Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Delta4Embassy]

"Bush administration. [2002] The administration wanted to spend about $38 million to increase research into the use of wood fiber..."

 

[jillian]

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

SUAEI (shut up and eat it)

Don't think I should have to subsidize trillion dollar wars in the middle east either but I do.

have you ever seen one of the loons complain about the million dollars baby bush spent to study "if prayer works".

seriously. they're so full of it.

Bad example as I'm actually interested in effects of intercessory prayer. Don't think there's a divine or supernatural component, but have read enough on it I think something's going on. Some kind of 'group think' effect.

no. it's a good example because while you may be interested in the topic, and perhaps it's interesting in a theoretical fashion to me, as well, but we had no say over the use of that million dollars.

and *that* is the point.

they think they can de-fund whatever they have an objection to.

believe me, i'd like my money back that they used for iraq... but that's not happening either.

You really don't understand the discussion. Demonstrating that doesn't bother you apparently.

Sweetie, I'm against all funding other than the basic government functions enumerated in the Constitution. I'm not for picking and choosing, I'm for reading and choosing and cutting everything else out.

Not liberal is still just "Republican" in your tiny little mind, isn't it?

there is nothing you could possibly say that i wouldn't understand. you aren't that intelligent or complex. in fact, you're dumb as toast. but that's neither here nor there.

reality... no one gives a flying about supporting your bigotry.

even the title of your thread is disrespectful.. gay mating... as if there was no relationship or marriage.

now run along and stop obsessing about what consenting adults love.

 

[jillian]

SUAEI (shut up and eat it)

Don't think I should have to subsidize trillion dollar wars in the middle east either but I do.

have you ever seen one of the loons complain about the million dollars baby bush spent to study "if prayer works".

seriously. they're so full of it.

Bad example as I'm actually interested in effects of intercessory prayer. Don't think there's a divine or supernatural component, but have read enough on it I think something's going on. Some kind of 'group think' effect.

no. it's a good example because while you may be interested in the topic, and perhaps it's interesting in a theoretical fashion to me, as well, but we had no say over the use of that million dollars.

and *that* is the point.

they think they can de-fund whatever they have an objection to.

believe me, i'd like my money back that they used for iraq... but that's not happening either.

More objectionable things money's been wasted on than that. Uses for wood comes to mind. Think we figured that out a while ago.

So let's cut it all out and not justify one travesty with another.

How's your search for an antisemitic quote from Beck coming?

Did you figure out if you're American or Israeli yet?

ahh... so you're an anti-semite, too.

what a surprise. .... not.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Imagine there were better things to spend $38 mil on in 2002...

 

[kaz]

SUAEI (shut up and eat it)

Don't think I should have to subsidize trillion dollar wars in the middle east either but I do.

have you ever seen one of the loons complain about the million dollars baby bush spent to study "if prayer works".

seriously. they're so full of it.

Bad example as I'm actually interested in effects of intercessory prayer. Don't think there's a divine or supernatural component, but have read enough on it I think something's going on. Some kind of 'group think' effect.

no. it's a good example because while you may be interested in the topic, and perhaps it's interesting in a theoretical fashion to me, as well, but we had no say over the use of that million dollars.

and *that* is the point.

they think they can de-fund whatever they have an objection to.

believe me, i'd like my money back that they used for iraq... but that's not happening either.

More objectionable things money's been wasted on than that. Uses for wood comes to mind. Think we figured that out a while ago.

more objectionable? i didn't think we were talking levels of objection... just simply what people object to. i object to my money being used to pay for michelle bachman's husband's pray away the gay fraud. i object to my money subsidizing her family farm. to someone who is an atheist (which i am not but i also don't support the idea that we should be codifying christian dogma) it is a huge and offensive waste of money.

Yet you justify them doing that with all the leftist driven dogma you do want other people's money spent on.

A man asks you if you will have sex for $1 million.

Sure you say.

He asks if you will have sex for $1

What do you think I am?, you respond

He replies, we already answered that, now we're just haggling over the price...

 

[kaz]

have you ever seen one of the loons complain about the million dollars baby bush spent to study "if prayer works".

seriously. they're so full of it.

Bad example as I'm actually interested in effects of intercessory prayer. Don't think there's a divine or supernatural component, but have read enough on it I think something's going on. Some kind of 'group think' effect.

no. it's a good example because while you may be interested in the topic, and perhaps it's interesting in a theoretical fashion to me, as well, but we had no say over the use of that million dollars.

and *that* is the point.

they think they can de-fund whatever they have an objection to.

believe me, i'd like my money back that they used for iraq... but that's not happening either.

More objectionable things money's been wasted on than that. Uses for wood comes to mind. Think we figured that out a while ago.

So let's cut it all out and not justify one travesty with another.

How's your search for an antisemitic quote from Beck coming?

Did you figure out if you're American or Israeli yet?

ahh... so you're an anti-semite, too.

what a surprise. .... not.

What does that mean? Is name calling with no substance behind it considered an effective strategy in your air headed world? LOL, of course we know it is...

 

[kaz]

Imagine there were better things to spend $38 mil on in 2002...

What about not spending it? That never occurs to leftists

 

[kaz]

SUAEI (shut up and eat it)

Don't think I should have to subsidize trillion dollar wars in the middle east either but I do.

have you ever seen one of the loons complain about the million dollars baby bush spent to study "if prayer works".

seriously. they're so full of it.

Bad example as I'm actually interested in effects of intercessory prayer. Don't think there's a divine or supernatural component, but have read enough on it I think something's going on. Some kind of 'group think' effect.

no. it's a good example because while you may be interested in the topic, and perhaps it's interesting in a theoretical fashion to me, as well, but we had no say over the use of that million dollars.

and *that* is the point.

they think they can de-fund whatever they have an objection to.

believe me, i'd like my money back that they used for iraq... but that's not happening either.

You really don't understand the discussion. Demonstrating that doesn't bother you apparently.

Sweetie, I'm against all funding other than the basic government functions enumerated in the Constitution. I'm not for picking and choosing, I'm for reading and choosing and cutting everything else out.

Not liberal is still just "Republican" in your tiny little mind, isn't it?

there is nothing you could possibly say that i wouldn't understand. you aren't that intelligent or complex. in fact, you're dumb as toast. but that's neither here nor there.

reality... no one gives a flying about supporting your bigotry.

even the title of your thread is disrespectful.. gay mating... as if there was no relationship or marriage.

now run along and stop obsessing about what consenting adults love.

Swish, once again a leftist doesn't grasp a thread.

The OP post isn't attacking gays, sweetness, it's mocking you. I thought you saw all? Apparently you dont. Oops.....

 

[Mousterian]

"Liberal demand to be able to kill babies at any stage of pregnancy" ???
Really? Is that the liberal position on abortion, or just those on the Rabid Fringe, as you appear to be, but on the right?

 

[Seawytch]

All of the ways in which 'other taxpayers' are being forced to 'subsidize' gay marriage are, by definition, the same ways in which gays are obliged to subsidize hetero marriages.

Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.

When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.

 

[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

SUAEI (shut up and eat it)

Don't think I should have to subsidize trillion dollar wars in the middle east either but I do.

have you ever seen one of the loons complain about the million dollars baby bush spent to study "if prayer works".

seriously. they're so full of it.

Bad example as I'm actually interested in effects of intercessory prayer. Don't think there's a divine or supernatural component, but have read enough on it I think something's going on. Some kind of 'group think' effect.

no. it's a good example because while you may be interested in the topic, and perhaps it's interesting in a theoretical fashion to me, as well, but we had no say over the use of that million dollars.

and *that* is the point.

they think they can de-fund whatever they have an objection to.

believe me, i'd like my money back that they used for iraq... but that's not happening either.

If they can get enough Congressmen and Senators to go along with them, they can defund whatever they want. You believe in democracy, don't you?

 

[kaz]

All of the ways in which 'other taxpayers' are being forced to 'subsidize' gay marriage are, by definition, the same ways in which gays are obliged to subsidize hetero marriages.

Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.

When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.

100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime

 

[kaz]

"Liberal demand to be able to kill babies at any stage of pregnancy" ???
Really? Is that the liberal position on abortion, or just those on the Rabid Fringe, as you appear to be, but on the right?

The voices in your head can be a bitch, can't they?

 

[kaz]

"Bush administration. [2002] The administration wanted to spend about $38 million to increase research into the use of wood fiber..."

Yes, another idiotic proposal by the W administration. A guy who lived his life on his daddy's coat tails never earning a dime on his own. W had no respect that people earned the money he freely pissed away

 

[Syriusly]

All of the ways in which 'other taxpayers' are being forced to 'subsidize' gay marriage are, by definition, the same ways in which gays are obliged to subsidize hetero marriages.

Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.

When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.

100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime

Kaz is once again promoting his "Kaz has his benefits and doesn't want to share with gays' thread again.

Just as a reminder- Kaz is married and gets 'marriage benefits' such as they are- he just doesn't want to share them with gay couples. It offends him that gay couples are treated legally like he and his wife are.

Kaz has his and wants to screw over gay couples.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

All of the ways in which 'other taxpayers' are being forced to 'subsidize' gay marriage are, by definition, the same ways in which gays are obliged to subsidize hetero marriages.

Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.

When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.

This argument is getting tired. The usual routine of using the anecdotal to try to make a larger point.
Heteros who don't but can won't. But the possibility still exists thereby warranting the protection of tax breaks, etc.
Those who can't still provide the ideal circumstance of mother/father in the event of the choice for adoption. Both cases are moot for homos.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

All of the ways in which 'other taxpayers' are being forced to 'subsidize' gay marriage are, by definition, the same ways in which gays are obliged to subsidize hetero marriages.

Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.

When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.

100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime

Award for concision!

 

[Mousterian]

Kaz: "100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime"

So you only have sex with the aim of procreation?
And gay couples don't have any children?

Kaz, your patriotic girly avatar says it all... a gift from those Froggy Liberals...

"Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

That's pretty scary stuff, non?

 

[Seawytch]

All of the ways in which 'other taxpayers' are being forced to 'subsidize' gay marriage are, by definition, the same ways in which gays are obliged to subsidize hetero marriages.

Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.

When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.

This argument is getting tired. The usual routine of using the anecdotal to try to make a larger point.
Heteros who don't but can won't. But the possibility still exists thereby warranting the protection of tax breaks, etc.
Those who can't still provide the ideal circumstance of mother/father in the event of the choice for adoption. Both cases are moot for homos.

You're right...your failed argument is getting tired. Procreation is not a requirement for civil marriage. No one is denied one for an unwillingness or inability to procreate. No one. Further destroying your argument is the fact that some couples in some states are required to prove they cannot procreate before they can civilly marry.

The final nail in your failed argument is the fact that children don't need a mother and a father, they need parents.

How Do Children In Same-Sex Adoption Fare?

Same-sex adoption study outcome:​

One University of Virginia and George Washington University same-sex adoption study came to the same conclusions.

This study researched preschool-aged children who had been adopted as babies in heterosexual adoptions and same-sex adoptions, including both lesbian and gay adoptive parents. It went beyond earlier studies by researching outside evaluations of teachers and caregivers, as well as reports by the parents.

As with other studies, this study found that the children from same-sex adoptions were as well-adjusted as those from heterosexual adoptions.

This study also researched gender identification of the children to examine how children raised with same-sex parents identified with gender-related behavior. Overall, children start exhibiting gender behavior during the preschool years, with girls wanting to play with toys like dolls, and boys wanting toys like trucks and cars. This study found that all the children showed similar gender behavior as their same-aged peers, whether they were raised by same-sex parents or by heterosexual parents.

The study did find that, as with any family, the outcomes of the children hinged on: parenting abilities overall; the stresses in the family; and the satisfaction of the parents' relationship. And, the study found that heterosexual and same-sex adoptive parents exhibited these success factors equally.

 

[Seawytch]

All of the ways in which 'other taxpayers' are being forced to 'subsidize' gay marriage are, by definition, the same ways in which gays are obliged to subsidize hetero marriages.

Right. Because it aids in the effort required to raise children. Hetero couples can procreate, homo couples can't.

When you can show me the heterosexual couple that was denied a marriage license for their inability or unwillingness to procreate, you might have a point. You can't and so you don't.

100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime

Are you sure about that? My children were born of a 100% gay union.

And no, as long as you straight folks are giving yourselves cash and prizes for being married, we get 'em too. Hope it annoys the fuck out of you.