Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

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

Read my OP post, you retard

 

[kaz]

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.

This whole thread is a lie, Einstein. It's mocking you by applying your own standard to you

 

[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

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?

WE get it, Kaz...you and me both civilly married individuals get it (if we choose to take it) just like we both get/got the child tax credits (that I got for a full 8 years before I could civilly marry)

 

[kaz]

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?

I'm in a real marriage, I'm a man married to a woman

 

[kaz]

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.

QED

 

[kaz]

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".

When you learn to read, read my first post and get back to me. Are you getting dizzy with all that spin?

 

[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?

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

Jesus, back with the water works? Get back to me when you calm down. Here's a bag, breath into it

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

QED

Which post? I know that jabbering like a monkey is a con fave but could you pause for a moment and speak English?

 

[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

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

What difference does lying to a bunch of fag and fag lovers make?

 

[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?

Jesus, back with the water works? Get back to me when you calm down. Here's a bag, breath into it

So you deny that there are huge tax breaks for having children?

Prove it.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Actually in all of the years we have been married, we have paid less than filing separately about 70% of the time- and the rest we paid more for being married.

 

[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'

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.

They need to repent and find Jesus before they suffer eternal flames. There is no hostility in trying to save them from that fate, it's love

 

[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.

What difference does lying to a bunch of fag and fag lovers make?

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

 

[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.

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?

I don't throw mine under the bus every chance I get.

Do you tell her this is how you feel about your marriage that she holds in such high regard?

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

 

[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?

WE get it, Kaz...you and me both civilly married individuals get it (if we choose to take it) just like we both get/got the child tax credits (that I got for a full 8 years before I could civilly marry)

The fundamental difference between that is that I oppose the rate of government spending we have and you demand more. Then you evade the taxes you advocate needed to pay for it.

There's a word for that. It starts with "h" and ends with "ypocrisy"

 

[kaz]

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

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.

QED

Which post? I know that jabbering like a monkey is a con fave but could you pause for a moment and speak English?

Here you go, I am referring to this: "So you think liberals are so stupid they can't remember the views of people they post with on the same topic for years?"

You just proved her correct

 

[Syriusly]

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?

WE get it, Kaz...you and me both civilly married individuals get it (if we choose to take it) just like we both get/got the child tax credits (that I got for a full 8 years before I could civilly marry)

The fundamental difference between that is that I oppose the rate of government spending we have and you demand more.

The fundamental difference is you have yours- and you don't want anyone else to get what you get.

If they are gay.

 

[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?

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

Jesus, back with the water works? Get back to me when you calm down. Here's a bag, breath into it

So you deny that there are huge tax breaks for having children?

Prove it.

Arguing with the voices in your head again? I don't defend the voices in your head's comments, I'll leave that to you

 

[Seawytch]

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.

What difference does lying to a bunch of fag and fag lovers make?

Yup...flows easier and easier off the tongue doesn't it? Come out of the homophobe closet, Kaz. Embrace the anti gay bigot in you.

 

[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?

Actually in all of the years we have been married, we have paid less than filing separately about 70% of the time- and the rest we paid more for being married.

Then your wife is not staying at home, which is the "concept of marriage," making it more affordable for kids to have stay at home mothers. Government isn't paying in your case for what it isn't getting, nothing wrong with her working or with government not paying for her to not work when she does work