Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

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

You are full of shit. And you're a hypocrite. Either admit you treat your partner that way or cut the crap. Obviously you don't

 

[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.

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

If they are gay.

That would be a good argument if I gave a shit about the government in my marriage, but I don't

 

[kaz]

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.

Oh, I've had a potty mouth a long time, there's nothing new there. Interestingly enough though, I almost never curse

 

[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.

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

Hmm- the concept of 'marriage' requires the 'wifie' to be home- and to have children?

I must have missed that update in Kaz's Instructions to the World.

 

[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

Hmm- the concept of 'marriage' requires the 'wifie' to be home- and to have children?

I must have missed that update in Kaz's Instructions to the World.

Read my first post, retard

 

[Syriusly]

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.

That would be a good argument if I gave a shit about the government in my marriage, but I don't

But that is exactly what you are arguing. If you didn't give a shit you wouldn't be legally married- but you are.

And you happily wallow at the trough you complain about- and want to keep everyone away from the trough- since you have yours.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Hmm- the concept of 'marriage' requires the 'wifie' to be home- and to have children?

I must have missed that update in Kaz's Instructions to the World.

Read my first post, retard

Oh so that was Kaz's Manifesto on Marriage......lol.....

 

[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.

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

Still waiting to hear how you ended being called 'husband' in your marriage- was it a popular election, did you just go by what your Daddy told you, or do you swap out titles with your wife?

 

[kaz]

So none of you leftists can answer the question? Why should society fund gay mating? I in no way advocate stopping it, but why should society pay for it? What is in it for society to do that? Nothing.

Just like those evil Republicans caused the Boob In Chief to shut down government, they wanted government, why did they have to pay to shut it down? And Obama was so incompetent he spent more shutting it down than operating it. What an idiot he is, how do you spend more shutting something down than operating it? And he was bragging about that.

And Democrats have to pay for the military and wars they oppose, why should they have to do that?

And they object to spending money on abstinence programs and allowing creationism to be taught in schools, why should they have to pay for that, they oppose it?

But hey, butt fucking and chewing on carpets? We need to pay for that, it's fair. Why? At least with heterosexual marriage there is a "concept" of perpetuation of the species and helping mothers stay home with their children. There is no concept for gay marriages, you can't procreate with gay sex. So why are we being asked to fund that? For what purpose? What do the taxpayers paying for it get out of it?

 

[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

Still waiting to hear how you ended being called 'husband' in your marriage- was it a popular election, did you just go by what your Daddy told you, or do you swap out titles with your wife?

I pay the bills

 

[kaz]

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

Hmm- the concept of 'marriage' requires the 'wifie' to be home- and to have children?

I must have missed that update in Kaz's Instructions to the World.

Read my first post, retard

Oh so that was Kaz's Manifesto on Marriage......lol.....

No, read my first post, retard

 

[kaz]

I must have missed that update in Kaz's Instructions to the World.

You are missing a lot of things. Some of them are important.

but if you read the first post, retard, it will tell you what you're missing in your recent spat of posts

 

[Syriusly]

I must have missed that update in Kaz's Instructions to the World.

You are missing a lot of things. Some of them are important.

but if you read the first post, retard, it will tell you what you're missing in your recent spat of posts

I read it- it was just Kaz's manifesto on why Kaz should get his government bennies and deny them to homosexuals.

Kaz got his- and he wants homosexuals to pay for his bennies.

 

[kaz]

I must have missed that update in Kaz's Instructions to the World.

You are missing a lot of things. Some of them are important.

but if you read the first post, retard, it will tell you what you're missing in your recent spat of posts

I read it- it was just Kaz's manifesto on why Kaz should get his government bennies and deny them to homosexuals.

Kaz got his- and he wants homosexuals to pay for his bennies.

Can't comment on what the voices in your head are saying to you sorry

 

[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.

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

You're too stupid for words. Everyone else can legally marry the person they love and hope to spend the rest of their life together. Gays can't.

 

[Iceweasel]

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

You're too stupid for words. Everyone else can legally marry the person they love and hope to spend the rest of their life together. Gays can't.

So you support a man marrying his dad? Gross!

 

[Faun]

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

He said you lied and you agreed. Why would I argue that?

 

[rightwinger]

Still waiting for my gay tax

 

[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?

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

My wife does. Now try justifying not treating my civil marriage exactly like yours again.

 

[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)

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"

Oh I get it...only people that don't like taxes should get the tax breaks. That is some rationalizationizing ya got going on there.

Silly, I support a progressive tax...like the one we have that incentivizes.