Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Syriusly]

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 know how I know you don't have any gay friends?......

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

Very nicely put.

 

[Syriusly]

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

'there is way more to it'- in your bigoted opinion.

The question is "why should gays be forced to subsidize Kaz's marriage, while he demands that that they not be allowed the same bennies Kaz welcomes into his own life'- or for that matter why should I?

Kaz, in theory, is against government marriage. He expresses his opposition to marriage by arguing that 3% of Americans should not be allowed to marry- but only those 3% because they are gay.

Again I say in theory- because Kaz doesn't reject legal marriage in his own life, he isn't campaigning against legal marriage, he is not out there passing around petitions to put an initiative on the ballot to end legal marriage- no Kaz enjoys all of the 'benefits' of legal marriage.

And expresses his opposition to legal marriage only by demanding that homosexuals not be allowed to marry.

Which leads to the logical conclusion- Kaz is not against legal marriage- Kaz is against sharing legal marriage with homosexuals, against sharing the bennies he enjoys with homosexuals.

Kaz's issue is not with marriage. Kaz's issue is with homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Yeah- you show how much you don't give a shit by starting threads about it and posting endlessly about it.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

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

So Kaz is once again saying he is opposed to government marriage but since he has it, he wants to deny it to homosexuals.

That way he can make homosexual couples subsidize the government marriage he decries publicly, but enjoys privately.

Kaz only objects to the courts enforcing the Constitution when it comes to marriage- when it comes to homosexuals and marriage.

There is a pattern here.

Kaz says he is against all government marriage but only opposes 'gay marriage'.
Kaz says he is against the court stepping in on marriage but only actually opposes it when the court steps in regarding 'gay marriage'.

The commonality of course is 'gay'- Kaz by his content specifically singles out gays.

 

[Seawytch]

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

Yes, gays are. Society values marriage so of course gays would grow up valuing it want to partake. And yes, parents of gays ARE asking us when we are going to marry and have kids.

Welcome to the 21st Century!

 

[GreenBean]

The question should be :

Why should other gay taxpayers have to subsidize hetrosexual mating?

Well golly gee - for starters they are the product of heterosexual mating - ya think ?

 

[GreenBean]

Society values marriage so of course gays would grow up valuing it want to partake. And yes, parents of gays ARE asking us when we are going to marry and have kids.

Society values marriage so of course gays would throw up valuing what is good for society. It's all about whats good for the fag - not the kid, not their family but them thats all they care about is their self serving perversions .

 

[GreenBean]

The question should be :

Why should other gay taxpayers have to subsidize hetrosexual mating?

No, the question should be "is there a value to civil marriage?". It has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the married couple. Either there is a benefit to civil marriage that should be incentivized with a lower tax rate or there isn't.

And - as addressed in a prior post - if the financial benefit were the only issue than that woulda coulda shoulda been resolved by making domestic partnerships equitable to real marriage for the purpose of taxes.

That doesn't even require legislation - it's administrative law - part of the Internal Revenue Code. But gays aren't out for that they are out to vomit their sickness at everybody else. Capice Seabitch ?

 

[toxicmedia]

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 know how I know you don't have any gay friends?......

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 are full of shit, but bravo, I appreciate the effort you put into it.

Look, Darlene, I don't give a shit if you think I have gay friends or not. I was making a point, and that point wasn't that I have gay friends. Agree or disagree with the point, but you are just boring me now

Go ahead, play like you're unaffected.

But you're simply the monster under the bed for thousands of people in this country, and you'll have to explain all that to God someday, and he'll know the truth

 

[kaz]

you'll have to explain all that to God someday, and he'll know the truth

Gyod, another right wing, religious whack job. Go peddle your damnation somewhere else to someone who gives a shit about your intolerant religious beliefs. Still missing Jerry Fallwell and The People That Loathe Club, aren't you??

 

[kaz]

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.

Wow, that must have been a while ago. I have said that before, not denying it. But I don't remember saying that to you. They only hurt my ears when you put large sections of your post in all caps, not when particular words are

 

[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

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

Irrelevant to the discussion since gays can marry exactly who straights can. Wanting something different is a matter for the legislature

 

[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.

Yeah- you show how much you don't give a shit by starting threads about it and posting endlessly about it.

I started threads that gay marriage "burns?" When was that?

 

[G.T.]

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..

Irrelevant to the discussion since gays can marry exactly who straights can. Wanting something different is a matter for the legislature

Thats a villainous cop out.

 

[Syriusly]

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..

Irrelevant to the discussion since gays can marry exactly who straights can. Wanting something different is a matter for the legislature

Well that is what the courts will be deciding.

The Supreme Court deciding on whether States can limit who can marry is established precedent- the Supreme Court has overturned State marriage laws as being unconstitutional 3 times before- and there is a good chance they are going to do so again.

 

[kaz]

Irrelevant to the discussion since gays can marry exactly who straights can. Wanting something different is a matter for the legislature

Thats a villainous cop out.

You gonna cry, Nancy? Oh, those poor gays, you feel so bad for them.

It comes down to what you think is the role of the courts. Is the role of the courts to follow the law? That is a literal process. Are gays literally treated different than straights. No, they are not. Being gay didn't change who they could marry. Did being black changed who you could marry? Damned straight it did, it changed everyone you could marry.

The only way you get there with gays is to put in variables, like "who they want." Gays can marry the same people as straights, but they want something different, that is a job for the legislature, not the courts.

What should scare the ever loving fuck out of you is the idea that judgess can change laws because they think they are not fair. Suppose judges says it's not fair to murder a baby in womb, so abortion is banned for everyone everywhere.

See, you want judges to decree what you want. I want them to decree nothing. That I may get my way on some issue isn't worth it, what's far too scary to me is the power they seize when they change laws because they deem them to not be fair

 

[Syriusly]

The question should be :

Why should other gay taxpayers have to subsidize hetrosexual mating?

No, the question should be "is there a value to civil marriage?". It has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the married couple. Either there is a benefit to civil marriage that should be incentivized with a lower tax rate or there isn't.

And - as addressed in a prior post - if the financial benefit were the only issue than that woulda coulda shoulda been resolved by making domestic partnerships equitable to real marriage for the purpose of taxes.

That doesn't even require legislation - it's administrative law - part of the Internal Revenue Code. But gays aren't out for that they are out to vomit their sickness at everybody else. Capice Seabitch ?

Conservatives like yourself fought domestic partnerships as vigorously as you fight gay marriage. That you 'shoulda coulda' accepted domestic partnership when you could have, is just too bad.

Homophobic bigots like yourself vomityour sickness on everyone else- hoping that your hatred will prevent homosexuals from loving.

Sucks to be you.

 

[G.T.]

Irrelevant to the discussion since gays can marry exactly who straights can. Wanting something different is a matter for the legislature

Thats a villainous cop out.

You gonna cry, Nancy? Oh, those poor gays, you feel so bad for them.

It comes down to what you think is the role of the courts. Is the role of the courts to follow the law? That is a literal process. Are gays literally treated different than straights. No, they are not. Being gay didn't change who they could marry. Did being black changed who you could marry? Damned straight it did, it changed everyone you could marry.

The only way you get there with gays is to put in variables, like "who they want." Gays can marry the same people as straights, but they want something different, that is a job for the legislature, not the courts.

What should scare the ever loving fuck out of you is the idea that judgess can change laws because they think they are not fair. Suppose judges says it's not fair to murder a baby in womb, so abortion is banned for everyone everywhere.

See, you want judges to decree what you want. I want them to decree nothing. That I may get my way on some issue isn't worth it, what's far too scary to me is the power they seize when they change laws because they deem them to not be fair

The intent of the laws matter. Just so you know.

 

[kaz]

Irrelevant to the discussion since gays can marry exactly who straights can. Wanting something different is a matter for the legislature

Thats a villainous cop out.

You gonna cry, Nancy? Oh, those poor gays, you feel so bad for them.

It comes down to what you think is the role of the courts. Is the role of the courts to follow the law? That is a literal process. Are gays literally treated different than straights. No, they are not. Being gay didn't change who they could marry. Did being black changed who you could marry? Damned straight it did, it changed everyone you could marry.

The only way you get there with gays is to put in variables, like "who they want." Gays can marry the same people as straights, but they want something different, that is a job for the legislature, not the courts.

What should scare the ever loving fuck out of you is the idea that judgess can change laws because they think they are not fair. Suppose judges says it's not fair to murder a baby in womb, so abortion is banned for everyone everywhere.

See, you want judges to decree what you want. I want them to decree nothing. That I may get my way on some issue isn't worth it, what's far too scary to me is the power they seize when they change laws because they deem them to not be fair

The intent of the laws matter. Just so you know.

So you're OK with Federal judges banning all abortions if they point out that legal abortion violates the "intent" of murder laws and is therefore a violation of our right to not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law?

 

[bodecea]

Irrelevant to the discussion since gays can marry exactly who straights can. Wanting something different is a matter for the legislature

Thats a villainous cop out.

You gonna cry, Nancy? Oh, those poor gays, you feel so bad for them.

It comes down to what you think is the role of the courts. Is the role of the courts to follow the law? That is a literal process. Are gays literally treated different than straights. No, they are not. Being gay didn't change who they could marry. Did being black changed who you could marry? Damned straight it did, it changed everyone you could marry.

The only way you get there with gays is to put in variables, like "who they want." Gays can marry the same people as straights, but they want something different, that is a job for the legislature, not the courts.

What should scare the ever loving fuck out of you is the idea that judgess can change laws because they think they are not fair. Suppose judges says it's not fair to murder a baby in womb, so abortion is banned for everyone everywhere.

See, you want judges to decree what you want. I want them to decree nothing. That I may get my way on some issue isn't worth it, what's far too scary to me is the power they seize when they change laws because they deem them to not be fair

The intent of the laws matter. Just so you know.

So you're OK with Federal judges banning all abortions if they point out that legal abortion violates the "intent" of murder laws and is therefore a violation of our right to not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law?

If it happens, it happens. Now.......when is it likely to happen? Let us know, eh?