Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[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.

Moving the goalposts

What goalposts?

Christians don't get special exemptions from the very same law that they are protected by.

 

[Syriusly]

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 Diseast.

How do you know that?

They could be as disease ridden as yourself, and going forth as modern day Typhoid Marys.

Yet they can still be married.

 

[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

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

What rightwing positions have you abandoned since then?

I'm trying to answer in order, but I notice this and it's a good question, so I will answer it now. I'm impressed, a rare moment of lucidity for you. Note you're both evading how I am "right" now though and you're an apologist for Skylar doing the same while you demand I answer questions. Your avatar is great, you are a clown. But to your question:

What made me originally leave the Republican party was that HW convinced me in about 1990 there was zero difference between Republicans and Democrats either fiscally or in belief in liberty. It was more fiscal spending, but it also included statements about things like China and Cable. I decided there was no point in voting for Republicans and I wouldn't go back to the party until I got a reason. Still waiting for that reason. But my original issue was primarily fiscal.

As for libertarian, I read Ayn Rand in the 80s, including Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead. I already thought things like gambling and prostitution and pot should be legal, however, here are some things that in 1990 I was still "conservative" on.

- Military - I supported Gulf War I at the time as well as Lebanon and others for the reason conservatives do now. However, I came to see things more and more over time during the 90s as endless and not getting us anywhere. Then I realized how other countries are using us to do their job for them and take the heat for them for doing it at the same time. Ultimately, I think we should bring all troops home to US soil and international waters only.

- War on drugs - In 1990, I thought pot should be legal, but supported bans on other drugs. I realized after that we pay such a price in liberty and privacy, fund organized crime internationally and domestically, and .... we still ... have ... the ... drugs ...

- In 1990, I was pro-life, I thought of the life of the baby. Eventually I decided no matter how you slice it, you cannot force a woman to carry and baby and should not

- In 1990, I supported having Social Security and Welfare. Eventually, I realized what an expensive, ineffective program it is and how many ways the government uses to screw us. Despite your retarded talking points, conservatives mostly support those programs

- In 1990, I thought the fed was an effective tool to use interest rates to regulate inflation and try to avoid and lessen recessions. I came to realize the Fed is the greatest criminal enterprise in this country that is designed to steal from the American people

Just a few off the top of my head

 

[kaz]

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'.

We do exactly that, Gomer. Have you ever thought of reading my original post since you keep commenting on the thread? The big reason for tax breaks is specifically for moms to stay home with the kids and provide a lower tax rate for the family for that

 

[kaz]

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...

Actually it started during WWII as a way around wage controls. You should read history rather than making it up.

Where do you get companies "begged" the government to allow them to deduct their expenses? When was that an issue?

 

[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.

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.

To the playground for you too, huh? Say hi to bodecea for me

 

[kaz]

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?

Right, I've addressed this approaching a dozen times now. Heterosexual sex may or may not lead to children. Gay sex does not. How exactly do you know when you give a marriage license whether heterosexuals will actually have children or not? Yeah, it's playing odds not certainty. On the other hand, we know gay sex will not lead to children. No doubt on that one

 

[bripat9643]

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?

How can anybody be so fucking retarded?? I never said that.

Holyfuckingshit!

I got it from this statement here:

"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"
​

Did you post that or not?

 

[kaz]

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 said you are the husband because you pay the bills. Which of course means if your wife starts paying the bills, you would start calling her 'husband'.

Clearly you are different from the rest of us- who became husbands as soon as we (as males) said "I do"- and are still husbands regardless of who pays the bills.

You took "pay the bills" too literally

 

[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.

To the playground for you too, huh? Say hi to bodecea for me

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.

 

[kaz]

Gay couples pay higher taxes than kaz in most cases, if the incomes are comparable. That's the funniest part here. They're subsidizing him.

Well that is just part of the basic dishonesty of Kaz- his argument is completely self serving- he has his, he is comfortable with homosexuals being required to subsidize his marriage- but is arguing that we must prevent homosexuals from getting the bennies he happily collects.

Nope, two kids, my wife and I are the parents

 

[bripat9643]

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.

He presents viable arguments and factual evidence while all you bring to the board is ...uh ... hey ! what do you contribute to the discussion anyway .... ?

So this is what you consider a 'viable argument and factual evidence' from Brip?

Skylar, your a despicable lying POS queer.

You whacky far right wingnuts get whackier everyday.

That's just a simple statement of fact.

 

[Syriusly]

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 said you are the husband because you pay the bills. Which of course means if your wife starts paying the bills, you would start calling her 'husband'.

Clearly you are different from the rest of us- who became husbands as soon as we (as males) said "I do"- and are still husbands regardless of who pays the bills.

You took "pay the bills" too literally

Yes- I actually remembered your exact words.

I became a husband when I married my wife.

You seem to believe you didn't become a husband until you paid your first bill.

 

[Syriusly]

Gay couples pay higher taxes than kaz in most cases, if the incomes are comparable. That's the funniest part here. They're subsidizing him.

Well that is just part of the basic dishonesty of Kaz- his argument is completely self serving- he has his, he is comfortable with homosexuals being required to subsidize his marriage- but is arguing that we must prevent homosexuals from getting the bennies he happily collects.

Nope, two kids, my wife and I are the parents

Goodie for you- like I said

Well that is just part of the basic dishonesty of Kaz- his argument is completely self serving- he has his, he is comfortable with homosexuals being required to subsidize his marriage- but is arguing that we must prevent homosexuals from getting the bennies he happily collects.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

So Brip- once again- you claim:
HIV is a gay disease

And you also have stated you hate gays.

Therefore, according to your perverse 'logic'- you hate anyone with HIV.

Therefore you hate this little girl.

View attachment 41526

Because to you she is gay- because she has HIV- and you hate all gays.

Brip lives his/her life to hate others- including this little girl.

Because she has HIV- which Brip thinks is gay- and Brip hates all things gay.

You're an idiot. Do you actually imagine this propaganda technique is fooling anyone?

 

[kaz]

How are they exempt from the Estate tax?

Seriously? OK, government marriage exempts you from the estate tax, there is no limit to how much money you can get from your partner and not pay tax on it. You didn't know that?

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?

The 47% are taxpayers who don't pay any taxes. Gays would be at all income levels. Some would be in the 47% anyway some not either way, some would go from the 53% to the 47%. I'm not clear how you get that gays as a whole would or wouldn't be tax payers from anything I said

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...?

It's not that simple. I'll answer it two ways.

In the spirit of the thread

1) This thread isn't about my view, it's about holding liberals accountable to your own standard. The "hypocrisy" you claim ironically is on you, that's the point of the thread, your leftists standards are endless hypocrisies.
2) Leftists, the ones who want gay government marriage, are the same ones who want the death tax and high progressive taxes, then OMG, not for gays though. So again, you struck hypocrisy. And it is you. LOL

My actual view

I support evading and avoiding taxes in any possible way. I only don't cheat on my taxes because I keep my eye on the sparrow. However, that doesn't mean I can't point out your hypocrisy. Ironically, you noticed your hypocrisy as well...

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

Leftists make up an endlessly convoluted and contractory bull shit system and to counter anything you want we are supposed to take your ball of yarn and untangle it perfectly or we are "so hypocritical." What a load of bull

Are you exempt from the estate tax?

Yes. I did my duty as a red blooded American and screwed until I had a brood. Though granted I didn't stop then...

You realize this doesn't contradict my post. I did the concept of marriage, gays can't. They can adopt or have test tube children, but what are we getting out of that?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

He presents viable arguments and factual evidence while all you bring to the board is ...uh ... hey ! what do you contribute to the discussion anyway .... ?

So this is what you consider a 'viable argument and factual evidence' from Brip?

Skylar, your a despicable lying POS queer.

You whacky far right wingnuts get whackier everyday.

That's just a simple statement of fact.

Just like this is

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

 

[Syriusly]

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.

So Brip- once again- you claim:
HIV is a gay disease

And you also have stated you hate gays.

Therefore, according to your perverse 'logic'- you hate anyone with HIV.

Therefore you hate this little girl.

View attachment 41526

Because to you she is gay- because she has HIV- and you hate all gays.

Brip lives his/her life to hate others- including this little girl.

Because she has HIV- which Brip thinks is gay- and Brip hates all things gay.

You're an idiot. Do you actually imagine this propaganda technique is fooling anyone?

Did I go too fast for you? I know anyone actually using your words against you must confuse you

So Brip- once again- you claim:
HIV is a gay disease

And you also have stated you hate gays.

Therefore, according to your perverse 'logic'- you hate anyone with HIV.

Therefore you hate this little girl.

View attachment 41526

Because to you she is gay- because she has HIV- and you hate all gays.

Brip lives his/her life to hate others- including this little girl.

Because she has HIV- which Brip thinks is gay- and Brip hates all things gay.

 

[Syriusly]

How are they exempt from the Estate tax?

Seriously? OK, government marriage exempts you from the estate tax, there is no limit to how much money you can get from your partner and not pay tax on it. You didn't know that?

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?

The 47% are taxpayers who don't pay any taxes. Gays would be at all income levels. Some would be in the 47% anyway some not either way, some would go from the 53% to the 47%. I'm not clear how you get that gays as a whole would or wouldn't be tax payers from anything I said

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...?

It's not that simple. I'll answer it two ways.

In the spirit of the thread

1) This thread isn't about my view, it's about holding liberals accountable to your own standard. The "hypocrisy" you claim ironically is on you, that's the point of the thread, your leftists standards are endless hypocrisies.
2) Leftists, the ones who want gay government marriage, are the same ones who want the death tax and high progressive taxes, then OMG, not for gays though. So again, you struck hypocrisy. And it is you. LOL

My actual view

I support evading and avoiding taxes in any possible way. I only don't cheat on my taxes because I keep my eye on the sparrow. However, that doesn't mean I can't point out your hypocrisy. Ironically, you noticed your hypocrisy as well...

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

Leftists make up an endlessly convoluted and contractory bull shit system and to counter anything you want we are supposed to take your ball of yarn and untangle it perfectly or we are "so hypocritical." What a load of bull

Are you exempt from the estate tax?

Yes. I did my duty as a red blooded American and screwed until I had a brood. Though granted I didn't stop then...

You realize this doesn't contradict my post. I did the concept of marriage, gays can't. They can adopt or have test tube children, but what are we getting out of that?

Families

 

[bripat9643]

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.

To the playground for you too, huh? Say hi to bodecea for me

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.

The only purpose of those benefits is to protect mothers and children. There's no social purpose in giving them to gays. I would prefer to see all the benefits eliminated than to add another constituency to the gravy train.