Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Bush92]

taxpayers have been taking it up the ass from the government for years.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Kaz, very few people think marriage is for the tax breaks. You might think that, but most people don't and it's certainly NOT the reason they get married. I'm sorry for your marriage if that's why you did it.

True but irrelevant and I've addressed it specifically at least a half dozen times. Try reading my original post again and see if you can come up with something that makes sense regarding my point

We've all read your silly OP. You are fine "subsidizing" the 10% of straight marriages that will not result in children but don't want to "subsidize" the much much smaller number of gay marriages that may not result in the adoption or bearing of children.

Which boils down to you not liking how gays have sex.

 

[GreenBean]

This whole thread is just all about Kaz wanting homosexuals to pay for the bennies he and his wife enjoy, and to ensure that homosexuals do not get those bennies.

Kaz and his/her spouse are not the ones prolifically and carelessly spreading Disease costing the rest of us billions of $$$ and thousands - perhaps millions of innocent lives - The gays are.

And so far as the "bennies" I addressed that a page or two back ...domestic partnerships yada yada -- if the bennies were the only issue ... they're not.

 

[bodecea]

'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.

Right, that's why we have polygamy and narcissists can marry themselves, we all get to decide for ourselves.

Liar, you don't believe that

Well, you can certainly work to make the case for polygamy in the courts if you wish......but as for Narcissists, they are allowed to marry already, are they not?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Wow, you are seriously not a bright girl. I can't help you if you can't read

I read your posts just fine. And I understand what you are trying to do. Perhaps that is the problem....that to myself and others, your stupidity and lies are very evident.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Right, that's why we have polygamy and narcissists can marry themselves, we all get to decide for ourselves.

Liar, you don't believe that

Well, you can certainly work to make the case for polygamy in the courts if you wish......but as for Narcissists, they are allowed to marry already, are they not?

Kaz asked a woman to marry her and she agreed...so the answer is yes, narcissists can marry.

 

[bodecea]

This whole thread is just all about Kaz wanting homosexuals to pay for the bennies he and his wife enjoy, and to ensure that homosexuals do not get those bennies.

Kaz and his/her spouse are not the ones prolifically and carelessly spreading Disease costing the rest of us billions of $$$ and thousands - perhaps millions of innocent lives - The gays are.

And so far as the "bennies" I addressed that a page or two back ...domestic partnerships yada yada -- if the bennies were the only issue ... they're not.

And you are so sure of this?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Right, that's why we have polygamy and narcissists can marry themselves, we all get to decide for ourselves.

Liar, you don't believe that

Well, you can certainly work to make the case for polygamy in the courts if you wish......but as for Narcissists, they are allowed to marry already, are they not?

Kaz asked a woman to marry her and she agreed...so the answer is yes, narcissists can marry.

No! No! No! Remember, Kaz doesn't want government marriage so he was OBVIOUSLY forced into this government marriage BY a narcissist.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Right, that's why we have polygamy and narcissists can marry themselves, we all get to decide for ourselves.

Liar, you don't believe that

Well, you can certainly work to make the case for polygamy in the courts if you wish......but as for Narcissists, they are allowed to marry already, are they not?

Kaz asked a woman to marry her and she agreed...so the answer is yes, narcissists can marry.

No! No! No! Remember, Kaz doesn't want government marriage so he was OBVIOUSLY forced into this government marriage BY a narcissist.

Actually I recall him saying he came to his "deeply held beliefs" long after he asked and married her...she just won't let him divorce.

 

[kaz]

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?

Right, I forgot that you have no long term memory. I married her in 1988, I was still a Republican and a conservative then. Though I always leaned libertarian. I left the Republican party in circa 1990, I did not consider myself "libertarian" until a couple years after that. My first vote for the Libertarian party was 1996. 1992 I voted for Perot. Actually, government marriage wasn't something I started to question until 10 years so ago and that was when I realized what a bad idea it is

 

[Faun]

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

Cries the moron who thinks Congress' ability to vote on bills is a "right."

Dude, point down the doobie, it's making you stupid. Er. Make that "more" stupid...

You don't understand?? You're even dumber than I thought!

Here, I'll explain it to ya ... you idiotically claimed Congestion voting on the budget is a "right." It's not and I've been laughing at you since...

... still am.

 

[Faun]

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?

Right, I forgot that you have no long term memory. I married her in 1988, I was still a Republican and a conservative then. Though I always leaned libertarian. I left the Republican party in circa 1990, I did not consider myself "libertarian" until a couple years after that. My first vote for the Libertarian party was 1996. 1992 I voted for Perot. Actually, government marriage wasn't something I started to question until 10 years so ago and that was when I realized what a bad idea it is

So your claim is that you were rightwing then but you're not rightwing now??

What rightwing positions have you abandoned since then?

 

[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'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.

Moving the goalposts

 

[kaz]

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.

Are you actually unable to comprehend what you read, or do you not really even try? You just post off keywords?

 

[Seawytch]

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?

Right, I forgot that you have no long term memory. I married her in 1988, I was still a Republican and a conservative then. Though I always leaned libertarian. I left the Republican party in circa 1990, I did not consider myself "libertarian" until a couple years after that. My first vote for the Libertarian party was 1996. 1992 I voted for Perot. Actually, government marriage wasn't something I started to question until 10 years so ago and that was when I realized what a bad idea it is

So I recalled it correctly. You wanted to marry her and did. Now you can't divorcee her because she won't let you.

 

[jillian]

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?

Allowing Registered Domestic Partners and Individuals in Civil Unions to file Joint Returns or file as head of head of household is all it would take to solve the queer marriage quagmire if that were truly the case - it is not the case .

Then they wouldn't be legally married. How does that resolve the issue of inequality?

You're still out of touch - follow the thread back to the post I replied to and perhaps you'll get a clue.

So far as inequality - a mentally diseased degenerate pervert [aka GAY] is equal in all respects - they can marry any member of the opposite sex that they so choose.

Now don't misinterpret what I said like you've been doing all along with Kaz and others on this thread - I SAID - they are equal in all respects - I did not say they were entitled to Respect - Got it ?

You're an idiot even for this board full of idiot conservatives.

Saying gays are equal because they can marry someone of the opposite is sheer idiocy.

don't be too hard on her. I figure anyone who thinks it's a choice gets up every day forcing themselves to be attracted to people of the opposite sex.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Are you actually unable to comprehend what you read, or do you not really even try? You just post off keywords?

Deflecting again. I nailed it and you can't counter it. You want to apply an arbitrary standard only to gay couples.

 

[jillian]

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.

Are you actually unable to comprehend what you read, or do you not really even try? You just post off keywords?

you keep saying things like that. you should probably have at least a triple digit IQ before insulting anyone else's intelligence.

 

[Faun]

Then they wouldn't be legally married. How does that resolve the issue of inequality?

You're still out of touch - follow the thread back to the post I replied to and perhaps you'll get a clue.

So far as inequality - a mentally diseased degenerate pervert [aka GAY] is equal in all respects - they can marry any member of the opposite sex that they so choose.

Now don't misinterpret what I said like you've been doing all along with Kaz and others on this thread - I SAID - they are equal in all respects - I did not say they were entitled to Respect - Got it ?

Allowing them to marry a person of the opposite gender but not the person they love and want to be married to is denying them their inalienable right to pursue happiness. We don't do that in America. As far as repect, who the fuck cares who you respect?

Nice back pedal

If that's all you've got to say, then you have no argument against same-sex marriage.

Good Point - I'm not against Gay Marriage - as I've stated in the past - but your arguments and dumb ass boolean logic - or shall we say lack of logic are so easy smacked down --- Ciest la vie

Ummm, you smacked down nothing. You haven't even offered a protest to my contention that denying gays the fundamental right to marry denies them their inalienable right to pursue happiness.

Without even trying to show I'm wrong, you must be completely delirious to think my position is easily smacked down.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kaz is arguing to argue, nothing more.

Taxpayers subsidize marriage. There is no such thing as gay marriage.