Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You also keep saying that I am a hypocrite. How does that make sense that following my own values makes me a hypocrite? Hint, it doesn't. Buy a dictionary
Fine, you're not a hypocrite for giving your family the validation you detest.
Strawman, I never said I "detest" it. I said the government in my marriage means nothing to me.
Your standard is screw your partner, your political views are more important to you than her feelings. I got it, you made that very clear.
Just so you know, that isn't real marriage. There are a lot of heterosexuals who don't have a real marriage either. It's great when it happens though. When my wife and I had been married 10 years, someone asked us if we were newlyweds. I hope it happens for you one day. When it does happen, remember what I told you. Giving her way to her will not be a burden at all
You're deflecting, Kaz. I have a real marriage. You're saying it's not doesn't make it so. My wife and I and our children know it is so.
I don't think you should disregard your wife's need for validation. I think you should stop treating gays derisively for wanting what you once needed and wanted...until you got it, apparently.
It wasn't "validation" for my wife, it's a religious requirement. Have you ever been to church?
And you're confusing me when you start asking me direct questions, are you asking my real views or the spirit of the thread? If you're asking me a serious question, you need to say that. Else I'm answering in the spirit of the thread
Religions don't require a civil marriage license.
Who cites taxes as a reason for getting married, civilly or otherwise? It sure as hell is no where on my list of the reasons I married the love of my life.
You mean the one who's feelings you put below the importance of your political views? Or were you lying about that?
You're saying I do does not make it so. I've acknowledged that you are husband of the year for giving your wife the validation she needs and you used to need.
You also keep saying that I am a hypocrite. How does that make sense that following my own values makes me a hypocrite? Hint, it doesn't. Buy a dictionary
Fine, you're not a hypocrite for giving your family the validation you detest.
Strawman, I never said I "detest" it. I said the government in my marriage means nothing to me.
Your standard is screw your partner, your political views are more important to you than her feelings. I got it, you made that very clear.
Just so you know, that isn't real marriage. There are a lot of heterosexuals who don't have a real marriage either. It's great when it happens though. When my wife and I had been married 10 years, someone asked us if we were newlyweds. I hope it happens for you one day. When it does happen, remember what I told you. Giving her way to her will not be a burden at all
You know how I know you don't have any gay friends?......Fine, you're not a hypocrite for giving your family the validation you detest.
Strawman, I never said I "detest" it. I said the government in my marriage means nothing to me.
Your standard is screw your partner, your political views are more important to you than her feelings. I got it, you made that very clear.
Just so you know, that isn't real marriage. There are a lot of heterosexuals who don't have a real marriage either. It's great when it happens though. When my wife and I had been married 10 years, someone asked us if we were newlyweds. I hope it happens for you one day. When it does happen, remember what I told you. Giving her way to her will not be a burden at all
You're deflecting, Kaz. I have a real marriage. You're saying it's not doesn't make it so. My wife and I and our children know it is so.
I don't think you should disregard your wife's need for validation. I think you should stop treating gays derisively for wanting what you once needed and wanted...until you got it, apparently.
It wasn't "validation" for my wife, it's a religious requirement. Have you ever been to church?
And you're confusing me when you start asking me direct questions, are you asking my real views or the spirit of the thread? If you're asking me a serious question, you need to say that. Else I'm answering in the spirit of the thread
Religions don't require a civil marriage license.
I don't know what you mean by that, but most churches expect a church wedding and a government marriage. The church may not ask for proof of that, but they expect it. It wasn't her church directly that required it, it was her parents, but with the church's expectation
You mean the one who's feelings you put below the importance of your political views? Or were you lying about that?
You're saying I do does not make it so. I've acknowledged that you are husband of the year for giving your wife the validation she needs and you used to need.
You also keep saying that I am a hypocrite. How does that make sense that following my own values makes me a hypocrite? Hint, it doesn't. Buy a dictionary
Fine, you're not a hypocrite for giving your family the validation you detest.
Strawman, I never said I "detest" it. I said the government in my marriage means nothing to me.
Your standard is screw your partner, your political views are more important to you than her feelings. I got it, you made that very clear.
Just so you know, that isn't real marriage. There are a lot of heterosexuals who don't have a real marriage either. It's great when it happens though. When my wife and I had been married 10 years, someone asked us if we were newlyweds. I hope it happens for you one day. When it does happen, remember what I told you. Giving her way to her will not be a burden at all
well just so you know- that isn't real marriage either.
Marriage is not just about the person paying the bills being the husband- and the other person the wife.
Marriage is about love and commitment, something you dismiss when it comes to others.
A real marriage is about a commitment to each other- and in the United States- that real marriage includes a marriage license- because if you don't care enough to protect your spouse by getting a marriage license, then you don't deserve to be married.
Meanwhile- we get it- you and your wife have your bennies- you just want homosexuals to pay for them and to make sure that they don't get them.
You remain a moron. I didn't evade you being rightwing now -- I echoed your claim that you were a rightie but now you're not. Capiche? That's what you think; not what I see. As far as my avatar, I'm glad you like it. It is a clown, of a rightie ... one you possibly even voted for, for president.So your claim is that you were rightwing then but you're not rightwing now??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
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
Same goes for being against the Fed.
I appreciate it, rightie.
No, you didn't get that from my statement. If you were capable of comprehending my post, and you're clearly not, you'd know I never said Congress isn't allowed to vote on the budget.How can anybody be so fucking retarded?? I never said that.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?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?
You mean Congress isn't allowed to vote "no" on a budget? Seriously?
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?
What we are getting out of that, at least in the case of adoption, is a home welcoming children who were abandoned by their natural parents.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?
Why do you persist in reaffirming just how rightarded you are? I'm certain it's already firmly established. Access to a bathroom is not a right. Marriage is. Unless there is a case to protect society, the government cannot deny anyone their rights.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?You're still out of touch - follow the thread back to the post I replied to and perhaps you'll get a clue.Then they wouldn't be legally married. How does that resolve the issue of inequality?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 .
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 ?
No it isn't. That's like saying not allowing men to use the women's restroom is "denying them their inalienable right to pursue happiness." Marriage is a union of a man and a woman. Any other claims are a joke.
Polygamy? Personally, I believe people should be allowed to marry more than one spouse. Why not? Though I don't know that it is protected by the Constitution like same-sex marriage is. Marrying oneself is reductio ad absurdum. Save it for someone willing to participate in your silly antics.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?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.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
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
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?
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
Polygamy? Personally, I believe people should be allowed to marry more than one spouse. Why not? Though I don't know that it is protected by the Constitution like same-sex marriage is. Marrying oneself is reductio ad absurdum. Save it for someone willing to participate in your silly antics.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?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.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
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
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?
So you say citing you.
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?
You can't make babies. You meaning the marriage, not you as an individual. You can live together and adopt or make them in a test tube, I'm good with that. Just no reason I should pay for it
You don't pay a penny for it. You pay for the couples WITH children.
Are you too fucking retarded to understand that?
No, you're too fucking retarded to know that tax rates for joint filers are lower than single rates and government married couples don't pay estate tax when they leave unlimited money to each other
Where's the child requirement in either of those tax laws?
Polygamy? Personally, I believe people should be allowed to marry more than one spouse. Why not? Though I don't know that it is protected by the Constitution like same-sex marriage is. Marrying oneself is reductio ad absurdum. Save it for someone willing to participate in your silly antics.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?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.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
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
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?
Fine, you're not a hypocrite for giving your family the validation you detest.
Strawman, I never said I "detest" it. I said the government in my marriage means nothing to me.
Your standard is screw your partner, your political views are more important to you than her feelings. I got it, you made that very clear.
Just so you know, that isn't real marriage. There are a lot of heterosexuals who don't have a real marriage either. It's great when it happens though. When my wife and I had been married 10 years, someone asked us if we were newlyweds. I hope it happens for you one day. When it does happen, remember what I told you. Giving her way to her will not be a burden at all
You're deflecting, Kaz. I have a real marriage. You're saying it's not doesn't make it so. My wife and I and our children know it is so.
I don't think you should disregard your wife's need for validation. I think you should stop treating gays derisively for wanting what you once needed and wanted...until you got it, apparently.
It wasn't "validation" for my wife, it's a religious requirement. Have you ever been to church?
And you're confusing me when you start asking me direct questions, are you asking my real views or the spirit of the thread? If you're asking me a serious question, you need to say that. Else I'm answering in the spirit of the thread
Religions don't require a civil marriage license.
I don't know what you mean by that, but most churches expect a church wedding and a government marriage. The church may not ask for proof of that, but they expect it. It wasn't her church directly that required it, it was her parents, but with the church's expectation
The question should be :
Why should other gay taxpayers have to subsidize hetrosexual mating?
You mean the one who's feelings you put below the importance of your political views? Or were you lying about that?
You're saying I do does not make it so. I've acknowledged that you are husband of the year for giving your wife the validation she needs and you used to need.
You also keep saying that I am a hypocrite. How does that make sense that following my own values makes me a hypocrite? Hint, it doesn't. Buy a dictionary
Fine, you're not a hypocrite for giving your family the validation you detest.
Strawman, I never said I "detest" it. I said the government in my marriage means nothing to me.
Your standard is screw your partner, your political views are more important to you than her feelings. I got it, you made that very clear.
Just so you know, that isn't real marriage. There are a lot of heterosexuals who don't have a real marriage either. It's great when it happens though. When my wife and I had been married 10 years, someone asked us if we were newlyweds. I hope it happens for you one day. When it does happen, remember what I told you. Giving her way to her will not be a burden at all
well just so you know- that isn't real marriage either.
Marriage is not just about the person paying the bills being the husband- and the other person the wife.
Marriage is about love and commitment, something you dismiss when it comes to others.
A real marriage is about a commitment to each other- and in the United States- that real marriage includes a marriage license- because if you don't care enough to protect your spouse by getting a marriage license, then you don't deserve to be married.
Meanwhile- we get it- you and your wife have your bennies- you just want homosexuals to pay for them and to make sure that they don't get them.
You know how I know you don't have any gay friends?......Strawman, I never said I "detest" it. I said the government in my marriage means nothing to me.
Your standard is screw your partner, your political views are more important to you than her feelings. I got it, you made that very clear.
Just so you know, that isn't real marriage. There are a lot of heterosexuals who don't have a real marriage either. It's great when it happens though. When my wife and I had been married 10 years, someone asked us if we were newlyweds. I hope it happens for you one day. When it does happen, remember what I told you. Giving her way to her will not be a burden at all
You're deflecting, Kaz. I have a real marriage. You're saying it's not doesn't make it so. My wife and I and our children know it is so.
I don't think you should disregard your wife's need for validation. I think you should stop treating gays derisively for wanting what you once needed and wanted...until you got it, apparently.
It wasn't "validation" for my wife, it's a religious requirement. Have you ever been to church?
And you're confusing me when you start asking me direct questions, are you asking my real views or the spirit of the thread? If you're asking me a serious question, you need to say that. Else I'm answering in the spirit of the thread
Religions don't require a civil marriage license.
I don't know what you mean by that, but most churches expect a church wedding and a government marriage. The church may not ask for proof of that, but they expect it. It wasn't her church directly that required it, it was her parents, but with the church's expectation
There is something missing from the thought processes you display about gay marriage. And trust me, using the concept of "thought process" to describe what you come up with is generous in this case.
Stop what you've been doing and imagine this....
A guy named Pete. He's just had a hard work day, and it's wearing on him. After he gets home, the house is empty, and he put on something for dinner, and turns on the news. A few minutes later, the front door opens, and the dog gets all excited, and in comes the one he loves. They've been together for 10 years, through hard times, cancer with his Mom, and Alzheimers with his Dad. But when that special someone comes in, he doesn't feel bad anymore. He's able to get crap from the day off his chest, and his lover understands, and is concerned.
Then one sits on the couch, right on the remote control, and the channel changes to Fox News by accident. And there are preachers and Bill O'Reilly harping angrily that gays want this, and that, from him, and oppressed Christian "Americans"
They both cringe, and their peace is invaded for a second or two more while they change the channel to some other show they've been following. Then they settle back on the couch and mentally digest their days. All is well.
In this scenario...people like you are the boogie man at the door. Someone who doesn't even know them, and is against the love they share, and against them.
You are the monster. No worse than the British showing up to be quartered at the houses of colonists, and no worse than the Klan burning a cross outside a black family's house.
The British thought they were protecting and the colonists.
The Klan thinks they're protecting white Americans.
You think you're protecting marriage
You're saying I do does not make it so. I've acknowledged that you are husband of the year for giving your wife the validation she needs and you used to need.
You also keep saying that I am a hypocrite. How does that make sense that following my own values makes me a hypocrite? Hint, it doesn't. Buy a dictionary
Fine, you're not a hypocrite for giving your family the validation you detest.
Strawman, I never said I "detest" it. I said the government in my marriage means nothing to me.
Your standard is screw your partner, your political views are more important to you than her feelings. I got it, you made that very clear.
Just so you know, that isn't real marriage. There are a lot of heterosexuals who don't have a real marriage either. It's great when it happens though. When my wife and I had been married 10 years, someone asked us if we were newlyweds. I hope it happens for you one day. When it does happen, remember what I told you. Giving her way to her will not be a burden at all
well just so you know- that isn't real marriage either.
Marriage is not just about the person paying the bills being the husband- and the other person the wife.
Marriage is about love and commitment, something you dismiss when it comes to others.
A real marriage is about a commitment to each other- and in the United States- that real marriage includes a marriage license- because if you don't care enough to protect your spouse by getting a marriage license, then you don't deserve to be married.
Meanwhile- we get it- you and your wife have your bennies- you just want homosexuals to pay for them and to make sure that they don't get them.
Wow, quoting TRADITIONAL marriage values.
You just can't make this shit up folks.
I didn't evade you being rightwing now -- I echoed your claim that you were a rightie but now you're not. Capiche?
Thanks for proving me correct though.
