Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[bodecea]

Totally missing the point.
What is the benefit to society of gay marriage?

ZERO. Nuttly like most left wingers just wants to impose his morality on the rest of us.

Americans want to impose equality. Indeed, our country was founded on that principle.

The real question is why do anti-America RWs fight equality?

You cannot impose equality by virtue of the fact that no two people are the same. Everyone in this country has the ability to achieve. What you seek is equality of outcome, which will never happen. Ever.

Get over it.

The issue isn't equality of achievement. The issue is equality of opportunity.

Fair enough except marriage isn't the union of two men or two women. That's like saying that miraculously the definition of a rock is "Rocks are a transparent fluid which forms the world's streams, lakes, oceans and rain, and is the major constituent of the fluids of living things. As a chemical compound, a water molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms that are connected by covalent bonds"

It really is that simple.

Actually in most states and in many countries it is. And soon to be all 50 states too.

 

[bodecea]

You people who want a flat tax, a true one, would lose all your financial bennies from having children.

Are you cool with that?

Yes, I'm against all government marriage, retard. You no long term memory because you know that

Sure you are.....and you have been working real hard for decades against it. Right?

 

[ogibillm]

will straight people not get married if they aren't getting paid for it?

Deflection aside, I answered that in my original post

you deflected, not me. you asked for a financial reason. i gave you one. long term couples are more stable, more likely to make big purchases, like homes, and less likely to need assistance.

you countered by trying to move the conversation to if marriage should be subsidized, since i think you rightfully point out that people will enter into long-term relationships without any tax benefits to marriage. but that is a separate issue. it does change the fact that there are the same financial benefits to allowing gay couples to marry as straight couples.

 

[orogenicman]

Marriage is what society says it is. If society says that two men or two women who love each other should be able to marry, who are you or I to refuse them?

So you oppose the courts doing it?

Why would I oppose the courts for doing their jobs?

 

[kaz]

So gays won't be in long term committed relationships without being paid for it? That by definition shoots holes through your own point

No one is saying that but you.

But it IS similar (and just as stupid as saying)

So straights won't be in long term committed relationships without being paid for it?

I realize you're female and worse a liberal, so you grasp logic like a dolphin grasps forest fires.

But paying people to do things they would do anyway isn't a financial benefit...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Another example:

A single mother with two kids making $40,000 a year vs. a single person with no kids making $40,000 a year.

The mom will pay about $4000 a year LESS in federal income tax than the childless person.

...and further discounts likely in state taxes.

So who is subsidizing who?

 

[kaz]

Marriage is what society says it is. If society says that two men or two women who love each other should be able to marry, who are you or I to refuse them?

So you oppose the courts doing it?

Why would I oppose the courts for doing their jobs?

You just said it's up to society, so either you were lying or to you courts speak for society. How the fucking hell with that lack of logical capability did you get an academic paper past peer review?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So gays won't be in long term committed relationships without being paid for it? That by definition shoots holes through your own point

No one is saying that but you.

But it IS similar (and just as stupid as saying)

So straights won't be in long term committed relationships without being paid for it?

I realize you're female and worse a liberal, so you grasp logic like a dolphin grasps forest fires.

But paying people to do things they would do anyway isn't a financial benefit...

We don't pay gays anything we wouldn't pay a childless hetero couple, you imbecile.

 

[kaz]

Another example:

A single mother with two kids making $40,000 a year vs. a single person with no kids making $40,000 a year.

The mom will pay about $4000 a year LESS in federal income tax than the childless person.

...and further discounts likely in state taxes.

So who is subsidizing who?

Deflection

 

[ogibillm]

So gays won't be in long term committed relationships without being paid for it? That by definition shoots holes through your own point

No one is saying that but you.

But it IS similar (and just as stupid as saying)

So straights won't be in long term committed relationships without being paid for it?

I realize you're female and worse a liberal, so you grasp logic like a dolphin grasps forest fires.

But paying people to do things they would do anyway isn't a financial benefit...

We don't pay gays anything we wouldn't pay a childless hetero couple, you imbecile.

just because a gay couple isn't able to conceive naturally doesn't mean they will remain childless.

 

[kaz]

So gays won't be in long term committed relationships without being paid for it? That by definition shoots holes through your own point

No one is saying that but you.

But it IS similar (and just as stupid as saying)

So straights won't be in long term committed relationships without being paid for it?

I realize you're female and worse a liberal, so you grasp logic like a dolphin grasps forest fires.

But paying people to do things they would do anyway isn't a financial benefit...

We don't pay gays anything we wouldn't pay a childless hetero couple, you imbecile.

Deflection, imbecile

 

[NYcarbineer]

We pay a huge subsidy to a welfare mom with kids.

Apparently kaz likes that because that woman is contributing children to our society.

 

[kaz]

So you admit there is no financial benefit to society for funding gay mating?

There is no funding. You're mental. Stop.

Corporate tax breaks are funding corporations!!!!

Income tax breaks are funding the rich!!!!!

So tax breaks to gays are funding gay mating? No, WTF? Tax breaks aren't funding.

LOL, you're a tool

Are you too stupid to comprehend that a childless gay person pays higher taxes than a person with a child?

Are you too stupid to comprehend that may be true in some cases, but not in others and income tax is not the only gay financial subsidy?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So gays won't be in long term committed relationships without being paid for it? That by definition shoots holes through your own point

No one is saying that but you.

But it IS similar (and just as stupid as saying)

So straights won't be in long term committed relationships without being paid for it?

I realize you're female and worse a liberal, so you grasp logic like a dolphin grasps forest fires.

But paying people to do things they would do anyway isn't a financial benefit...

We don't pay gays anything we wouldn't pay a childless hetero couple, you imbecile.

Deflection, imbecile

You can't even define what this payment to gays is. You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[bodecea]

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

First of all you are mixing apples and oranges- which doesn't surprise me. You talk about gays and sex- but not straights and sex. So is your thread about sex- or marriage?

Secondly- based upon purely a financial question- not the moral one- then you are in agreement then that marriage benefits should only go to couples who have children and live together?

But you want to exclude homosexual couples- because their children don't deserve the benefits of the state?

This is the problem with the anti-homosexual agenda. You have issues with consistency.

If we looked at this purely from your pure financial point of view- we would not allow any such benefits to any couple who does not have children- and then we would provide that financial benefit to any couple who does have children.

But you just want to give the financial benefits to straight couples.

Because you approve of how they have sex.

^That.

 

[orogenicman]

There is no financially sane reason for giving government gifts to people who are going to marry, mate, and/or have children regardless of government intervention in their lives.

None.

It's a gimme gimme gimme boondoggle. Nothing more.

Thank you, the first leftist to clearly answer the question. There is no financial benefit to society to fund gay mating

Why does there need to be a financial benefit to dong the right thing?

That isn't the question, Sparky.

So you admit there is no financial benefit to society for funding gay mating?

I didn't say that, and you shouldn't put words in other people's mouths.

Read the post you quoted

You said that there is no financial benefit to society to fund gay marriage. I asked why there has to be a financial benefit to doing the right thing? A question you've yet to respond to. Secondly, you have made two unsupported claims in your post. The first, that there is no financial benefit to society, and the second, that society is funding gay "mating". You should support your claims, otherwise, people will think you are just making it up.

 

[kaz]

We pay a huge subsidy to a welfare mom with kids.

Apparently kaz likes that because that woman is contributing children to our society.

Strawman

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you admit there is no financial benefit to society for funding gay mating?

There is no funding. You're mental. Stop.

Corporate tax breaks are funding corporations!!!!

Income tax breaks are funding the rich!!!!!

So tax breaks to gays are funding gay mating? No, WTF? Tax breaks aren't funding.

LOL, you're a tool

Are you too stupid to comprehend that a childless gay person pays higher taxes than a person with a child?

Are you too stupid to comprehend that may be true in some cases, but not in others and income tax is not the only gay financial subsidy?

It's true in all cases where all else is equal. Children are HUGE tax benefits for the parents. Starting with the $1000 child tax credit.

There is no 'gay' financial subsidy.

 

[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

First of all you are mixing apples and oranges- which doesn't surprise me. You talk about gays and sex- but not straights and sex. So is your thread about sex- or marriage?

Secondly- based upon purely a financial question- not the moral one- then you are in agreement then that marriage benefits should only go to couples who have children and live together?

But you want to exclude homosexual couples- because their children don't deserve the benefits of the state?

This is the problem with the anti-homosexual agenda. You have issues with consistency.

If we looked at this purely from your pure financial point of view- we would not allow any such benefits to any couple who does not have children- and then we would provide that financial benefit to any couple who does have children.

But you just want to give the financial benefits to straight couples.

Because you approve of how they have sex.

^That.

God hates gays more than murderers, it's an abomination to humanity. At least murderers only kill one person. Gays not only do not procreate but they poison the rest of society

 

[kaz]

So you admit there is no financial benefit to society for funding gay mating?

There is no funding. You're mental. Stop.

Corporate tax breaks are funding corporations!!!!

Income tax breaks are funding the rich!!!!!

So tax breaks to gays are funding gay mating? No, WTF? Tax breaks aren't funding.

LOL, you're a tool

Are you too stupid to comprehend that a childless gay person pays higher taxes than a person with a child?

Are you too stupid to comprehend that may be true in some cases, but not in others and income tax is not the only gay financial subsidy?

It's true in all cases where all else is equal. Children are HUGE tax benefits for the parents. Starting with the $1000 child tax credit.

There is no 'gay' financial subsidy.

You're just wrong, Buckwheat