Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[bripat9643]

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.

How much HIV are a married lesbian couple spreading?

None, which just goes to show that HIV is the result of frequent and repeated anal sex.

Tell us more about how you get HIV thru frequent and repeated anal sex..........

Michael Fumento AIDS - Are Heterosexuals at Risk ​

"with sexually-transmitted AIDS, the overwhelming risk factor, especially for the passive or recipient partner, is anal sex. According to B. Frank Polk, director of the Johns Hopkins University’s component of the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study, "In gay men, 95 percent or more of the infections occur from receptive anal intercourse." A study published in the April 1987 American Journal of Public Health (AJPH) found that of 240 men who became infected over the course of the study, all but four had engaged in receptive anal sex."​

 

[bodecea]

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?

Allowing a man to marry a woman but denying a woman the right to marry that woman is gender discrimination and gender discrimination is in fact unconstitutional.

According to that theory, having separate restrooms for men and woman is "gender discrimination." The courts have always allowed gender discrimination when it's appropriate.

Do you have a separate restroom for men and women at your house?

As always, you're too stupid to bother wasting time on a substantive response.

Well then..do you have a separate outhouse for men and women outside your house?

 

[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

wow... pure idiocy... cool

no one is "subsidizing" gay marriage.

As for children, i'd prefer not to subsidize *you* reproducing.

You don't like it, got it

 

[bripat9643]

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?

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

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...

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

Dysfunctional families and messed up children is what you get.

Yeah- thats what you bigots keep saying

But you bigots lie about all sorts of stuff- look at Kaz's posts.

all the lies are coming from members of the GAYstapo like you.

 

[kaz]

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 ?

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?

Allowing a man to marry a woman but denying a woman the right to marry that woman is gender discrimination and gender discrimination is in fact unconstitutional.

That's ridiculous, even for you

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Allowing a man to marry a woman but denying a woman the right to marry that woman is gender discrimination and gender discrimination is in fact unconstitutional.

According to that theory, having separate restrooms for men and woman is "gender discrimination." The courts have always allowed gender discrimination when it's appropriate.

Do you have a separate restroom for men and women at your house?

As always, you're too stupid to bother wasting time on a substantive response.

Well then..do you have a separate outhouse for men and women outside your house?

As always, you're too stupid to bother wasting time on a substantive response.

 

[kaz]

.

Regardless of the "production" of children. It's okay to "subsidize" the straights that don't and won't have children but not okay to "subsidize" gays even if the DO have children

Soooo not the libertarian position.

No shit, moron. I told you this thread is mocking you by applying your standard to you. I oppose all government marriage. Are you getting help for your lack of comprehension and long term memory? I hope so

 

[kaz]

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

So if you're not ascribing words to me I did not say, now you're ascribing to me what I do or don't believe?

You're too funny.

You just said, "A beauty of the government is that it doesn't get to decide who gets to bat." A complete lie as you are a leftist. And so you support polygamy and the right of people like Sklar who love themselves to marry the one they love, themselves?

Or were you lying again?

 

[kaz]

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.

The bottom line is actually that I am mocking you by applying your standard to you and you are too stupid to get that even when I explain it to you

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once again, please move this to the Flame Zone.

Bripat and Kaz are acting creepy yet again.

There is no gay marriage, only marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

.

Regardless of the "production" of children. It's okay to "subsidize" the straights that don't and won't have children but not okay to "subsidize" gays even if the DO have children

Soooo not the libertarian position.

No shit, moron. I told you this thread is mocking you by applying your standard to you. I oppose all government marriage. Are you getting help for your lack of comprehension and long term memory? I hope so

You oppose all government marriage, but you're married?

Seriously?

 

[Seawytch]

Kaz is arguing to argue, nothing more.

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

^^^That^^^

Either there is a societal benefit to civil marriage or there isn't and a valid discussion to be had. Single out gays just exposes bigotry.

 

[kaz]

Yes Kaz, you get husband of the year for not divorcing your wife. You are a reluctant hypocrite...established.

I'm not reluctant, brainless wench, I am following my values exactly. I'm sad for you that it's not yours. You will be a lot happier in a marriage you give and don't just take. Straight up, ho

I just think you should stop asking gays on a message board why they want the civil marriage society values...ask your married friends and your own wife instead. Be as much of a flaming asshole with them that you are when you ask gays.

My gay friends know I'm against government marriage already. And you think the reason I'm a flaming asshole to you is you're gay? OMG, he is giving me crap, it's because I'm gay, isn't it? You are a professional victim

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 ?

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?

Allowing a man to marry a woman but denying a woman the right to marry that woman is gender discrimination and gender discrimination is in fact unconstitutional.

That's ridiculous, even for you

No it's not. Can you deny a woman the right to buy a gun, and only allow men to buy guns?

 

[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

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.

So you don't grasp the OP post, got it. You not only miss the twist, you don't even comprehend it on the surface. That's all I can do for you. When you develop reading comprehension, try again

 

[kaz]

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?

Yet again a liberal who doesn't grasp the post they responded to

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

And yet he claims to oppose all government marriage.

 

[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?

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.

If you understand them, then what point are you making by writing endless points that make it appear that you don't?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So you don't grasp the OP post, got it. You not only miss the twist, you don't even comprehend it on the surface. That's all I can do for you. When you develop reading comprehension, try again

We fully understand your OP. It's idiocy. That was proven in the first hundred posts. The rest of this thread has been a sideshow of watching you flail and melt down.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So you don't grasp the OP post, got it. You not only miss the twist, you don't even comprehend it on the surface. That's all I can do for you. When you develop reading comprehension, try again

Where do you claim that childless hetero couples should be denied the right marry, or stay married?