Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[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

You are very confused. You talk as if government is your GOD. As if government has handed down the decree that you shall go forth and multiply.

Just because you justify in your own haid that your child tax break is just because your child will be a good little tax payer, does not actually justify your tax break, nor does it justify you PISSING on gays for daring the want the right to marry.

Can you answer the question? What benefit does society get from sanctioning gay marriage?

The exact same benefit it gets from sanctioning straight marriages. (Which goes to the core of the SUCCESSFUL court arguments FOR legal gay marriage as per the 14th amendment)

The question is the FINANCIAL benefit, Trixie. Stop deflecting

 

[ogibillm]

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.

Totally missing the point.
What is the benefit to society of gay marriage?

couples in long term committed relationships are more stable. more likely to own homes, less likely to need government assistance.
a gay couple can have children, so any of the benefits of straight couples related to the upbringing of children applies to gay couples as well.

 

[kaz]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species.

The idiotic assumption behind this "concept" is that people will stop having sex and kids if the government doesn't pay them to, and it just does not get more retarded than that.

Was the human race on the verge of dying out before the government gifts were put in place?

NOPE!!!

You just want to keep those gifts for yourself. You are attempting to rationalize a way to keep your special privileges. That's all this is.

Strawman

 

[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

You are very confused. You talk as if government is your GOD. As if government has handed down the decree that you shall go forth and multiply.

Just because you justify in your own haid that your child tax break is just because your child will be a good little tax payer, does not actually justify your tax break, nor does it justify you PISSING on gays for daring the want the right to marry.

Can you answer the question? What benefit does society get from sanctioning gay marriage?

The exact same benefit it gets from sanctioning straight marriages. (Which goes to the core of the SUCCESSFUL court arguments FOR legal gay marriage as per the 14th amendment)

The question is the FINANCIAL benefit, Trixie. Stop deflecting

You have yet to establish that there is any financial benefit to any taxpayers for subsidizing marriage.

 

[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

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.

Totally missing the point.
What is the benefit to society of gay marriage?

True, but more specifically is what is the financial benefit. If we are funding something with $$$, we should have a $$$ reason for doing it

There is no financially sane reason for giving government gifts to people who are going to marry, mate, and/or have children regardless of government intervention in their lives.

None.

It's a gimme gimme gimme boondoggle. Nothing more.

I keep having to remind the left, its not the government's money its the people's money and if the people have decided to encourage traditional marriage between men and women, to encourage the traditional family using a bit of the peoples money then so be it its their money.

If I were a single person- why should 'the people' take away my money to give it to other people they find more acceptable?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Silly OP, indeed.

The benefit of marriage to society is supposedly a stable family platform, whether just the spouses, or the spouses and the family members.

 

[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

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.

Totally missing the point.
What is the benefit to society of gay marriage?

ZERO. Nuttly like most left wingers just wants to impose his morality on the rest of us.

Americans want to impose equality. Indeed, our country was founded on that principle.

The real question is why do anti-America RWs fight equality?

Gays already have equality. Problem solved, next...

What is the answer to the question actually asked? What financial benefit is there to society we should fund gay mating?

We shouldn't be funding any mating.

But marriage laws should apply to all couples- whether they are straight or gay.

 

[Syriusly]

Silly OP, indeed.

The benefit of marriage to society is supposedly a stable family platform, whether just the spouses, or the spouses and the family members.

It is telling that the OP just wants to keep the goodies away from gays- and not straights that would fall under the same criteria.

Just another anti-gay thread from Kaz.

 

[kaz]

They'll argue things like "fairness" and "equal protection." But your point is well taken. There is no benefit to society from gay marriage.

What benefit does "society" get from heterosexual marriage? Your being married to a woman is of no benefit to me or anybody else I know personally, and if a poll were taken I'd say the majority of Americans would say they derive no benefit from your marriage. I have no idea whether you're married or not, for the record, merely hypothesizing that you are.

That is wrong. Kaz dealt with the benefit in the OP.

Kaz said the propagation of the species, but your having children has zero benefit to me. Kaz merely stated that this was a benefit without defending it.

Actually I said that's the "concept behind it." If you are saying you don't know most people think the purpose of government marriage is children, I'm calling you a liar. You do know that

 

[orogenicman]

Ironic post is ironic.
Ron Paul supports traditional marriage btw.

Ron Paul supports eliminating the very government gifts of which I speak.

You are a welfare slave on the government plantation who does not want to leave the massah's porch and strike out on your own.

Same sex marriage wouldn't even be an issue were it not for all the government gifts involved, you dumb slave!

Wow, that's quite a racist mouth you have.

I am using the identical rhetoric the GOP has been using for decades. It is far past time to point out who ALL the welfare slaves are.

And you realize, of course, that there are far more white people on welfare than any other group. Right?

ROFL pretty funny when someone is incapable of working with percentages. Yes, there are a heluva lot more white folk in the USA than any other group. The issue is not the size of the group, the issue is the percentage of people in the group that are permanently poor based on their dependence and allegiance to hand-out programs of the democrat party.

I didn't say percentages. I'm talking about raw numbers. There are more white people on welfare than any other group. The issue IS the size of the group, because, for example, 20 million people use up more resources than 10 million.

 

[kaz]

There is an overpopulation concern by the real 1%. The Global Initiative has embraced abortion and gay coupling to curb the population.

That would be affecting the wrong population, we aren't having enough kids in the US. It doesn't help Ethiopia to not have kids here

Actually, minorities in this country are largely having healthy batches of children. The group that is not generating enough children are white people. They have the lowest rate in the country.

I said that's the concept behind it, this is a tangent. I don't even agree with government marriage at all

 

[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

You are very confused. You talk as if government is your GOD. As if government has handed down the decree that you shall go forth and multiply.

Just because you justify in your own haid that your child tax break is just because your child will be a good little tax payer, does not actually justify your tax break, nor does it justify you PISSING on gays for daring the want the right to marry.

Can you answer the question? What benefit does society get from sanctioning gay marriage?

What benefit does society get from sanctioning marriage?

My 80 something uncle got married last year to a woman in her 70's- what benefit does societ get from sanctioning their marriage?

Even more to the point- he is somewhat wealthy- if he dies before she does- she will inherit his estate without paying any estate tax.

How do other taxpayers benefit from that?

Irrelevant to my question, start your own thread. I'll agree with you on this there

 

[orogenicman]

There is an overpopulation concern by the real 1%. The Global Initiative has embraced abortion and gay coupling to curb the population.

That would be affecting the wrong population, we aren't having enough kids in the US. It doesn't help Ethiopia to not have kids here

Actually, minorities in this country are largely having healthy batches of children. The group that is not generating enough children are white people. They have the lowest rate in the country.

I said that's the concept behind it, this is a tangent. I don't even agree with government marriage at all

You are not required to agree. You are only required to obey the law.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Totally missing the point.
What is the benefit to society of gay marriage?

ZERO. Nuttly like most left wingers just wants to impose his morality on the rest of us.

Americans want to impose equality. Indeed, our country was founded on that principle.

The real question is why do anti-America RWs fight equality?

You cannot impose equality by virtue of the fact that no two people are the same. Everyone in this country has the ability to achieve. What you seek is equality of outcome, which will never happen. Ever.

Get over it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Totally missing the point.
What is the benefit to society of gay marriage?

Dumb question but the answer is - same as for straight couples. No difference.


.

Clearly that cannot be. Straight couples tend to procreate. Gay couples cannot.
Next.

"Tend to" does not define as "always will". And yet those who do not/cannot procreate are allowed to marry. And some gay couples tend to have children too.

Gay couples cannot have children... it's physiology 101.

 

[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..."

Wrong.

You clearly don't 'get it' at all.

Infertile opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry, and older married opposite-sex couples are not compelled to divorce because they're no longer able to have children.

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state where the state participates as a party to the marriage contract, procreation has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the contract or marriage.

Consequently the premise of your thread fails as a straw man fallacy

Non sequitur to the quote. Once again , you are illiterate. I said that's the "concept of straight marriage." A point you either didn't grasp or you are just a liar because you do know that's why most people think marriage should exist

 

[kaz]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

If the fundie nutters get what they want, this is a first step in requiring heterosexual couples to reproduce in order for their marriage to be legally recognized and for them to get the couple's tax break.

Note to OP -

1. If you're not gay, you really can't say what their sex is like FOR THEM.

2. No one "subsidizes" stay-at-home mothers and, if they can afford it, there's no other reason why a gay parent cannot stay home with their child.

Gays make up less than 5% of our population. An even smaller percentage of those will get married. You really think this will amount to much money?

The hateful RWs really need to stop their meddling and MYOB.

Totally missing the point.
What is the benefit to society of gay marriage?

True, but more specifically is what is the financial benefit. If we are funding something with $$$, we should have a $$$ reason for doing it

There is no financially sane reason for giving government gifts to people who are going to marry, mate, and/or have children regardless of government intervention in their lives.

None.

It's a gimme gimme gimme boondoggle. Nothing more.

Thank you, the first leftist to clearly answer the question. There is no financial benefit to society to fund gay mating

 

[kaz]

A gay couple with no children will pay several THOUSAND dollars more in federal taxes than a hetero couple with, say, 2 kids, based on deductions and credits.

all else being equal.

Who's subsidizing who????

Very good point.

This thread is just one more sign of the phobe's desperation.

There is not reason why gay should not have the exact same marriage as straights. None.

Except, of course, the meddling RWs want total control over people's lives.

So you can't answer the question, got it

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Totally missing the point.
What is the benefit to society of gay marriage?

ZERO. Nuttly like most left wingers just wants to impose his morality on the rest of us.

Americans want to impose equality. Indeed, our country was founded on that principle.

The real question is why do anti-America RWs fight equality?

You cannot impose equality by virtue of the fact that no two people are the same. Everyone in this country has the ability to achieve. What you seek is equality of outcome, which will never happen. Ever.

Get over it.

The issue isn't equality of achievement. The issue is equality of opportunity.

 

[kaz]

Silly OP, indeed.

The benefit of marriage to society is supposedly a stable family platform, whether just the spouses, or the spouses and the family members.

It is telling that the OP just wants to keep the goodies away from gays- and not straights that would fall under the same criteria.

Just another anti-gay thread from Kaz.

Still can't grasp a post, can you, Skippy