest of us get out of gays getting those things?

You neither gain nor lose a thing that you don't already gain or lose for married people getting those cash and prizes.

Exactly. If there is a societal benefit to marriage, then it exists regardless of the orientation of the individuals. If there isn't, it is also regardless of the orientation of the individuals.

The question should be:

Are there societal benefits in having the institution of civil marriage?

Simply not true. Heterosexual couples produce children by and large and those children growing up in a 2 parent household are by and large healthier citizens than any other arrangement.

 

[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

If the fundie nutters get what they want, this is a first step in requiring heterosexual couples to reproduce in order for their marriage to be legally recognized and for them to get the couple's tax break.

Note to OP -

1. If you're not gay, you really can't say what their sex is like FOR THEM.

2. No one "subsidizes" stay-at-home mothers and, if they can afford it, there's no other reason why a gay parent cannot stay home with their child.

Gays make up less than 5% of our population. An even smaller percentage of those will get married. You really think this will amount to much money?

The hateful RWs really need to stop their meddling and MYOB.

Gay couples don't have children.

The law disagrees. My wife and I are our children's parents. We have the birth certificates to prove it.

 

[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 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

If the fundie nutters get what they want, this is a first step in requiring heterosexual couples to reproduce in order for their marriage to be legally recognized and for them to get the couple's tax break.

Note to OP -

1. If you're not gay, you really can't say what their sex is like FOR THEM.

2. No one "subsidizes" stay-at-home mothers and, if they can afford it, there's no other reason why a gay parent cannot stay home with their child.

Gays make up less than 5% of our population. An even smaller percentage of those will get married. You really think this will amount to much money?

The hateful RWs really need to stop their meddling and MYOB.

Gay couples don't have children.

The law disagrees. My wife and I are our children's parents. We have the birth certificates to prove it.

Biology trumps law any day.

 

[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

If the fundie nutters get what they want, this is a first step in requiring heterosexual couples to reproduce in order for their marriage to be legally recognized and for them to get the couple's tax break.

Note to OP -

1. If you're not gay, you really can't say what their sex is like FOR THEM.

2. No one "subsidizes" stay-at-home mothers and, if they can afford it, there's no other reason why a gay parent cannot stay home with their child.

Gays make up less than 5% of our population. An even smaller percentage of those will get married. You really think this will amount to much money?

The hateful RWs really need to stop their meddling and MYOB.

Gay couples don't have children.

The law disagrees. My wife and I are our children's parents. We have the birth certificates to prove it.

Biology trumps law any day.

No, actually it doesn't. Biology is procreation. Procreation isn't parenting. Not to our children and not to the law.

 

[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 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

If the fundie nutters get what they want, this is a first step in requiring heterosexual couples to reproduce in order for their marriage to be legally recognized and for them to get the couple's tax break.

Note to OP -

1. If you're not gay, you really can't say what their sex is like FOR THEM.

2. No one "subsidizes" stay-at-home mothers and, if they can afford it, there's no other reason why a gay parent cannot stay home with their child.

Gays make up less than 5% of our population. An even smaller percentage of those will get married. You really think this will amount to much money?

The hateful RWs really need to stop their meddling and MYOB.

Gay couples don't have children.

The law disagrees. My wife and I are our children's parents. We have the birth certificates to prove it.

Biology trumps law any day.

No, actually it doesn't. Biology is procreation. Procreation isn't parenting. Not to our children and not to the law.

Non-sequitur

 

[Seawytch]

The law disagrees. My wife and I are our children's parents. We have the birth certificates to prove it.

Biology trumps law any day.

No, actually it doesn't. Biology is procreation. Procreation isn't parenting. Not to our children and not to the law.

Non-sequitur[/QUOTE]

What's your line, your deflection is noted?

We ARE their parents. Ask any court of law or, more importantly, ask them.

 

[Pop23]

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:

And what of those straight couples who don't intend on having children? Better yet, why should other taxpayers have to subsidize straight mating?

Without straight mating there is no government?

Hummmm

Did it take tax breaks to get the human race to procreate? How much did the average caveman family get?

I guess it's more productive than not. Cavemen? Are there cavemen in the US?

Did non breeding humans produce the population required to advance society?

Interesting the things we take for granted.

The doctor that saves lives, products of opposite sex couplings.

Hmmmm