Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Faun]

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

If you're the husband because you pay the bills; does that mean you become the wife if you lose your job and your wife starts paying the bills?

Yes, then I would be a little bitch like you

Nah, I'm the man in my house. Always and under any circumstances. You? You just admitted you can be the wife.

 

[GreenBean]

Women and children make up a clear majority of HIV cases.

Tell that to the CDC and scientific community - I'm sure they need a good laugh. You sir are ludicrous - but I will give you credit for trying to argue that black is white and 2+2=5 - it takes some chutzpah

 

[bodecea]

Gays have kids

Not gay couples, the concept of government marriage

Now you're railing against government marriage....not gay marriage?

Well that was easy.

Ask him what he's actively done to get rid of that government marriage he's so against.

 

[Care4all]

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

Can you please explain how this gay couple is being subsidized by the tax payers by their marriage?

I don't know what subsidies you are speaking about? What tax benefit are they getting that anyone else is not getting?

 

[Skylar]

Women and children make up a clear majority of HIV cases.

Tell that to the CDC and scientific community - I'm sure they need a good laugh.

Show me where the CDC claims its numbers are for world wide infections.

You'll find the CDC made no such claim. You simply misread the numbers

You sir are ludicrous - but I will give you credit for trying to argue that black is white and 2+2=5 - it takes some chutzpah

Chutzpah is completely unnecessary. Just basic literacy wil do:

• More than 1.2 million people in the United States are living with HIV infection, and almost 1 in 7 (14%) are unaware of their infection.

.HIV in the United States Statistics Overview Statistics Center HIV AIDS CDC

Hell, the title of the page is 'HIV in the United States'. And still you completely missed it.

Don't worry, Green...I've got the reading part covered. You just look pretty.

 

[bodecea]

Even by your 'procreation' standard, SeaWitch meets every criteria

Nope, she had a test tube baby, she's the parent and the only parent in the government marriage. Read my original post

Now you are telling us about what kind of babies we had.

 

[Faun]

So you support a man marrying his dad? Gross!

If it makes you feel any better, I find that disgusting as well. But I do support choice. It's not my place to determine who can marry who as long as it's between consenting adults.

The question, if you ever decide to read my original post, is why we should be paying for that

Because they should be treated equal under the law.

 

[Londoner]

Kaz doesn't want to pay taxes for the people he doesn't understand - people who he thinks have chosen an evil path, people who he hates, people who he fears, people who he has been told represent the moral decay of his beloved nation.

On the other hand, I don't want to pay taxes to support Kaz's discrimination.

If we listened to social conservatives (on both sides of the aisle), then blacks would still be property and women would still be denied suffrage.

History shows us that some of our deepest moral, social and physical truths change/evolve.

We use to think the earth was the center of the solar system. Medical science in the 1800s told us that women were hysterical and incapable of meeting the emotional and cognitive rigors of civic duty. Medical science also told us that blacks were closer to primates than homosapiens. One day it will be common knowledge that homosexuality is a morally benign genetic variation in a sea of variations - and, moreover, that we shouldn't exclude people based on consensual sexual behavior.

There will always be a group of well-meaning people who resist change, sometimes for good reason, sometimes because they genuinely don't known any better. I'm not sure whether Kaz is right or wrong, but I do think we should reduce the state to a vending machine for contracts (and not a moral big brother). And.. that we should maximize the rights of the greatest number of people.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're not supposed to get anything out of a gay couple raising a family.

They just want you to stop telling them what to do, and stay away

Tell that to the baker who was fined $135,000.

The Baker didn't get fined because of gay marriage. He got fined because he violated PA laws.

If it was merely gay marriage.....why didn't all bakers in the state get the same fine?

Skylar, your a despicable lying POS queer.

 

[Skylar]

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're not supposed to get anything out of a gay couple raising a family.

They just want you to stop telling them what to do, and stay away

Tell that to the baker who was fined $135,000.

The Baker didn't get fined because of gay marriage. He got fined because he violated PA laws.

If it was merely gay marriage.....why didn't all bakers in the state get the same fine?

Skylar, your a despicable lying POS queer.

I'm simply informed. Which is why you fail.

 

[Faun]

You said I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars

Exactly, you worship Miriam, but you call the British Intelligence liars when they did the same thing. You can't deny it, and you don't

The obvious problem with your reasoning being......you lied about me calling the British PM and British Intelligence liars. You made it up.

And I absolutely deny calling the British PM and British Intelligence liars. I've never even debated the topic. You made up the debate, you made up my participation in it, you made up my dialogue. All pulled sideways out of your ass.

You lied, you were caught lying....and you're still desperately scrambling to keep perpetrating the lie.

Which is exactly my point.

So you admit the Democrats lied and W told the truth? He said, " “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

You believe him and the Democrats lied when they said W lied? They played politics with the truth and lied their asses off when they said W lied?

Who said the British had to lie? They determined their intel was seriously flawed.

 

[toxicmedia]

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're not supposed to get anything out of a gay couple raising a family.

They just want you to stop telling them what to do, and stay away

Tell that to the baker who was fined $135,000.

Oregon law does not allow private businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation, and the bakery is not a religious organization.

She broke the law, and gay haters collected donations on line to pay the fine.

Breaking the law is expensive sometimes.

You must be a mental midget to actually believe God would hold it against you if you baked gays a cake.

Some people are a waste of skin

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're not supposed to get anything out of a gay couple raising a family.

They just want you to stop telling them what to do, and stay away

Tell that to the baker who was fined $135,000.

The Baker didn't get fined because of gay marriage. He got fined because he violated PA laws.

If it was merely gay marriage.....why didn't all bakers in the state get the same fine?

Skylar, your a despicable lying POS queer.

I'm simply informed. Which is why you fail.

I said you were a liar. I didn't say you were misinformed. You can't post anything honest, can you?

 

[toxicmedia]

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're not supposed to get anything out of a gay couple raising a family.

They just want you to stop telling them what to do, and stay away

Tell that to the baker who was fined $135,000.

The Baker didn't get fined because of gay marriage. He got fined because he violated PA laws.

If it was merely gay marriage.....why didn't all bakers in the state get the same fine?

The bakery broke anti discrimination laws

 

[Faun]

You said I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars

Exactly, you worship Miriam, but you call the British Intelligence liars when they did the same thing. You can't deny it, and you don't

The obvious problem with your reasoning being......you lied about me calling the British PM and British Intelligence liars. You made it up.

And I absolutely deny calling the British PM and British Intelligence liars. I've never even debated the topic. You made up the debate, you made up my participation in it, you made up my dialogue. All pulled sideways out of your ass.

You lied, you were caught lying....and you're still desperately scrambling to keep perpetrating the lie.

Which is exactly my point.

So you admit the Democrats lied and W told the truth? He said, " “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

I admit that you can't quote me calling the British PM and British intelligence liars.

That you made up the debate, made up the conversation, made up my dialogue.....and lied your ass off. And I've denied every calling the British PM and British Intelligence are liars.

Now....quote me calling the British PM and British Intelligence liars. Or admit you made it up. Its one or the other.

He won't admit he lied. In reality, it doesn't matter if he refuses. Anyone reading this knows he lied.

 

[toxicmedia]

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're not supposed to get anything out of a gay couple raising a family.

They just want you to stop telling them what to do, and stay away

Tell that to the baker who was fined $135,000.

The Baker didn't get fined because of gay marriage. He got fined because he violated PA laws.

If it was merely gay marriage.....why didn't all bakers in the state get the same fine?

Skylar, your a despicable lying POS queer.

Stay classy Bripat

 

[Skylar]

You're not supposed to get anything out of a gay couple raising a family.

They just want you to stop telling them what to do, and stay away

Tell that to the baker who was fined $135,000.

The Baker didn't get fined because of gay marriage. He got fined because he violated PA laws.

If it was merely gay marriage.....why didn't all bakers in the state get the same fine?

Skylar, your a despicable lying POS queer.

I'm simply informed. Which is why you fail.

I said you were a liar.

So? See above about you not knowing what you're talking about. You citing you means jack shit, Brit.

So...if the baker was fined $135,000 because of gay marriage.....why weren't all bakers who made wedding cakes similarly fined? Explain that to us.

 

[Skylar]

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're not supposed to get anything out of a gay couple raising a family.

They just want you to stop telling them what to do, and stay away

Tell that to the baker who was fined $135,000.

The Baker didn't get fined because of gay marriage. He got fined because he violated PA laws.

If it was merely gay marriage.....why didn't all bakers in the state get the same fine?

Skylar, your a despicable lying POS queer.

Stay classy Bripat

Its just the fetid aroma of desperation. Bri blinked. His argument was awful. There weren't many options left to him.

 

[Skylar]

You said I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars

Exactly, you worship Miriam, but you call the British Intelligence liars when they did the same thing. You can't deny it, and you don't

The obvious problem with your reasoning being......you lied about me calling the British PM and British Intelligence liars. You made it up.

And I absolutely deny calling the British PM and British Intelligence liars. I've never even debated the topic. You made up the debate, you made up my participation in it, you made up my dialogue. All pulled sideways out of your ass.

You lied, you were caught lying....and you're still desperately scrambling to keep perpetrating the lie.

Which is exactly my point.

So you admit the Democrats lied and W told the truth? He said, " “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

I admit that you can't quote me calling the British PM and British intelligence liars.

That you made up the debate, made up the conversation, made up my dialogue.....and lied your ass off. And I've denied every calling the British PM and British Intelligence are liars.

Now....quote me calling the British PM and British Intelligence liars. Or admit you made it up. Its one or the other.

He won't admit he lied. In reality, it doesn't matter if he refuses. Anyone reading this knows he lied.

That's the beauty: he doesn't have to. As Kaz perpetuating the same lie only proves my point that he's a liar. He can't back up his made up claim. ANd worse, he's trying to push the same lie now.

Which makes Kaz's double down on his fallacious story all the more useful in proving my point:

That he's a liar.

 

[toxicmedia]

You're not supposed to get anything out of a gay couple raising a family.

They just want you to stop telling them what to do, and stay away

Tell that to the baker who was fined $135,000.

The Baker didn't get fined because of gay marriage. He got fined because he violated PA laws.

If it was merely gay marriage.....why didn't all bakers in the state get the same fine?

Skylar, your a despicable lying POS queer.

Stay classy Bripat

Its just the fetid aroma of desperation. Bri blinked. His argument was awful. There weren't many options left to him.

Opposition to gay marriage has become vestigal in a surprisingly short time.

So called conservatives tend to be rural, and that assuages the exposure to reality for some