Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

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.

Hey, that's three of you on the playground now. Maybe you can play in the sandbox together

 

[Seawytch]

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

And of course you can support that claim with transcripts from the debate on the bill that provided this tax break? The bill itself?

Only about 25% of parents have one stay at home.

Once again, exposing your anti gay bigotry by only singling out gay couples.

I work. My wife stays home to care for our home and kids. Explain again why my gender and the gender of my spouse determines why I don't deserve this tax break in your estimation?

 

[kaz]

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.

I never said that, shit for brains, you are one stupid clown

 

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

Actually if you read what you said, that wasn't it. You realize it's in your quote, no?

 

[kaz]

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.

That isn't what the OP post says. I am not chasing you down rabbit holes

 

[Seawytch]

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

Not your gay friends, your straight friends. Your married straight loved ones. Make sure you ask all of them why they need the "validation" of "government" marriage.

 

[kaz]

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.

Lay down and spread your legs, dear, you have to earn a living somehow and it sure isn't going to be on your brains

 

[toxicmedia]

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

Everybody who hates gays has an imaginary gay friend. usually these imaginary gay friends are against gay marriage, and hate Obama too.

If you really did have gay friends, you wouldn't want to tell them how to live

 

[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.

Actually if you read what you said, that wasn't it. You realize it's in your quote, no?

It's exactly what I said. You say people get the "government" marriage for validation. Since you asked her, you obviously needed that validation.

You're a peach because your wife still needs the "validation" and you give it to her.

 

[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

What goalposts?

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

Moving the goalposts means you changed the standard, ninny. It's all above in the quote, read it

 

[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

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.

Playground again, ay?

 

[kaz]

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.

Hyperbole

 

[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

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.

That was a reference to my point in my op post, moron

 

[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?

Families

No need to pay for test tubes and adoptions. It's funny how you keep claiming to have grasped my op post while continue to prove you didn't

 

[Seawytch]

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

No need to pay for test tubes and adoptions. It's funny how you keep claiming to have grasped my op post while continue to prove you didn't

For what couples, all or just gay ones?

 

[kaz]

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.

Yeah, I mocked you and you are still falling for it, it's a hoot

 

[kaz]

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're a sell out of your principles. And yet you still try to parade that you are against government marriage when you have one. That makes you not only a hypocrite of the first order, but a coward to your principles too. That added to your constant lying about other people say gives you the Loser Trifecta.

As I said, my standard is that my wife's feelings are more important to me than my political views, so your statement I am a "sell out of (my) principles" isn't so sweet heart, sorry. I am exactly following my principles. I am violating your principles, but that isn't selling out no matter how you slice it.

So just to be clear, you do not compromise your principles for your partner, that would be to sell them out? That is what you are saying your standard is?

Ok, then. That is fine. So every time you pretend to be all against government marriage, and I see it, I'll just mention that. Okey dokey?

Answer the question, so that is not your standard, your standard is that your political views are more important to you than your partners feelings?

I say you are a liar, that is not your standard. It's ironic when you make an argument that if I believe you, I think you are a far worse person than if I think you are a liar. Interesting strategy

 

[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

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

Seriously?

Are you reading any of the thread at all or just posting?

 

[kaz]

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?

That may be the worse attempt at an analogy that I have ever seen, and I'm not big on superlatives

 

[kaz]

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.

Yep, and I claim you are too stupid to know when you are being mocked. QED