Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[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?

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.

That's what the gays get, the question is what do taxpayers get? Gays aren't going to make babies, and they aren't going to adopt because they get a tax break. In hetero relationships, there is way more too it

 

[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

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?

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.

Your standards constantly shift. You said people should be able to be marry who they want to marry. Now your standard is they should be able to marry who you think they should be able to marry.

QED, you lost, your claimed standard of people get to "decide" for themselves wasn't your standard. That was a ... wait for it ... lie.

You are shallow, rightie, like all Republicans are. You are the class clown

 

[kaz]

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

Yes it does. You singled out gays as non-perpetuators.

Keep flailing.

OK, here is where you are stupid. You said I am "singling out gays." The question is related to the gay discussion. The standard is not.

1) Government is a privilege, not a right. There are only negative rights in a free country, is no such thing as a positive right in a free country. Positive rights by definition infringe on the negative rights of others.

2) I want no government marriage for anyone. But as long as we have it, it's up to government to decide what the standard is. And that standard by history and opinion is one man, one woman. The courts are changing that, even in deep blue California because of that, you can't get the vote.

None of that standard singles out gays

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

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.

That's what the gays get, the question is what do taxpayers get? Gays aren't going to make babies, and they aren't going to adopt because they get a tax break. In hetero relationships, there is way more too it

That makes no sense. Don't married heteros without children get marriage tax breaks?

 

[kaz]

The Constitution ruled against polygamy as a right. Oddly, the argument made for the right to polygamous marriage was a religious one by the Mormon who went to court...

...oddly because...

...where are the Christian conservatives defending polygamy as a first Amendment right?

WFT? Making up more crap. So the Constitution that doesn't mention gay says gay is a right, but it doesn't mention polygamy and yet it ruled that out. WFT, Holmes? You are an excellent reader, you read things that aren't event here

 

[G.T.]

Gay marriage will be a reality pretty fucking soon, across the board.

I hope it burns really fucking bad for all those who are against it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Yes it does. You singled out gays as non-perpetuators.

Keep flailing.

OK, here is where you are stupid. You said I am "singling out gays." The question is related to the gay discussion. The standard is not.

1) Government is a privilege, not a right. There are only negative rights in a free country, is no such thing as a positive right in a free country. Positive rights by definition infringe on the negative rights of others.

2) I want no government marriage for anyone. But as long as we have it, it's up to government to decide what the standard is. And that standard by history and opinion is one man, one woman. The courts are changing that, even in deep blue California because of that, you can't get the vote.

None of that standard singles out gays

As long as we have, the constitutional right of equal protection under the law applies, as well as the constitutional protections against gender discrimination..

 

[kaz]

Where does it say you have to be able to 'perpetuate' the species as you called it in order to file jointly?

It doesn't and I never said whatever "it" is says "it," the voices in your head are very chatty today, aren't they?

It's a rhetorical question, dumbass. You don't have to be able to.

That puts to rest your argument that gays should have to if they going to be allowed to marry.

 

[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?

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.

That's what the gays get, the question is what do taxpayers get? Gays aren't going to make babies, and they aren't going to adopt because they get a tax break.

Gays do make babies. They use science like lots of straight couples have to.

Nobody adopts or has children for the tax breaks.

Nobody gets married for the tax breaks.

In hetero relationships, there is way more too it

Way more to what? Why is there "more" to a heterosexual relationship than to a gay relationship?

I work. My wife stays home with our children. What "more" is there to a heterosexual relationship? Be specific.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Constitution ruled against polygamy as a right. Oddly, the argument made for the right to polygamous marriage was a religious one by the Mormon who went to court...

...oddly because...

...where are the Christian conservatives defending polygamy as a first Amendment right?

WFT? Making up more crap. So the Constitution that doesn't mention gay says gay is a right, but it doesn't mention polygamy and yet it ruled that out. WFT, Holmes? You are an excellent reader, you read things that aren't event here

The Mormons practiced polygamy as part of their religion. As part of what they claimed was their constitutionally protected free exercise of religion. Why isn't it?

 

[kaz]

Gay marriage will be a reality pretty fucking soon, across the board.

I hope it burns really fucking bad for all those who are against it.

As for me, I don't give a shit. This is small compared to other Constitutional atrocities committed by the courts. We are way more fucked than this.

BTW, gay marriage is inevitable regardless looking at the attitudes of the young in this country toward it. Criminal decree by the courts wasn't necessary, just faster

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where does it say you have to be able to 'perpetuate' the species as you called it in order to file jointly?

It doesn't and I never said whatever "it" is says "it," the voices in your head are very chatty today, aren't they?

It's a rhetorical question, dumbass. You don't have to be able to.

That puts to rest your argument that gays should have to if they going to be allowed to marry.

So now you're claiming you never said 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?"

despite it being there in black and white in your OP?

Whoa

 

[G.T.]

Gay marriage will be a reality pretty fucking soon, across the board.

I hope it burns really fucking bad for all those who are against it.

As for me, I don't give a shit. This is small compared to other Constitutional atrocities committed by the courts. We are way more fucked than this.

BTW, gay marriage is inevitable regardless looking at the attitudes of the young in this country toward it. Criminal decree by the courts wasn't necessary, just faster

The kids have it right, the bigots take the big fat L, as usual.

 

[G.T.]

Where does it say you have to be able to 'perpetuate' the species as you called it in order to file jointly?

It doesn't and I never said whatever "it" is says "it," the voices in your head are very chatty today, aren't they?

It's a rhetorical question, dumbass. You don't have to be able to.

That puts to rest your argument that gays should have to if they going to be allowed to marry.

So now you're claiming you never said 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?"

despite it being there in black and white in your OP?

Whoa

He forgets he said that.

This is now the rehashing of the rehash. He was owned on the point, then it became "how is that a part of my argument?"

When indeed, its there in print.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Gay marriage will be a reality pretty fucking soon, across the board.

I hope it burns really fucking bad for all those who are against it.

As for me, I don't give a shit. This is small compared to other Constitutional atrocities committed by the courts. We are way more fucked than this.

BTW, gay marriage is inevitable regardless looking at the attitudes of the young in this country toward it. Criminal decree by the courts wasn't necessary, just faster

What statute criminalizes court decisions?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where does it say you have to be able to 'perpetuate' the species as you called it in order to file jointly?

It doesn't and I never said whatever "it" is says "it," the voices in your head are very chatty today, aren't they?

It's a rhetorical question, dumbass. You don't have to be able to.

That puts to rest your argument that gays should have to if they going to be allowed to marry.

So now you're claiming you never said 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?"

despite it being there in black and white in your OP?

Whoa

He forgets he said that.

This is now the rehashing of the rehash. He was owned on the point, then it became "how is that a part of my argument?"

When indeed, its there in print.

Or as Captain Obvious might say,

Read the fucking thread title.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Yes it does. You singled out gays as non-perpetuators.

Keep flailing.

OK, here is where you are stupid. You said I am "singling out gays." The question is related to the gay discussion. The standard is not.

1) Government is a privilege, not a right. There are only negative rights in a free country, is no such thing as a positive right in a free country. Positive rights by definition infringe on the negative rights of others.

2) I want no government marriage for anyone. But as long as we have it, it's up to government to decide what the standard is. And that standard by history and opinion is one man, one woman. The courts are changing that, even in deep blue California because of that, you can't get the vote.

None of that standard singles out gays

Bullshit. Before the SCOTUS is the fact that gays were singled out to be "sub-class" citizens with restricted rights. Duh!!!

 

[kaz]

You don't know what I mean by "religions don't require a license"? It is simple, religious institutions can marry you without a license. Gays did it for decades.

I didn't know what you meant because the statement was ambiguous and could be interpreted multiple ways. Most conservative churches consider marriage both a church wedding and government paper. Yes, other churches are as you described. I grew up in the Church of the Brethren and attended Quaker churches as I moved around the country because they are similar and the Churche of the Brethren is far more regional. My wife likes a good bible thumping fire and brimstone sermon. I've been to a lot of different churches, there is a big range

You initially lied when you said it was a religious requirement. It wasn't. It was her families...or more so, societies requirement. Society values married people and civil marriage as an institution.

Yes, the old inherent truth of liberalism, so anything not liberal is a lie bit. I do enjoy that. I'll stipulate to that everything I say is not liberal and therefore I know I'm lying so you don't have to keep repeating it like all the other liberals. Does that work?

My wife's father worked for a missionary and was very conservative. You can word parse whether it was the family or the church, but it's the church's value enforced through the family. Tom-ay-to Tom-ah-to.

And what a load of crap. No gays are reacting to society expecting to have a marriage license, gays are trying to create that expectation. Different things entirely

 

[kaz]

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

Yes it does. You singled out gays as non-perpetuators.

Keep flailing.

OK, here is where you are stupid. You said I am "singling out gays." The question is related to the gay discussion. The standard is not.

1) Government is a privilege, not a right. There are only negative rights in a free country, is no such thing as a positive right in a free country. Positive rights by definition infringe on the negative rights of others.

2) I want no government marriage for anyone. But as long as we have it, it's up to government to decide what the standard is. And that standard by history and opinion is one man, one woman. The courts are changing that, even in deep blue California because of that, you can't get the vote.

None of that standard singles out gays

Bullshit. Before the SCOTUS is the fact that gays were singled out to be "sub-class" citizens with restricted rights. Duh!!!

Who are you quoting when you quoted "sub-class?"

 

[RKMBrown]

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

Yes it does. You singled out gays as non-perpetuators.

Keep flailing.

OK, here is where you are stupid. You said I am "singling out gays." The question is related to the gay discussion. The standard is not.

1) Government is a privilege, not a right. There are only negative rights in a free country, is no such thing as a positive right in a free country. Positive rights by definition infringe on the negative rights of others.

2) I want no government marriage for anyone. But as long as we have it, it's up to government to decide what the standard is. And that standard by history and opinion is one man, one woman. The courts are changing that, even in deep blue California because of that, you can't get the vote.

None of that standard singles out gays

Bullshit. Before the SCOTUS is the fact that gays were singled out to be "sub-class" citizens with restricted rights. Duh!!!

Who are you quoting when you quoted "sub-class?"

You told me all caps hurts your ears... so I used quotes for emphasis.