Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

The "concept of government marriage" doesn't require proof they will have children. They may or may not.

But gay sex does not ever lead to children, so that is clearly not part of the "concept of government marriage."

You don't lose a baseball game because you don't get a hit on every at bat. But gays in their entirety are batting an O fer

And it's back to "we don't like the sex you have".

You said it yourself...No proof of children required (prohibited by law actually in some cases. Cousin marriage law in the United States by state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You cannot deny civil marriage to a convicted murderer on death row (there are no conjugal visits for death row inmates. Death Row Prisoners Visitation Rights Criminal Law). This was determined by a SCOTUS ruling. Turner v. Safley - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia...further destroying your anti gay argument.

Who is "we?"

You and the other anti gay bigot that want to apply a standard to gays that does not apply to straights.

I don't give a shit what sex you have, what does that have to do with the discussion?

99% of what you've said in this thread proves you give a BIG shit about what sex people have.

Leftists never get when you are being mocked. At first I thought it was arrogance, now I think it's just plain old fashioned stupidity

 

[Syriusly]

Biology has nothing to do with parenting

Marriage is critical to many heterosexual families though, and unfortunately they usually equate marriage with government marriage.t

Marriage is either crucial to families or it is it not crucial to families.

And that is irregardless of whether the parents are straight or gay.

And any marriage that is not 'government marriage' in the United States is no different from being 'boyfriend and girlfriend' or 'close friends' or 'partnership' or 'tennis doubles'

Two fuck buddies shacking up together is not a family.

According to Kaz that is a marriage.

 

[Faun]

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

Because feelings have become more important than anything else. Gays want the power of government to sell the belief that same sex relations is equivalent to opposite sex relations. Any grade schooler not already brainwashed knows better. It's how a species exists. I think it may be even bigger than that. If you can get a population to believe that you can get them to believe anything, the hard part is done, their minds are yours for the shaping.

It certainly is equal legally. The 14th Amendment's equal protection clause does not apply to heterosexuals only.

 

[kaz]

You sure have an inflated ego that they should KNOW you're not a garden variety anti gay bigot and that they should all have been paying such close attention to you.

So, stop deflecting and address the point about marriage and procreation.

So you're just skipping right on by their having long term memories, ay?

Also, you need to refresh yourself on the sequence, which I actually laid out in my post

So they are pretending that they didn't read what you posted earlier? That just goes to show how profoundly the dishonest the queers are. That's why I hate debating them. The don't debate. They only spew propaganda.

Exactly, I was making the point when I was serious that they just kept calling me a homophobe. Seawytch and I discussed it, she knew what I was doing. I was obvious about it. Then she's like duh, dar, how would they know?

As you say, it's just dishonest of them all and it shows what a waste reasoning with them is

 

[oldernwiser]

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

Ummm... That's quite a stretch wouldn't you say? Taxpayers don't subsidize ANY marriage - and if you can show they do, I'll get married tomorrow.

 

[kaz]

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

Because feelings have become more important than anything else. Gays want the power of government to sell the belief that same sex relations is equivalent to opposite sex relations. Any grade schooler not already brainwashed knows better. It's how a species exists. I think it may be even bigger than that. If you can get a population to believe that you can get them to believe anything, the hard part is done, their minds are yours for the shaping.

It certainly is equal legally. The 14th Amendment's equal protection clause does not apply to heterosexuals only.

Nope, they have the same right as everyone else, it certainly doesn't

 

[Seawytch]

Biology has nothing to do with parenting

Marriage is critical to many heterosexual families though, and unfortunately they usually equate marriage with government marriage.t

Marriage is either crucial to families or it is it not crucial to families.

And that is irregardless of whether the parents are straight or gay.

And any marriage that is not 'government marriage' in the United States is no different from being 'boyfriend and girlfriend' or 'close friends' or 'partnership' or 'tennis doubles'

Yes, authoritarian leftist that you are, marriage, families, sex, morality, they are all up to government. You're sick, my little friend

Civil marriages like yours you mean, of course.

They're pretty awesome, aren't they? My family has benefited greatly from ours in both a financial sense and a sense of security and well being. We actually have fewer things to worry about as a result and our kids get a kick out of being able to say they are among the rare few in their respective classes whose parents are still married.

I can see why stingy straights want to keep the goodies to themselves.

 

[kaz]

Biology has nothing to do with parenting

Marriage is critical to many heterosexual families though, and unfortunately they usually equate marriage with government marriage.t

Marriage is either crucial to families or it is it not crucial to families.

And that is irregardless of whether the parents are straight or gay.

And any marriage that is not 'government marriage' in the United States is no different from being 'boyfriend and girlfriend' or 'close friends' or 'partnership' or 'tennis doubles'

Yes, authoritarian leftist that you are, marriage, families, sex, morality, they are all up to government. You're sick, my little friend

LOL......look if you want to call your relationship with your pillow, marriage- I don't really care.

But if you want a real marriage in the United States- you do what my wife and I did- you get legally married.

That's cute, you call yourself a husband? How do you decide which you are? Or do you take turns?

 

[kaz]

You sure have an inflated ego that they should KNOW you're not a garden variety anti gay bigot and that they should all have been paying such close attention to you.

So, stop deflecting and address the point about marriage and procreation.

So you're just skipping right on by their having long term memories, ay?

Also, you need to refresh yourself on the sequence, which I actually laid out in my post

Why do you assume that you're memorable?

The sequence of what? There is no sequence that justifies you wanting to hold gays to a standard you would not hold straights to.

So you think liberals are so stupid they can't remember the views of people they post with on the same topic for years?

Really?

You're probably right, but I'm stunned you'd admit that

 

[Syriusly]

And it's back to "we don't like the sex you have".

You said it yourself...No proof of children required (prohibited by law actually in some cases. Cousin marriage law in the United States by state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You cannot deny civil marriage to a convicted murderer on death row (there are no conjugal visits for death row inmates. Death Row Prisoners Visitation Rights Criminal Law). This was determined by a SCOTUS ruling. Turner v. Safley - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia...further destroying your anti gay argument.

Who is "we?"

You and the other anti gay bigot that want to apply a standard to gays that does not apply to straights.

I don't give a shit what sex you have, what does that have to do with the discussion?

You are the one who keeps bringing up sex- not her.

I am talking about procreation, she is talking about recreational sex.

No- this entire thread is about you talking about gay sex- no procreation.

You want to make a false distinction- a lie- that hetero sex is all about procreation and gay sex is only about 'recreation'.

Most heterosexual sex is 'recreational'- probably somewhere in the range of 99.9%.

Marriage is not about sex- anyone can have sex in or out of marriage. Marriage can be good for children- but we don't expect married couples to have children, nor do we give benefits to the couple based upon them being married AND having children.

What benefits there are fall into two categories:
A)Married
B) For children

You give A whether you have children or not. You get B whether you are married or not.

You want to exclude gay couples from the bennies you receive- i.e. you want them to pay for your bennies- by denying them A.

Even though it doesn't change B.

 

[kaz]

Biology has nothing to do with parenting

Marriage is critical to many heterosexual families though, and unfortunately they usually equate marriage with government marriage.t

Marriage is either crucial to families or it is it not crucial to families.

And that is irregardless of whether the parents are straight or gay.

And any marriage that is not 'government marriage' in the United States is no different from being 'boyfriend and girlfriend' or 'close friends' or 'partnership' or 'tennis doubles'

Two fuck buddies shacking up together is not a family.

According to Kaz that is a marriage.

Actually I said they have the right to consider it a marriage themselves, but you're essentially correct

 

[Faun]

Exactly. Kaz lied his ass off

Yet you keep confirming I am correct...

Nope, he keeps confirming you lied as you attributed a statement to him which he apparently didn't make.

Well, that would be a lie as I never said he made the "statement," I said it's what he thinks

Thanks, kaz!

I claim you're a pathological liar who can't refrain from lying, and here you do me the favor of lying again.

When you deny you claim he said that, but that you said he thought that -- you are once again, lying.....

"you call the British PM and British intelligence liars..." - a pathological liar ​

I don't think he is pathological- that implies he can't control his lying. He chooses to lie.

You could be right. You point out how he chooses to lie and he agreed with you.

 

[Syriusly]

Biology has nothing to do with parenting

Marriage is critical to many heterosexual families though, and unfortunately they usually equate marriage with government marriage.t

Marriage is either crucial to families or it is it not crucial to families.

And that is irregardless of whether the parents are straight or gay.

And any marriage that is not 'government marriage' in the United States is no different from being 'boyfriend and girlfriend' or 'close friends' or 'partnership' or 'tennis doubles'

Yes, authoritarian leftist that you are, marriage, families, sex, morality, they are all up to government. You're sick, my little friend

LOL......look if you want to call your relationship with your pillow, marriage- I don't really care.

But if you want a real marriage in the United States- you do what my wife and I did- you get legally married.

That's cute, you call yourself a husband? How do you decide which you are? Or do you take turns?

????

As I recall you are married also- how did you decide whether to call yourself a husband? did you take a poll of your friends and family? Ask your daddy what you should be called? Or do you take turns, so you take on the female term sometimes?

 

[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

Ummm... That's quite a stretch wouldn't you say? Taxpayers don't subsidize ANY marriage - and if you can show they do, I'll get married tomorrow.

You get a tax rate reduction, government sure as hell doesn't take the money out of the budget and not spend it. So yeah, someone else is paying for it. Or did you think government money appears by magic?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Two major problems with that argument.

First, gays have kids. Before gay marriage was recognized there were an estimated 40,000 children of same sex parents in California alone. So the 'do not perpetuate the species' angle is moot.

Second, who says you have to perpetuate the species in order to get married? Infertile people marry all the time. Infertile folks stay married. People get married and choose never to have kids. Yet they're perfectly welcome to the union. So the criteria selected (perpetuation of the species)isn't one that we use for any couple. Nor is it required of anyone.

So why would we apply this standard to gays?

Homos don't have kids. They require a hetero to procreate.
Again, lefties with no brains.

They do? So a gay man can't donate his sperm to a gay woman?

Sure, and then the other gay parent isn't involved in the parentage, which is the concept of government marriage, making babies ... together ....

Once again:

Government marriage: Bob and Dolores Hope with their adopted children.

View attachment 41488

So should the Hope's have been denied 'the concept of government marriage'?

Or is that just a rationalization for discrimination against gays?

Its funny how horridly anti-adoption that conservatives have become, isn't it?

They will throw anything under the bus if th

You sure have an inflated ego that they should KNOW you're not a garden variety anti gay bigot and that they should all have been paying such close attention to you.

So, stop deflecting and address the point about marriage and procreation.

So you're just skipping right on by their having long term memories, ay?

Also, you need to refresh yourself on the sequence, which I actually laid out in my post

Why do you assume that you're memorable?

The sequence of what? There is no sequence that justifies you wanting to hold gays to a standard you would not hold straights to.

So you think liberals are so stupid they can't remember the views of people they post with on the same topic for years?

Really?

You're probably right, but I'm stunned you'd admit that

LOL I proved you wrong on that today.

Did you make a post telling us why the CDC is constitutional?

I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for that one.

 

[Seawytch]

And it's back to "we don't like the sex you have".

You said it yourself...No proof of children required (prohibited by law actually in some cases. Cousin marriage law in the United States by state - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You cannot deny civil marriage to a convicted murderer on death row (there are no conjugal visits for death row inmates. Death Row Prisoners Visitation Rights Criminal Law). This was determined by a SCOTUS ruling. Turner v. Safley - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia...further destroying your anti gay argument.

Who is "we?"

You and the other anti gay bigot that want to apply a standard to gays that does not apply to straights.

I don't give a shit what sex you have, what does that have to do with the discussion?

You are the one who keeps bringing up sex- not her.

I am talking about procreation, she is talking about recreational sex. I don't care about gay recreational sex, unless it's a couple of hottie girls who made a video, but it doesn't lean to procreation.

Try to keep up

I'm saying your entire argument boils down to you don't like how gays have sex. Many straights don't procreate so it has nothing to do with civil marriage. Many gays do procreate so, again, it has nothing to do with civil marriage. Some people are even prohibited from procreating and must prove they can't before they can marry.

You have no argument "financially".

 

[kaz]

Biology has nothing to do with parenting

Marriage is critical to many heterosexual families though, and unfortunately they usually equate marriage with government marriage.t

Marriage is either crucial to families or it is it not crucial to families.

And that is irregardless of whether the parents are straight or gay.

And any marriage that is not 'government marriage' in the United States is no different from being 'boyfriend and girlfriend' or 'close friends' or 'partnership' or 'tennis doubles'

Yes, authoritarian leftist that you are, marriage, families, sex, morality, they are all up to government. You're sick, my little friend

Civil marriages like yours you mean, of course.

They're pretty awesome, aren't they? My family has benefited greatly from ours in both a financial sense and a sense of security and well being. We actually have fewer things to worry about as a result and our kids get a kick out of being able to say they are among the rare few in their respective classes whose parents are still married.

I can see why stingy straights want to keep the goodies to themselves.

Yes, you've given me your advice, my wife is nothing, leave tread marks down her back as I inform her it's my way or the highway

Do you hold your breath while you're doing that to your partner too?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Ummm... That's quite a stretch wouldn't you say? Taxpayers don't subsidize ANY marriage - and if you can show they do, I'll get married tomorrow.

You get a tax rate reduction, government sure as hell doesn't take the money out of the budget and not spend it. So yeah, someone else is paying for it. Or did you think government money appears by magic?

You get bigger tax rate deductions for having kids. Why aren't you crying about that?

 

[Syriusly]

You sure have an inflated ego that they should KNOW you're not a garden variety anti gay bigot and that they should all have been paying such close attention to you.

So, stop deflecting and address the point about marriage and procreation.

So you're just skipping right on by their having long term memories, ay?

Also, you need to refresh yourself on the sequence, which I actually laid out in my post

So they are pretending that they didn't read what you posted earlier? That just goes to show how profoundly the dishonest the queers are. That's why I hate debating them. The don't debate. They only spew propaganda.

Exactly, I was making the point when I was serious that they just kept calling me a homophobe. Seawytch and I discussed it, she knew what I was doing. I was obvious about it. Then she's like duh, dar, how would they know?

As you say, it's just dishonest of them all and it shows what a waste reasoning with them is

Fascinating the rationalizations liars have for why its okay for them to lie.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Biology has nothing to do with parenting

Marriage is critical to many heterosexual families though, and unfortunately they usually equate marriage with government marriage.t

Marriage is either crucial to families or it is it not crucial to families.

And that is irregardless of whether the parents are straight or gay.

And any marriage that is not 'government marriage' in the United States is no different from being 'boyfriend and girlfriend' or 'close friends' or 'partnership' or 'tennis doubles'

Correct.

The notion of 'getting government out of marriage' is ignorant and ridiculous; it's nothing more than a temper-tantrum by bigots hostile to gay Americans.