Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[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?

Can't keep your lesbians straight (pardon the pun)

That was me that had a gay man father her children. He's the donor, my wife and I are the parents. So says our children and so says the law. The law part matters because of anti gay bigots like you that would want to take our children away from us.

But it is that they know we are their parents that matters. They know their donor is their donor and that my wife and I are their parents.

LOL, gave you a funny for the joke, made me laugh

As soon as she asked what I meant I realized. I do remember you said it, not her.

I'm not disputing you are their parent, I am disputing taxpayers should subsidize it. You seem to get confused on the distinction. Though that's the premise of my thread on the concept of marriage, the thread is really to hold leftists to your own standard you don't want to pay for anything unless you get something out of it, but when it comes to the reverse you hesitate not a heartbeat to start sending out bills backed up with guns

 

[Syriusly]

That had nothing to do with legal marriage- Bakers need to follow the law like everyone else- yeah it does suck to be those who dont' want to follow the law.

The law wouldn't exist if it wasn't for legalized gay marriage, idiot.

Yeah, it sure sucked when those Jews in Nazi Germany had to follow the law that said they had to make their business a target for vandalism.

Right to Godwin's law, huh.

You do realize that the Nazi's didn't legalize gay marriage, right? They took the position you did.

As I have explained many times, Godwin's law is just a propaganda technique to shield liberals from the truth.

Nah, that's just more shit you've said, Bri. You've never actually been able to back that up. Even logically, your argument breaks the moment we bring in same sex marriage.

As you and the Nazi's have the same view on gay marriage.

I don't need to back it up. It's self evident.

So you agree that it is self evident that you and the Nazi's have the same opinion on gay marriage....well that is honest.

 

[bripat9643]

Again, you try to create an imaginary argument by making up what other posters have said

I made up nothing, you and Seawytch both made the point that I'm a hypocrite for having a government marriage when I oppose government marriage. I have repeatedly and clearly informed you both how important that is to my wife. You both reject it. Your message is clear.

My values are that my partner's feelings are more important than my political views to me. Period. They are. There is zero hypocrisy in that unless you reject my partner's feelings, which you both do.

You don't get to say it and not own it. Neither of you are ready for a true marriage until you realize real marriage is not just about you and what you get out of it

I wouldn't even bother responding to this swill. They are just trying to bait you. That's Bodecea's favorite tactic.

 

[Seawytch]

Again, you try to create an imaginary argument by making up what other posters have said

I made up nothing, you and Seawytch both made the point that I'm a hypocrite for having a government marriage when I oppose government marriage. I have repeatedly and clearly informed you both how important that is to my wife. You both reject it. Your message is clear.

My values are that my partner's feelings are more important than my political views to me. Period. They are. There is zero hypocrisy in that unless you reject my partner's feelings, which you both do.

You don't get to say it and not own it. Neither of you are ready for a true marriage until you realize real marriage is not just about you and what you get out of it

You asked her to marry you, didn't you? That's what "the husband/man" does, right? You used to want and "need the validation" that "government" marriage "concept" brought you, right?

Our values are important to us. My wife and I come from married parents. Marriage is important and society views civil marriage as important.

Take away your tax breaks and mine...gays will still want the "concept" of civil marriage.

 

[kaz]

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?

I'll type slower this time since you're stupid. Probably won't help, but I'lll give it a go.

If ... Reagan wasn't responsible for the first year economy

That means ... he was "handed the economy" starting the second year

Therefore ... he was handed an economy in recession.

You are too stupid to breathe

 

[Syriusly]

Name a gay couple who gay sex led to a kid.

Who said that a child had to be a product of the couple's sex to be theirs? Ever heard of adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination, or blended families?

If not, look them up. The entire premise of your argument is moot. As gays and lesbians have kids.

Worse, the 'perpetuate the species' standard isn't one that any straight couple is held to. Why then would we hold gays to it? Or more importantly, why would we ONLY hold gays to it?

Its not like we deny infertile straight couples access to marriage in any state.

By that argument, people can have a baby by them self. They adopted! Or they got artificial insemination! They had a baby alone! No they didn't, not biologically

No one argues that a child adopted and raised by parents isn't their child. Nor do we deny marriage to a couple because one partner is infertile.

You're holding straights to one standard and gays to another. When you apply the same standards to both, you have your answer.

Then explain why half of those infected with HIV are women, with another 10% being children.

Ever heard of Bi-sexual ? - it's a half fag who had sodomy with another fag and transmitted it to an innocent woman . So far as the 10% children -"inter generational intimacy" in the left wing lexicon - child molestation in the right wing vocabulary would explain some of it , being born to an infected mother [who more than likely was infected by a half fag.] explains more.

Irrelevant to the standard already set....where infections define whose disease it is.

Women and children make up a clear majority of HIV cases. Even if every single man on earth who has HIV is gay (which, of course, they're not) the 'HIV is a gay disease' narrative is still hapless, ignorant bullshit.

Which apparently you've gobbled down.

As I already pointed out with CDC statistics, women and children are a small fraction of HIV cases in this country.

• 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.
• Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSMa), particularly young black/African American MSM, are most seriously affected by HIV.
• By race, blacks/African Americans face the most severe burden of HIV.

Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections2. MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011, the most recent year these data are available1.

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

Although MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011- it is unknown how many of those not statistically counted as MSM are closet fags nor how many were infected by half fags [bi-sexuals] or infected by someone who was infected by someone who was a half fag and so on down the line.

Thank you for pointing out once more that the claims that AID's is a 'gay disease' is just a lie perpetuated by bigoted homophobes.

Since as the statistics you have provided show- 46% of all HIV in the United States is not related to homosexuality.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

You mean Congress isn't allowed to vote "no" on a budget? Seriously?

 

[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'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.

I will tell the baker the same thing I would tell any business man who breaks the law:

"Break the law- face the consequences"- Christians don't get special exemptions from the law that they are protected by.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Can't keep your lesbians straight (pardon the pun)

That was me that had a gay man father her children. He's the donor, my wife and I are the parents. So says our children and so says the law. The law part matters because of anti gay bigots like you that would want to take our children away from us.

But it is that they know we are their parents that matters. They know their donor is their donor and that my wife and I are their parents.

LOL, gave you a funny for the joke, made me laugh

As soon as she asked what I meant I realized. I do remember you said it, not her.

I'm not disputing you are their parent, I am disputing taxpayers should subsidize it. You seem to get confused on the distinction. Though that's the premise of my thread on the concept of marriage, the thread is really to hold leftists to your own standard you don't want to pay for anything unless you get something out of it, but when it comes to the reverse you hesitate not a heartbeat to start sending out bills backed up with guns

You are singling out gays. Your question should be why should we subsidize any civil marriage. That you single out gays only points to one conclusion...you don't like the way they have sex.

 

[kaz]

Again, you lie. I never said I don't give a shit how my wife feels. Of course I do

Fair enough, so you're a hypocrite. You hold me to a standard that you don't apply to yourself. You care about your wife, it's just mine I am supposed to blow off. You wouldn't do that yourself.

You realize that you just admitted what I keep telling you liars that you are doing. None of you live by the stupid standards you espouse of others

 

[bripat9643]

Who said that a child had to be a product of the couple's sex to be theirs? Ever heard of adoption, surrogacy, artificial insemination, or blended families?

If not, look them up. The entire premise of your argument is moot. As gays and lesbians have kids.

Worse, the 'perpetuate the species' standard isn't one that any straight couple is held to. Why then would we hold gays to it? Or more importantly, why would we ONLY hold gays to it?

Its not like we deny infertile straight couples access to marriage in any state.

No one argues that a child adopted and raised by parents isn't their child. Nor do we deny marriage to a couple because one partner is infertile.

You're holding straights to one standard and gays to another. When you apply the same standards to both, you have your answer.

Then explain why half of those infected with HIV are women, with another 10% being children.

Ever heard of Bi-sexual ? - it's a half fag who had sodomy with another fag and transmitted it to an innocent woman . So far as the 10% children -"inter generational intimacy" in the left wing lexicon - child molestation in the right wing vocabulary would explain some of it , being born to an infected mother [who more than likely was infected by a half fag.] explains more.

Irrelevant to the standard already set....where infections define whose disease it is.

Women and children make up a clear majority of HIV cases. Even if every single man on earth who has HIV is gay (which, of course, they're not) the 'HIV is a gay disease' narrative is still hapless, ignorant bullshit.

Which apparently you've gobbled down.

As I already pointed out with CDC statistics, women and children are a small fraction of HIV cases in this country.

• 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.
• Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSMa), particularly young black/African American MSM, are most seriously affected by HIV.
• By race, blacks/African Americans face the most severe burden of HIV.

Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States4, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections2. MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011, the most recent year these data are available1.

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

Although MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011- it is unknown how many of those not statistically counted as MSM are closet fags nor how many were infected by half fags [bi-sexuals] or infected by someone who was infected by someone who was a half fag and so on down the line.

Thank you for pointing out once more that the claims that AID's is a 'gay disease' is just a lie perpetuated by bigoted homophobes.

Since as the statistics you have provided show- 46% of all HIV in the United States is not related to homosexuality.

I just quoted CDC statistics that show 85% of HIV is attributed to Male-2-Male transmission, and that probably is a gross underestimate.

HIV is a gay disease.

 

[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'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.

Brip, you are a despicable lying asshole who attacks homosexuals to compensate for your teeny tiny dick.

 

[kaz]

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.

Wrong. Asked and answered. Again you have no long term memory. Stop being an idiot and build on my answers, don't ignore them and repeat your flat line talking points

People who support drug laws and other morality laws (prostitution, gambling, ...), the wars in the middle east and our massive military complex are right, they are not libertarian. We are both fiscally conservative, but other than that, no, we are not the same

 

[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

You don't know what begging the question means.

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

Begging the question. Read my OP post

 

[kaz]

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.

OK. Is there a point to me eventually somewhere?

 

[kaz]

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.

You're the liar. I said I'm the husband because I do what a husband does, it's my actions. You replied you'd be the husband anyway because you have a pair of doodads

 

[Syriusly]

I'm not disputing you are their parent, I am disputing taxpayers should subsidize it. You seem to get confused on the distinction.

I think you are just lying again.

First of all - you false argument is against subsidizing 'gay mating' which is not- and will not happen any more than we subsidize 'straight mating'.

Second- marriage 'subsidies'(which are questionable) are unrelated to having or parenting children- you and your wife get such 'subsidies' whether you have children or not- you just want homosexuals to pay for your 'subsidies' and exclude them from the bennies you get.

And third- the 'subsidies' i.e. tax exemptions we get for having children happen regardless of marriage. IF what you are NOW proposing is taking away those child exemptions just to homosexual parents- that will do nothing more than harm their children.

Why do you want to harm the children of homosexuals?

 

[Care4all]

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

Married couples without children get to file joint returns.

And soon same sex hetro couples can too!

Employers offering spousal benefits are gonna love that!

So people can't do this now? Men can't marry women out of convenience now? This is a totally new thing that will ONLY come about if gays can civilly marry exactly like straight people? Is this one of the "special rights" y'all blather about?

Dumbest thing we ever did as a country is to tie healthcare to employment.

we, as in our govt, didn't tie health care to employment as their idea...
BUSINESSES begged our gvt to allow them to be able to add health care as a benefit and be tax deductible for them, so that they could give employees a "raise" so to speak, and without having to pay the employer portion of the SS taxes...

What most do not realize, is that what a company pays for your health care, is a substitute for a raise...for earned income....for your salary.... that business can save on, by not having to pay the employer SS taxes mentioned earlier.

When I worked and got my annual compensation record done by the corporation on all of their management employees...

Included in this compensation statement, was my salary, my bonus, what they paid in to SS security for me, what they paid for my insurances, etc...came to a final number of what my total compensation was...

 

[Syriusly]

Again, you lie. I never said I don't give a shit how my wife feels. Of course I do

Fair enough, so you're a hypocrite. You hold me to a standard that you don't apply to yourself.

How ironic coming from you- the hypocrite that takes all of the government 'subsidies' for your marriage- and is happy to have homosexuals pay for your bennies- but don't want to let them 'apply' to homosexuals.

Not a surprise- but ironic.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Begging the question. Read my OP post

Your OP says this .

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

Childless opposite sex married couples get the benefit of filing jointly. They aren't 'perpetuating' the species. Why should they get the benefit and not same sex married couples?