Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Faun]

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

Yes, this thread is mocking you, and you are too stupid to grasp it

You still agreed that you lie. I'm not arguing with you on that.

I'm still waiting for Kaz to show me where I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

He can't. He made up the debate and my dialogue for it. And lied his ass off. Which is always amusing when so many of Kaz's arguments rely on us ignoring authoritative, informed sources. And instead believing Kaz.

Um.....why would I believe Kaz when he's demonstrated he lies and has no idea what he's talking about?

I can't think of a single reason.

He also accused me of blaming Reagan for the 1981-82 recessiom even though I blamed it on Volker, not Reagan. He flat out refuses to own up to that lie too.

You said Reagan didn't get a recession, which started 5 months into his Presidency, but Obama isn't responsible for the economy the first year of his Presidency, W's budget. That means a President actually gets handed the economy a year into his Presidency and Reagan got an economy a year into his Presidency in recession.

You think blaming Volker instead of the Democrat Carter gets you off the hook for that. You're wrong

Umm, your pathetic argument falls flat on its face since I didn't blame Reagan for the economy his first year.

Now what, loser? Now what lie do you invent to try and save face after falsely accusing me of blaming Reagan for that recession?

 

[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

I'd rather not have to pay for an offensive military or certain/most farm subsidies but I do.

SUAEI.

Read the post better, you didn't address the question unless you don't think you get anything for having a military

Though farm subsides I agree with you on, we pay subsidies and all it does is cost us money, not sure what your point was on that. They should clearly be eliminated just like gay marriage, we get nothing back for it

 

[kaz]

You are so fucking stupid, it's scary. Is this what Libertarianism is about? An ideology for the stupid to aggregate?

A primary role of the government is to protect our rights. If someone's rights are being denied, the court system you so disdain is a proper avenue for redress. You learned absolutely nothing from the founding of this nation. What a pity.

Libertarians support negative rights. We oppose positive rights. BTW, this is one answer to the question how I am different than a Conservative. You are advocating positive rights, they are entirely different things from negative rights. To call positive rights, "rights" is an oxymoron. And the courts proclaiming positive rights by decree is unsupported by the Constitution and a crime by the courts

 

[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

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?

Two big ones are they pay lower filing jointly tax rates and they are exempt from the death tax. Note it's liberals who demand we have a death tax.

You didn't know married people get those? Seriously?

Why shouldn't they get those?

Begging the question. Read my OP post

 

[Faun]

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.

He protested it by presumably getting a state issued marriage license.

Well, bodecea found a hetero not ready for marriage either. You may not give a shit how your partner feels and do anything her way, but that isn't how real marriage works.

I suppose that's par for the course for a guy who thinks being a husband means has a penis

Again, you lie. I never said I don't give a shit how my wife feels. Of course I do. I never said having a cock is all it takes for me to be the man of the house; though it certainly is part of it. Sadly for you, you have no idea what I'm talking about because you think of yourself as the wife in your relationship.

 

[kaz]

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.

I assumed when you said the father was a gay man he didn't bang you, are you saying that's not the case? I admit that was an assumption on my part, you saying it was wrong?

What are you saying here? Clarify your statement.

Sorry, confused you with seawytch. She said that, not you. You said "we" and I got mixed up

 

[kaz]

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.

I'm a man by action, you claim manhood because you have a penis. And you think that's you looking good in this?

You look like a little girl in this. I too pay the bills in my house. So what? But should some series unfortunate events occur and my wife starts covering the bills, the difference between you and I is that I am still the husband. You said that makes you the wife. You should get on your knees and beg your wife for your cock back. Maybe she'll give it to you.

I said I'm the husband because I do my job as a husband, you said you are a man because you have a penis. And you call me looking like a little girl? LOL, yeah

 

[Faun]

I'm still waiting for Kaz to show me where I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars

You said you can't deny it, and you are THE expert in your views.

Now show where I am right and not libertarian, which you keep claiming and so far have shot nothing but blanks

Quote him saying he can't deny it or you're exposed again as a liar.

You go first in following your own standard, you two limp dicks show where I am right that is not libertarian

Not necessary just because you profess some moronic notion that Libertarians can't also be righties. Again, the two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[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

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?

Two big ones are they pay lower filing jointly tax rates and they are exempt from the death tax. Note it's liberals who demand we have a death tax.

You didn't know married people get those? Seriously?

Why shouldn't they get those?

Begging the question. Read my OP post

You don't know what begging the question means.

Why shouldn't same sex couples be allowed to marry and file jointly?

 

[kaz]

Yes, this thread is mocking you, and you are too stupid to grasp it

You still agreed that you lie. I'm not arguing with you on that.

I'm still waiting for Kaz to show me where I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars.

He can't. He made up the debate and my dialogue for it. And lied his ass off. Which is always amusing when so many of Kaz's arguments rely on us ignoring authoritative, informed sources. And instead believing Kaz.

Um.....why would I believe Kaz when he's demonstrated he lies and has no idea what he's talking about?

I can't think of a single reason.

He also accused me of blaming Reagan for the 1981-82 recessiom even though I blamed it on Volker, not Reagan. He flat out refuses to own up to that lie too.

You said Reagan didn't get a recession, which started 5 months into his Presidency, but Obama isn't responsible for the economy the first year of his Presidency, W's budget. That means a President actually gets handed the economy a year into his Presidency and Reagan got an economy a year into his Presidency in recession.

You think blaming Volker instead of the Democrat Carter gets you off the hook for that. You're wrong

Are you going to assert that the recent recession didn't start until President Obama was in office?

As to your narrow question, no, I am not saying that. And there is no logical way to get that out of what I said. Clearly the economy was in recession when Obama took office.

But the full answer to your question is that liberals are over simplistic idiots, you can't just say deficits belong to a President. There are many factors and Presidents can't even pass a budget. I'm just showing Faun his mindless shifting standards even using his own view. His view is that the Democrats isn't responsible, what's the question?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

My wife and I are both the parents of my children, the way humans evolved

My wife and I are both the parents of our children...the way humans are evolving (well, except the anti gay bigots like you)

That is not what I was referring to in the OP post. Redefining words is a fallacious argument. No one would have created government marriage for test tube babies and adoption

Civil marriage has nothing to do with babies or adoption. Civil marriage came about because men were greedy bastards and didn't want the little wifey to have property outside the marriage.

 

[kaz]

As Kaz perpetuating the same lie only proves my point that he's a liar. He can't back up his made up claim

You're a hypocrite and a liar.

You are a blanket stereotypical liberal, so I pointed out that your views on "yellowcake" are hypocrisy regarding your worship of the virgin mother, saint Miriam.

You, the expert in your views can't deny I'm right. You could with a word, yet you can't because you're pointing at the trap refusing to step into it because the trap is you are either a hypocrite by believing the Democrats or you are calling the Democrats liars.

The Democrats are of course liars, but you are too sheep to admit that. You believe pointing out the trap gets you out of the dilemma, it doesn't. You're proving how firmly the dilemma has nailed your sorry ass.

Also, you are a liar, this isn't your standard. You keep calling me "right" and "conservative" and you won't man up to showing what I think that is not libertarian as you demand I answer your question which you could do yourself.

You're a light weight. All the hot air you spew didn't give you any girth, I"m afraid

The mental refuge of the not-so-very-smart. Categorize individuals as part of a group...then your head won't hurt so much when you try to think.

No, Skylar has never in any post I've seen deviated from the Democratic party line. That's on him

 

[Faun]

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.

I'm a man by action, you claim manhood because you have a penis. And you think that's you looking good in this?

You look like a little girl in this. I too pay the bills in my house. So what? But should some series unfortunate events occur and my wife starts covering the bills, the difference between you and I is that I am still the husband. You said that makes you the wife. You should get on your knees and beg your wife for your cock back. Maybe she'll give it to you.

I said I'm the husband because I do my job as a husband, you said you are a man because you have a penis. And you call me looking like a little girl? LOL, yeah

For the benefit of those here not paying attention, here is yet another example of kaz lying. He was the one to falsely ascribe to me the claim that a cock alone makes me the man of the house. You'll note, I never said that. What I did say was that no matter what happens in my house, I remain the man of the house. Whereas kaz said all it takes for him to lose his manhood is to lose his job and have his wife pay the bills.

 

[kaz]

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.

Progress, finally. So when Republicans didn't want to cave to our Imperial Ruler and give him the budget he wanted, they had the right to say no? It's not just about money after all? You came 9 yards, can you go the last one for the first down and be the first liberal to grasp the thread?

Sadly, once again, your ignorance interferes with your message. This time, your idiocy stems from some bizarre notion that Congressmen/women have the "right" to say no to a budget. This becomes a shining example of how you don't know the difference between rights and privileges. But hopefully, since you're attracted to shiny objects, you can learn the difference now?

All you had to do at that point was fall forward for the first down. I knew you couldn't do it

 

[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?

Two big ones are they pay lower filing jointly tax rates and they are exempt from the death tax. Note it's liberals who demand we have a death tax.

You didn't know married people get those? Seriously?

How are they exempt from the Estate tax?

And, I am certain this has been mentioned...but....

Are you actually saying, those who are married and getting this subsidy (as you call it) are part of the "47"% sucking off the gvt teat?

I thought you all believed that tax breaks are not truly tax breaks because the money is really the person's who earned the money...?

You all need to make up your minds on this crud and stop being so hypocritical....imho.

 

[kaz]

No, that's YOUR concept...a concept most people don't share

You'll say anything, wont' you? Got it, people don't think lower tax rates are about children, they are about holding hands. What a shill

 

[Faun]

Would you care to explain how two fags or two dikes created life all by themselves ... it doesn't happen little fella and the perpetuate the species' angle is not moot

'All by themselves' isn't the standard we hold straights to

Of course it is. The concept of government marriage is fucking and having babies. That some have them through adoption and test tubes isn't why it's there and we wouldn't have it if straights had most of their babies that way

And yet, the government doesn't withhold marriage licenses from folks who can't. or don't want to, have kids. It's not a prerequisite to get a marriage license if you're straight so it's not an excuse to withhold one if you're gay.

That you don't get a hit with every at bat doesn't mean you can't bat. Not ever getting a hit at any at bat does prove you can't bat

A beauty of the government is that it doesn't get to decide who gets to bat. It has to treat everyone equally under the law.

 

[bodecea]

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.

I'm a man by action, you claim manhood because you have a penis. And you think that's you looking good in this?

Is that why you cry like a little girl? (No insult intended to little girls)

So the voices in your head are little whiners like you, are they?

Look at you do it again.... Putting words and thoughts of your own onto other posters.

 

[bodecea]

No, that's YOUR concept...a concept most people don't share

You'll say anything, wont' you? Got it, people don't think lower tax rates are about children, they are about holding hands. What a shill

There's that Irony again.

 

[kaz]

NO WAY! I'm pretty sure he refused to get a government license...because if he did, that would make him a hypocrite since he keeps saying he doesn't believe government should be in marriage.

But he doesn't want to...his wife makes him...and you're just mean for pointing that out!

I prefer to think of it as I'm doing it for her feelings, rather than she's making me, but tom-ay-to tom-ah-to.

It's sad you two don't do things for your parnters over yourselves, I'd hate to live that way. I guess you just don't know what you are missing since you haven't experienced it