Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[g5000]

This is exactly where this is headed.
Marriage will cease to have any meaning outside of a financial arrangement.

It was heteros who made it a financial arrangement. It was heteros who demanded government gifts for what they were doing anyway. It was heteros who DEMANDED government in their marriage.

Link? I dont recall anyone asking my opinion on the matter.

Do you think it was gays who demanded all these government gifts for marriage that have been around for decades?

Obtuse dumbass.

 

[g5000]

Oh, hey, wut? Da GAYZ want the same government gifts we been gettin all dis time for marriage? OUTRAGEOUS! Dat moneys fer fuckin! I would stop fuckin my wahf if I dinnit get dat money.

 

[Syriusly]

You people are actually, really, truly stupid. That is the one thing you continually demonstrate

Kaz yanking his own dick again.

I am surprised he has managed to keep it attached.

I only have that problem after seeing some great lesbian porn.

So you are watching lesbian porn while you continue to jerk off here at USMB- what a multi-tasker.

One certainly has to wonder.

At least I don't jerk off on USMB like you two kool-aid swillers

This thread is clear evidence that you do.

 

[rightwinger]

"Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?"

Whatever marriage's faults or failings, whatever objections one might have to the provisions of marriage contracts, those issues have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to access marriage law as required by the 14th Amendment.

No couples do not enjoy rights. Individuals enjoy rights. And there is no one who lacks access to marriage. Same rules for everyone.

You funny...


This is the part where Rabbi tells us gays are allowed to marry people of the opposite sex

Can't make this shit up

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Links to any of this? Or is this the part where contradictory information is dismissed as biased and based on homophobia?

Direct links to policy statements in one place:

Professional Organizations on LGBT Parenting Resources Human Rights Campaign

Oops
WORLD Study Same-sex parents just aren t the same Daniel James Devine Feb. 17 2015

Oops

Conservatives Seize On Hugely Flawed Study About Same-Sex Parents ThinkProgress

 

[Seawytch]

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?

If you believe that, then you're not very observant about liberals. They do that to all non-liberals. If you believe in liberal ideology, that's fine, but you should be honest about who you are in bed with. So to speak...

What does your unnecessary use of the f word for gay men have to do with liberals?

Do you blame your constipation on liberals?

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Can you think of any creature on earth that makes love with protection so as NOT to reproduce?

Bottom line is this. If we were all gay, we would have heterosexual sex to reproduce only...pretty much like all other living creatures.

That would be bisexual wouldn't it?

Oh, I see. You are confused between desire and the act. We can all have sex with someone we don't desire....but the desire is what makes us what we are. If the survival of the species required I have sex with a man....I'd do it. But I would never ever desire a man.

OK but you do need a male to reproduce in one way, form, fashion, or manner.

For now.

Family and Relationships The Splice of Life Sex in the 21st Century

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Less than 5% of the population and yet the sexually insecure and immature are obsessed with what others are doing in the bedroom.

I hate phoney christians, racists, misogynists and homophobes but I will always fight for your right to your beliefs. Even if you hate gays, the US principles of equality are much more important. If you love your country, you embrace and defend our basic founding principles. If you're a "christian", you follow the teachings of your god.

Homophobes do just the opposite.

 

[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.

Surely you have heard of hetero marriages of convenience? They've been around a looooooooooong time.

Sure I have, but now......,

Million upon millions more are a real possibility

Honestly, why would anyone doubt this

We might have a record marriage rate!

 

[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.

Of course we do, silly boy.

You got knocked up when another chick munched on your carpet?

Now now....it's not my fault you don't have a winning argument.

In other words, you admit that homosexual couples don't have children.

 

[Chalgoum]

The Last News ....


Planes fly within walking distance of the Earth Find Yourself

 

[Seawytch]

Have you heard it discussed elsewhere?

Kindly link this.

Yes. Each year i do my taxes or taxes for others, its pretty common knowledge.

I'll try again

Please link to a source discussing same sex straight marriage and its financial benefits.

GT is an idiot. As the spousal benefits add up and as the sanctity of marriage goes away we will see more of this. There is already an issue with convenience marriages for citizrenship. When marriage is nothing more than a fee and a license, and you can save hundreds of thousands of dollas by doing it it will become commonplace.

Who saves hundreds of thousands of dollars by getting married?

People who lack medical insurance but need expensive procedures and marry their old college roomate who works for a big company.
People who have big estates and want to leave them to their children so marry their sons.
The list is endless. Of course it would take imagination and logic. So that counts you out.

So straight people can do this now, right? In fact...you encourage gays to do just that, marry someone of the opposite sex if they want to be married, right?

You know a lot of people who would marry someone of the same gender for all these "bennies" do you?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Of course we do, silly boy.

You got knocked up when another chick munched on your carpet?

Now now....it's not my fault you don't have a winning argument.

In other words, you admit that homosexual couples don't have children.

Our children's birth certificates prove you wrong. They'll tell you themselves how wrong you are.

 

[Pop23]

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

You do realize that it in the nature of males to mate as often as they want, right? They get one knocked up, move on to the next, Right?

No need for any order in the primative world.

We however kind of like order. That's what a society that moves forward does. Creates order (or so we would hope).

But hey, let's hope for the best, Right?

Perhaps we now see the demons coming to light? And the reason why someone doesn't like government marriage and the implied responsibility towards one other person that it implies.

Huh?

Shirley you jest ( did I just call you Shirley?)

If the goal is getting spousal benefits a thing of the past, a company having to absorb ten times more than they expected with gay marriages should do the trick nicely?

Yeah, but watcha gonna do?

 

[Pop23]

Yes. Each year i do my taxes or taxes for others, its pretty common knowledge.

I'll try again

Please link to a source discussing same sex straight marriage and its financial benefits.

GT is an idiot. As the spousal benefits add up and as the sanctity of marriage goes away we will see more of this. There is already an issue with convenience marriages for citizrenship. When marriage is nothing more than a fee and a license, and you can save hundreds of thousands of dollas by doing it it will become commonplace.

Who saves hundreds of thousands of dollars by getting married?

People who lack medical insurance but need expensive procedures and marry their old college roomate who works for a big company.
People who have big estates and want to leave them to their children so marry their sons.
The list is endless. Of course it would take imagination and logic. So that counts you out.

So straight people can do this now, right? In fact...you encourage gays to do just that, marry someone of the opposite sex if they want to be married, right?

You know a lot of people who would marry someone of the same gender for all these "bennies" do you?

How many people do you know that takes every tax deduction that can.

OHHHH, there will be many, especially those with high college debt and forced to pay Obamacare

There is no downside

 

[Seawytch]

Of course we do, silly boy.

You got knocked up when another chick munched on your carpet?

Now now....it's not my fault you don't have a winning argument.

In other words, you admit that homosexual couples don't have children.

Our children's birth certificates prove you wrong. They'll tell you themselves how wrong you are.

Really? Who does it list as the biological father of the child?

It does not list one. Parent One: me Parent Two: my wife

 

[Seawytch]

I'll try again

Please link to a source discussing same sex straight marriage and its financial benefits.

GT is an idiot. As the spousal benefits add up and as the sanctity of marriage goes away we will see more of this. There is already an issue with convenience marriages for citizrenship. When marriage is nothing more than a fee and a license, and you can save hundreds of thousands of dollas by doing it it will become commonplace.

Who saves hundreds of thousands of dollars by getting married?

People who lack medical insurance but need expensive procedures and marry their old college roomate who works for a big company.
People who have big estates and want to leave them to their children so marry their sons.
The list is endless. Of course it would take imagination and logic. So that counts you out.

So straight people can do this now, right? In fact...you encourage gays to do just that, marry someone of the opposite sex if they want to be married, right?

You know a lot of people who would marry someone of the same gender for all these "bennies" do you?

How many people do you know that takes every tax deduction that can.

OHHHH, there will be many, especially those with high college debt and forced to pay Obamacare

There is no downside

So they can do that now by marrying someone of the opposite sex, yes or no?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Yes. Each year i do my taxes or taxes for others, its pretty common knowledge.

I'll try again

Please link to a source discussing same sex straight marriage and its financial benefits.

GT is an idiot. As the spousal benefits add up and as the sanctity of marriage goes away we will see more of this. There is already an issue with convenience marriages for citizrenship. When marriage is nothing more than a fee and a license, and you can save hundreds of thousands of dollas by doing it it will become commonplace.

Who saves hundreds of thousands of dollars by getting married?

People who lack medical insurance but need expensive procedures and marry their old college roomate who works for a big company.
People who have big estates and want to leave them to their children so marry their sons.
The list is endless. Of course it would take imagination and logic. So that counts you out.

So straight people can do this now, right? In fact...you encourage gays to do just that, marry someone of the opposite sex if they want to be married, right?

You know a lot of people who would marry someone of the same gender for all these "bennies" do you?

And yet, some marrieds get a divorce in order to increase certain benefits.

Really, this latest nonsense just shows how desperate the phobes are.

What lies will they come up with tomorrow?

 

[The Rabbi]

This is exactly where this is headed.
Marriage will cease to have any meaning outside of a financial arrangement.

It was heteros who made it a financial arrangement. It was heteros who demanded government gifts for what they were doing anyway. It was heteros who DEMANDED government in their marriage.

Link? I dont recall anyone asking my opinion on the matter.

Do you think it was gays who demanded all these government gifts for marriage that have been around for decades?

Obtuse dumbass.

Remind me where anyone demanded "government gifts". Citation please.

 

[The Rabbi]

"Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?"

Whatever marriage's faults or failings, whatever objections one might have to the provisions of marriage contracts, those issues have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to access marriage law as required by the 14th Amendment.

No couples do not enjoy rights. Individuals enjoy rights. And there is no one who lacks access to marriage. Same rules for everyone.

You funny...


This is the part where Rabbi tells us gays are allowed to marry people of the opposite sex

Can't make this shit up

So you think gays are not allowed to marry members of the opposite sex? Loser.