Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

You are very confused. You talk as if government is your GOD. As if government has handed down the decree that you shall go forth and multiply.

Just because you justify in your own haid that your child tax break is just because your child will be a good little tax payer, does not actually justify your tax break, nor does it justify you PISSING on gays for daring the want the right to marry.

Can you answer the question? What benefit does society get from sanctioning gay marriage?

You're kidding right? You want to know what benefit society gets out of family units? Sigh.... First off why should society demand a benefit from a family unit? What the hell does any family unit "OWE" society?

Government WORKS FOR US. They are our EMPLOYEES. We use, in this case, our government employees to arbitrate contracts. For example, marriage licenses between two consenting adults. If there is a divorce, or other issue of legal matter with regard to said marriage our government employees are PAID to arbitrate said issues.

So the answer is "no, you cannot answer the question of the OP."
Thanks for clarifying.

The question is a strawman, presupposing that marriages owe society some form of benefit for some supposed subsidizing that is going on for marriages. My answer to the OP was very clear. The strawman is bullshit.

Then why have marriage laws at all. What justification do we have in regulating marriage if it has no benefits to Government or society to do so?

Yes, let's eliminate government marriage. There are better solutions for everything that is supposedly solves. If we have flat taxes, no death tax which is entirely evil anyway and make things like living wills easier and cheaper and just let couples work out their own financial arrangements and agreements between each other or with whatever resources like churches they chose, then government can get out of the business of regulating morality and discriminating between it's citizens

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's funny that the bigots cling to this reproduction thing, but it's understandable. It's the last thing they can find that's in some way different between a gay couple and an opposite sex couple,

even if it's irrelevant.

It's a desperate attempt to find anything that could thwart the principle of equal protection under the law.

Somewhat different?

Seriously?

No living being has ever walked the face of this planet frome same sex coupling and that's only SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT?

You can't be thinking clearly.

What you pointed out doesn't make the two groups somewhat different, it makes them INCREDIBLY DIFFERENT.

Why is post menopausal opposite sex marriage legal?

Your argument is that gays can procreate the same way elderly straights can?

Name a single same sex coupling that didn't create a child BASED ONLY ON AGE.

you do realize that the oldest birth recorded was a woman in her 70s, right?

What is the oldest birth recorded as a result of same sex coupling?

I want you to cite one child requirement in any current marriage law in this country.

ONE

You can't run from questions by asking an irrelevant question

You're the one claiming there's a child requirement in current marriage law. That's the whole point of your argument.

So prove it.

 

[kaz]

Dumbfuck ... the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right. Marrying "who you want" is fundamental towards that.

Yet that standard is a lie. You don't support polygamists marrying "who they want" and you don't support narcissists like Skylar marrying "who they want." Skylar's view of a perfect romantic evening is a bottle of wine and a tape of his own voice.

Actual standards are things that don't shift. You introduce that standard to get gays over the line, then you turn it off. You are completely shallow and obvious.

And speaking of shallow, the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution protects life, liberty and property. The pursuit of happiness is a justification for our laws, not a power of government. Which again is how fucked your brain is, you think the pursuit of happiness is a government power. Frankly that's sick, Lenin

Yes our laws are supposed to protect one's right to the pursuits of happiness, among which 'marital bliss' should certainly qualify,

Christ, if anything qualifies as 'pursuit of happiness'.

Letting government limit legal marriage to only certain types, for no good reason, is clearly an infringement on one's 'pursuit of happiness' rights.

What if you try reading my post this time? LOL, you are seriously not a bright guy, I addressed that. Here's how debates work. You read what I said and build on it, you don't ignore it and repeat your idiotic rantings

 

[Seawytch]

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

Asked an answered. I can't help you are really so fucking stupid that you don't understand how placing abandoned children in homes is a benefit to society; not just to the parents adopting the children.

You really are fucked in the head, kaz. How do you not understand something as basic as that?

So gays only take "abandoned babies" if they make a buck off it? Other than that, they won't do it?

And we're supposed to pay off all gays and just hope enough of them take abandoned babies to make it worth it?

I'd rather just pay whoever takes the abandoned babies to care for them and skip the paying people for screwing their own sex part entirely

And here we have another indication that for Kaz it's all about him not liking how gays have sex. He has no problem paying for straight people screwing the opposite sex without results.

Kaz says it's all about the money...so let's look at the math. Childless couples make up close to 20% of the heterosexual married population. Those numbers alone are far, far greater than just the percentage of gays in the population let alone gay couples wanting to marry.

So Kaz only whining about gay couples (who do in fact have children...2 million children are being raised in known LGBT homes, including 4% of total adoptions) leaves only one conclusion. Kaz thinks gays are icky.

This does not hold up in a court of law where people go to redress their grievances like gays did when states decided to pass laws that violated the US Constitution.

You need to repent, I hope it's not already too late. The kingdom of heaven is not going to wait forever, and it will not be the home of an abomination

Ta da...Kaz knows I'm right...so he needs some kudos from the far right wingnuts. Wonder how many "thanks" and "agrees" you'll get?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Asked an answered. I can't help you are really so fucking stupid that you don't understand how placing abandoned children in homes is a benefit to society; not just to the parents adopting the children.

You really are fucked in the head, kaz. How do you not understand something as basic as that?

So gays only take "abandoned babies" if they make a buck off it? Other than that, they won't do it?

And we're supposed to pay off all gays and just hope enough of them take abandoned babies to make it worth it?

I'd rather just pay whoever takes the abandoned babies to care for them and skip the paying people for screwing their own sex part entirely

And here we have another indication that for Kaz it's all about him not liking how gays have sex. He has no problem paying for straight people screwing the opposite sex without results.

Kaz says it's all about the money...so let's look at the math. Childless couples make up close to 20% of the heterosexual married population. Those numbers alone are far, far greater than just the percentage of gays in the population let alone gay couples wanting to marry.

So Kaz only whining about gay couples (who do in fact have children...2 million children are being raised in known LGBT homes, including 4% of total adoptions) leaves only one conclusion. Kaz thinks gays are icky.

This does not hold up in a court of law where people go to redress their grievances like gays did when states decided to pass laws that violated the US Constitution.

You need to repent, I hope it's not already too late. The kingdom of heaven is not going to wait forever, and it will not be the home of an abomination

lol, you're going to hell for doing business with gay people.

 

[kaz]

Give up on a sucessful argument?

An egg (female) must couple with sperm (male) to make a baby.

I'd have thought you of all people would know that.

Thank you Captain Obvious...now explain what either of those have to do with civil marriage or actual parenting. Oh right, you can't...you just keep repeating the obvious as though it matters. Carry on.

The difference, Lieutenant Clueless, is that Pop's point was topical for this thread and yours wasn't

 

[kaz]

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

Asked an answered. I can't help you are really so fucking stupid that you don't understand how placing abandoned children in homes is a benefit to society; not just to the parents adopting the children.

You really are fucked in the head, kaz. How do you not understand something as basic as that?

So gays only take "abandoned babies" if they make a buck off it? Other than that, they won't do it?

And we're supposed to pay off all gays and just hope enough of them take abandoned babies to make it worth it?

I'd rather just pay whoever takes the abandoned babies to care for them and skip the paying people for screwing their own sex part entirely

And here we have another indication that for Kaz it's all about him not liking how gays have sex. He has no problem paying for straight people screwing the opposite sex without results.

Kaz says it's all about the money...so let's look at the math. Childless couples make up close to 20% of the heterosexual married population. Those numbers alone are far, far greater than just the percentage of gays in the population let alone gay couples wanting to marry.

So Kaz only whining about gay couples (who do in fact have children...2 million children are being raised in known LGBT homes, including 4% of total adoptions) leaves only one conclusion. Kaz thinks gays are icky.

This does not hold up in a court of law where people go to redress their grievances like gays did when states decided to pass laws that violated the US Constitution.

You need to repent, I hope it's not already too late. The kingdom of heaven is not going to wait forever, and it will not be the home of an abomination

Ta da...Kaz knows I'm right...so he needs some kudos from the far right wingnuts. Wonder how many "thanks" and "agrees" you'll get?

Um...yeah....that's it, I'm always sucking up to them. Like my thread asking what's wrong with being gay. 1% against you is 100% against you.

You on the other hand keep sucking carpets, and you're headed directly and rapidly towards eternal flames. Repent your sinful ways before it's too late, if it's not already.

Or start making sense and I'll address you instead of mock you. Your choice

 

[NYcarbineer]

Dumbfuck ... the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right. Marrying "who you want" is fundamental towards that.

Yet that standard is a lie. You don't support polygamists marrying "who they want" and you don't support narcissists like Skylar marrying "who they want." Skylar's view of a perfect romantic evening is a bottle of wine and a tape of his own voice.

Actual standards are things that don't shift. You introduce that standard to get gays over the line, then you turn it off. You are completely shallow and obvious.

And speaking of shallow, the pursuit of happiness is in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution. The Constitution protects life, liberty and property. The pursuit of happiness is a justification for our laws, not a power of government. Which again is how fucked your brain is, you think the pursuit of happiness is a government power. Frankly that's sick, Lenin

Yes our laws are supposed to protect one's right to the pursuits of happiness, among which 'marital bliss' should certainly qualify,

Christ, if anything qualifies as 'pursuit of happiness'.

Letting government limit legal marriage to only certain types, for no good reason, is clearly an infringement on one's 'pursuit of happiness' rights.

What if you try reading my post this time? LOL, you are seriously not a bright guy, I addressed that. Here's how debates work. You read what I said and build on it, you don't ignore it and repeat your idiotic rantings

No government should have the power to limit only some couples from whatever legal marriage is available under the laws of that government,

unless they have a very good reason. Since you can produce no good reason, you either must agree with me or conceded that you don't believe in a democratic government that secures the rights of the people.

 

[kaz]

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

Asked an answered. I can't help you are really so fucking stupid that you don't understand how placing abandoned children in homes is a benefit to society; not just to the parents adopting the children.

You really are fucked in the head, kaz. How do you not understand something as basic as that?

So gays only take "abandoned babies" if they make a buck off it? Other than that, they won't do it?

And we're supposed to pay off all gays and just hope enough of them take abandoned babies to make it worth it?

I'd rather just pay whoever takes the abandoned babies to care for them and skip the paying people for screwing their own sex part entirely

And here we have another indication that for Kaz it's all about him not liking how gays have sex. He has no problem paying for straight people screwing the opposite sex without results.

Kaz says it's all about the money...so let's look at the math. Childless couples make up close to 20% of the heterosexual married population. Those numbers alone are far, far greater than just the percentage of gays in the population let alone gay couples wanting to marry.

So Kaz only whining about gay couples (who do in fact have children...2 million children are being raised in known LGBT homes, including 4% of total adoptions) leaves only one conclusion. Kaz thinks gays are icky.

This does not hold up in a court of law where people go to redress their grievances like gays did when states decided to pass laws that violated the US Constitution.

You need to repent, I hope it's not already too late. The kingdom of heaven is not going to wait forever, and it will not be the home of an abomination

lol, you're going to hell for doing business with gay people.

Worse than that, my sales manager in my business is a lesbian. And I knew that when I hired her

 

[NYcarbineer]

Give up on a sucessful argument?

An egg (female) must couple with sperm (male) to make a baby.

I'd have thought you of all people would know that.

Thank you Captain Obvious...now explain what either of those have to do with civil marriage or actual parenting. Oh right, you can't...you just keep repeating the obvious as though it matters. Carry on.

The difference, Lieutenant Clueless, is that Pop's point was topical for this thread and yours wasn't

The last refuge of a bad debater is claiming someone's post wasn't 'topical'. In your case it's more often your first refuge.

 

[Seawytch]

Can you answer the question? What benefit does society get from sanctioning gay marriage?

You're kidding right? You want to know what benefit society gets out of family units? Sigh.... First off why should society demand a benefit from a family unit? What the hell does any family unit "OWE" society?

Government WORKS FOR US. They are our EMPLOYEES. We use, in this case, our government employees to arbitrate contracts. For example, marriage licenses between two consenting adults. If there is a divorce, or other issue of legal matter with regard to said marriage our government employees are PAID to arbitrate said issues.

So the answer is "no, you cannot answer the question of the OP."
Thanks for clarifying.

The question is a strawman, presupposing that marriages owe society some form of benefit for some supposed subsidizing that is going on for marriages. My answer to the OP was very clear. The strawman is bullshit.

Then why have marriage laws at all. What justification do we have in regulating marriage if it has no benefits to Government or society to do so?

Yes, let's eliminate government marriage. There are better solutions for everything that is supposedly solves. If we have flat taxes, no death tax which is entirely evil anyway and make things like living wills easier and cheaper and just let couples work out their own financial arrangements and agreements between each other or with whatever resources like churches they chose, then government can get out of the business of regulating morality and discriminating between it's citizens

And you can keep "working" on that...(by whining about "subsidizing" gays while not giving two shits and a handshake about the millions of childless straight married couples.)

In the meantime, you and I can be civilly married to our respective spouses (and enjoying the hundreds of rights and benefits that go along with it). How about you get back to us in...oh say...20 years and let us know how your list of "wants" goes.

 

[kaz]

No government should have the power to limit only some couples from whatever legal marriage is available under the laws of that government

Good argument ... for the legislature. The courts have a literal job. Did being black change who you could marry? Yes, for every black. Did being gay change who you could marry? No, for every gay. The job of the courts was at that point done and the question gets thrown back to the people and the people they ... elect ... to represent them

unless they have a very good reason. Since you can produce no good reason, you either must agree with me or conceded that you don't believe in a democratic government that secures the rights of the people.

So your believing in the courts overruling the people is you believing in "a democratic government."



What a tool you are for Democrats. Wow, you are seriously stupid, guy

 

[kaz]

Give up on a sucessful argument?

An egg (female) must couple with sperm (male) to make a baby.

I'd have thought you of all people would know that.

Thank you Captain Obvious...now explain what either of those have to do with civil marriage or actual parenting. Oh right, you can't...you just keep repeating the obvious as though it matters. Carry on.

The difference, Lieutenant Clueless, is that Pop's point was topical for this thread and yours wasn't

The last refuge of a bad debater is claiming someone's post wasn't 'topical'. In your case it's more often your first refuge.

Um...you weren't on the debate team, where you Harley? I was, I went an entire year losing only one debate and I was the lead on my team. That one was my fault, and it was on a technicality. Just so you know, being typical is actually central to debating.

And formal debating aside, think about what you said. How stupid is it that you say it's a lame argument to say an argument doesn't address the point in the discussion? I like to keep you talking, it is good for a laugh and wow, you make liberals look as stupid as you are

 

[Seawytch]

Give up on a sucessful argument?

An egg (female) must couple with sperm (male) to make a baby.

I'd have thought you of all people would know that.

Thank you Captain Obvious...now explain what either of those have to do with civil marriage or actual parenting. Oh right, you can't...you just keep repeating the obvious as though it matters. Carry on.

The difference, Lieutenant Clueless, is that Pop's point was topical for this thread and yours wasn't

Of course my response was to the "argument" , SN Ridiculous. "Making a baby" isn't a requirement for civil marriage. In some states it is an actual requirement that the married individuals CANNOT "make babies".

Just because Pops has the same "gays have sex I think is icky" "argument" doesn't mean my response to your silly "argument" is off topic. It responds directly to the topic. 10% of straight married couples DON'T have children. 2 million children live in homes with known gay parents.

I work. My wife stays home to care for our two children. Why does my family not meet your criteria for the married tax break?

 

[kaz]

You're kidding right? You want to know what benefit society gets out of family units? Sigh.... First off why should society demand a benefit from a family unit? What the hell does any family unit "OWE" society?

Government WORKS FOR US. They are our EMPLOYEES. We use, in this case, our government employees to arbitrate contracts. For example, marriage licenses between two consenting adults. If there is a divorce, or other issue of legal matter with regard to said marriage our government employees are PAID to arbitrate said issues.

So the answer is "no, you cannot answer the question of the OP."
Thanks for clarifying.

The question is a strawman, presupposing that marriages owe society some form of benefit for some supposed subsidizing that is going on for marriages. My answer to the OP was very clear. The strawman is bullshit.

Then why have marriage laws at all. What justification do we have in regulating marriage if it has no benefits to Government or society to do so?

Yes, let's eliminate government marriage. There are better solutions for everything that is supposedly solves. If we have flat taxes, no death tax which is entirely evil anyway and make things like living wills easier and cheaper and just let couples work out their own financial arrangements and agreements between each other or with whatever resources like churches they chose, then government can get out of the business of regulating morality and discriminating between it's citizens

And you can keep "working" on that...(by whining about "subsidizing" gays while not giving two shits and a handshake about the millions of childless straight married couples.)

In the meantime, you and I can be civilly married to our respective spouses (and enjoying the hundreds of rights and benefits that go along with it). How about you get back to us in...oh say...20 years and let us know how your list of "wants" goes.

God, I made you cry again. I guess liking girls hasn't made you not one. Man up, Girlie, it's a debate, not a sob fest where you cry when people think differently than you

 

[NYcarbineer]

Give up on a sucessful argument?

An egg (female) must couple with sperm (male) to make a baby.

I'd have thought you of all people would know that.

Thank you Captain Obvious...now explain what either of those have to do with civil marriage or actual parenting. Oh right, you can't...you just keep repeating the obvious as though it matters. Carry on.

The difference, Lieutenant Clueless, is that Pop's point was topical for this thread and yours wasn't

The last refuge of a bad debater is claiming someone's post wasn't 'topical'. In your case it's more often your first refuge.

Um...you weren't on the debate team, where you Harley? I was, I went an entire year losing only one debate and I was the lead on my team. That one was my fault, and it was on a technicality. Just so you know, being typical is actually central to debating.

And formal debating aside, think about what you said. How stupid is it that you say it's a lame argument to say an argument doesn't address the point in the discussion? I like to keep you talking, it is good for a laugh and wow, you make liberals look as stupid as you are

The point in this discussion, your point, was demolished long ago.

 

[kaz]

The difference, Lieutenant Clueless, is that Pop's point was topical for this thread and yours wasn't

Of course my response was to the "argument" , SN Ridiculous. "Making a baby" isn't a requirement for civil marriage. In some states it is an actual requirement that the married individuals CANNOT "make babies".

The debate is why I should subsize gay mating. In no way does a requirement for normal, straight people to have a child address that either way

Just because Pops has the same "gays have sex I think is icky" "argument" doesn't mean my response to your silly "argument" is off topic. It responds directly to the topic. 10% of straight married couples DON'T have children. 2 million children live in homes with known gay parents.

I work. My wife stays home to care for our two children. Why does my family not meet your criteria for the married tax break?

When you say "known gay parents," your stat would include gay and bi parents married to straights, and the word "known" is a lie, it is using statistics and counting those assumed to be gay based on studies. Known would mean empirical data, and it's clearly not. Those aren't children living in stable two gay households, which would be a tiny fraction of that. So it's again irrelevant to the point and doesn't justify funding gay mating.

This thread is not specifically about you or any one gay. That one gay family is happy and stable doesn't justify paying for all gay mating

 

[kaz]

Give up on a sucessful argument?

An egg (female) must couple with sperm (male) to make a baby.

I'd have thought you of all people would know that.

Thank you Captain Obvious...now explain what either of those have to do with civil marriage or actual parenting. Oh right, you can't...you just keep repeating the obvious as though it matters. Carry on.

The difference, Lieutenant Clueless, is that Pop's point was topical for this thread and yours wasn't

The last refuge of a bad debater is claiming someone's post wasn't 'topical'. In your case it's more often your first refuge.

Um...you weren't on the debate team, where you Harley? I was, I went an entire year losing only one debate and I was the lead on my team. That one was my fault, and it was on a technicality. Just so you know, being typical is actually central to debating.

And formal debating aside, think about what you said. How stupid is it that you say it's a lame argument to say an argument doesn't address the point in the discussion? I like to keep you talking, it is good for a laugh and wow, you make liberals look as stupid as you are

The point in this discussion, your point, was demolished long ago.

Yes, I was pulverized in an avalanche of Democratic talking points. How am I not getting that?

So basically you are conceding you can't actually address my actual point by actually not addressing it

 

[kaz]

The chances of contracting HIV via heterosexual sex are lower than your chances of getting hit by a meteorite.

Just a little trivia for a mental exercise...

Odds of getting HIV through heterosexual intercourse 4 (Men) or 8 (Women) in 10,000 exposures.
Odds of dieing from an asteroid strike 1 in 74,817,414.,

To put that in like terms that would 29,924 (Men) or 59,854 (Woman) cases of HIV per 74,817,414 exposures. Your are chances of contracting HIV from heterosexual intercourse is lower? Not.


Odds of dying from an asteroid strike 1 in 74 817 414 - CNET
CDC - Transmission Risk - HIV and the Law - Policies and Programs - HIV AIDS

>>>>

Gay men are 70% of AIDS cases in this country and a little over 1% of the popultion since 2.2% of the population is gay, but you think statistics prove heterosexual sex is just as likely to lead to AIDS. To get there, that would mean that 1% of the country is having 70% of the sex. You actually think that?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thank you Captain Obvious...now explain what either of those have to do with civil marriage or actual parenting. Oh right, you can't...you just keep repeating the obvious as though it matters. Carry on.

The difference, Lieutenant Clueless, is that Pop's point was topical for this thread and yours wasn't

The last refuge of a bad debater is claiming someone's post wasn't 'topical'. In your case it's more often your first refuge.

Um...you weren't on the debate team, where you Harley? I was, I went an entire year losing only one debate and I was the lead on my team. That one was my fault, and it was on a technicality. Just so you know, being typical is actually central to debating.

And formal debating aside, think about what you said. How stupid is it that you say it's a lame argument to say an argument doesn't address the point in the discussion? I like to keep you talking, it is good for a laugh and wow, you make liberals look as stupid as you are

The point in this discussion, your point, was demolished long ago.

Yes, I was pulverized in an avalanche of Democratic talking points. How am I not getting that?

So basically you are conceding you can't actually address my actual point by actually not addressing it

Your original point was that gays should not be allowed to legally marry because they don't reproduce. That idiotic argument has been pulverized.