Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Pop23]

Marriage government gifts are separate from government gifts you get for having kids. So it is not a given that marriage government gifts are there to encourage procreation.

They are bread and circuses to please the crowd's demand. Nothing more. It is what the crowd demanded. Everything else is the bogus rationalization of an entitlement-minded welfare dependent.

Tax benefits for people with children are one of those things that normally conservatives would rant about, i.e.,

people voting themselves money from the government.

Tax benefits for creating new tax payers.

Absurd ain't it?

 

[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:

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

No...they took care of the children while others were out. And helped financially.

The evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality - BBC News

 

[The Rabbi]

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

What's your line, your deflection is noted?

We ARE their parents. Ask any court of law or, more importantly, ask them.[/QUOTE]
I'll ask th biologists, thank you.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage government gifts are separate from government gifts you get for having kids. So it is not a given that marriage government gifts are there to encourage procreation.

They are bread and circuses to please the crowd's demand. Nothing more. It is what the crowd demanded. Everything else is the bogus rationalization of an entitlement-minded welfare dependent.

Tax benefits for people with children are one of those things that normally conservatives would rant about, i.e.,

people voting themselves money from the government.

Tax benefits for creating new tax payers.

Absurd ain't it?

You get those whether you're married or not.

Absurd ain't it?

 

[Seawytch]

I'll ask th biologists, thank you.

Ask them about parenting? They don't study parenting. Parenting specialists do. Know what they say? You won't like it.

 

[kaz]

Marriage government gifts are separate from government gifts you get for having kids. So it is not a given that marriage government gifts are there to encourage procreation.

They are bread and circuses to please the crowd's demand. Nothing more. It is what the crowd demanded. Everything else is the bogus rationalization of an entitlement-minded welfare dependent.

Tax benefits for people with children are one of those things that normally conservatives would rant about, i.e.,

people voting themselves money from the government.

Tax benefits for creating new tax payers.

Absurd ain't it?

Now there's a guy who gets the thread. I'm using the left's own standard against them, which you just did as well. They use that argument all the time for government handouts, creates more tax revenue! Nicely played, pop

 

[kaz]

I'll ask th biologists, thank you.

Ask them about parenting? They don't study parenting. Parenting specialists do. Know what they say? You won't like it.

All you do it measure it by test scores on one study you can't find, that's not exactly a compelling argument.

BTW, did you see my mention of you in Bodeca's post where I pointed out to you the truth of my point on why my being a pretend homophobe is irrelevant? She said exactly what I told you, that's what she already thought, LOL

 

[G.T.]

I'll ask th biologists, thank you.

Ask them about parenting? They don't study parenting. Parenting specialists do. Know what they say? You won't like it.

I dont think he understands that parenting is a verb whereas parent is a noun.

 

[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

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.

Gay sex doesn't create children. Though a couple of hot women could create a great video

 

[bodecea]

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.

I see...thus your complete lack of interest in this thread.............

 

[kaz]

I want it stopped as the deviant behavior that it is. Gay is a disease, we need to do research and solve it. And in the mean time, lock them up

So you are an anti freedom sick fuck.

Next time, have the balls to put these sentiments directly into your op pussy, so tht instead of destroying your faulty logic, all that really needs to be done is mock the fuck out of your neanderthal baby brain.

Tuck your panties back in your pants, I only say that to nitwits like Syriously and Bodedica when they continually go on ignoring what I said in their liberal religious fervor and they stop processing everything that I say. Here's another thread I started. Note most of the liberals aren't reacting to it, they are used to me doing that.

What is wrong with being gay exactly US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I dont care that youre so sexually confused bro

So you're calling me gay as an insult because you think I insulted gays.

Can't make up your liberal bilch, it's classic

Why is being called gay an insult? Call me gay all you want.

My God, you are really stupid. Try reading the post again, bimbo

 

[kaz]

So you are an anti freedom sick fuck.

Next time, have the balls to put these sentiments directly into your op pussy, so tht instead of destroying your faulty logic, all that really needs to be done is mock the fuck out of your neanderthal baby brain.

Tuck your panties back in your pants, I only say that to nitwits like Syriously and Bodedica when they continually go on ignoring what I said in their liberal religious fervor and they stop processing everything that I say. Here's another thread I started. Note most of the liberals aren't reacting to it, they are used to me doing that.

What is wrong with being gay exactly US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I dont care that youre so sexually confused bro

So you're calling me gay as an insult because you think I insulted gays.

Can't make up your liberal bilch, it's classic

Why is being called gay an insult? Call me gay all you want.

Bigots think being called "gay" or a "Muslim" are insults. They make up things like, "Obama is a Muslim" as though it were a bad thing to be a Muslim.

They don't get it.

Another leftist who can't read.

That was my point, you dumb fuck. GT called me gay as an insult. There is something seriously wrong with you stupid wenches

 

[kaz]

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?

Finally! A relevant post to the thread. And of course it didn't come from a liberal. They are unable to see past their own bias

 

[kaz]

Marriage government gifts are separate from government gifts you get for having kids. So it is not a given that marriage government gifts are there to encourage procreation.

They are bread and circuses to please the crowd's demand. Nothing more. It is what the crowd demanded. Everything else is the bogus rationalization of an entitlement-minded welfare dependent.

Not true, reduced income taxes and elimination of the death tax are not related to children

 

[bodecea]

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.

This isn't a straight/not straight issue. You're alluding to our ability to save eggs or sperm for future use. Two men or women by themself, with no egg or sperm, could not continue the species. That's what I was referring to earlier about evolution and how it doesn't reconcile.

You seem to think that gays can't have heterosexual sex....we can....we wouldn't like it, but if the need is there..............

 

[kaz]

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

Yes.

How so? Will homos eventually just die out?

Is that what has happened? Or do homosexuals come from straights?

God dammit, don't try bringing in science to Kaz's thread!

I addressed that, Rover, here's a bone, go play

 

[kaz]

Why should taxpayers be forced subsidize anyone or anything??

There it is. Why subsidize buying homes, corporate jets, borrowing money to expand a business .......?

OMG, companies not paying taxes on their expenses? LOL, gotcha, Karl

 

[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

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.

But he'll blame it on everyone else's reading comprehension.

And he would be right.
I am watching this amazed. Kaz asks a basic question. He indicates at the outset he is not an advocate of state sponsored marriage at all. Instead of reasoned answers he gets the usual spin, deflection, fallacies, and irrelevant responses I've come to expect from tjhe same morons on this site.

It would be like this:
Q: Was the US right to go to war against Nazi Germany?

Bendog: We went to war against Japan, right?
RMKBRown: I am opposed to Nazism
Rightwinger: Republicans are the real Nazis. We should declare war on them
Seawytch: My wife fought against the Nazis. With her bare hands.
Votto: War is imperialism pure and simple
G5000: You're an idiot if you support Nazism

Great post, Stephanie! Loved it! Wow, you nailed that one. Exactly what I expected, that the left would not be able to address the question. OK, not a tough prediction. But once again demonstrated...

 

[Seawytch]

I'll ask th biologists, thank you.

Ask them about parenting? They don't study parenting. Parenting specialists do. Know what they say? You won't like it.

All you do it measure it by test scores on one study you can't find, that's not exactly a compelling argument.

BTW, did you see my mention of you in Bodeca's post where I pointed out to you the truth of my point on why my being a pretend homophobe is irrelevant? She said exactly what I told you, that's what she already thought, LOL

Sarah Palin could not have made more word salad than you just did.

All major Parenting and Child Welfare organizations say the same thing...the children of gays are at no disadvantage to the children of straights. All parenting and child welfare organizations also agree that children do best in two parent households, period.

Kaz...you're just too good at the anti gay thing. Maybe it's the insistence upon using the f word for gay man. Are you as blasé with the n-word?

 

[Pop23]

Marriage government gifts are separate from government gifts you get for having kids. So it is not a given that marriage government gifts are there to encourage procreation.

They are bread and circuses to please the crowd's demand. Nothing more. It is what the crowd demanded. Everything else is the bogus rationalization of an entitlement-minded welfare dependent.

Tax benefits for people with children are one of those things that normally conservatives would rant about, i.e.,

people voting themselves money from the government.

Tax benefits for creating new tax payers.

Absurd ain't it?

You get those whether you're married or not.

Absurd ain't it?

This is about marriage?

Hetro same sex couples won't procreate either, but will get all the rights and benefits of marriage, like everyone else.

How long do you think employers will have spousal benefits once straight same sex couples find out how beneficial a 50 buck license is?

Bet they were thinking they'd only have to cover a few gay couples, but damn, the married straight same sex couples could bankrupt that concept.