Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[NYcarbineer]

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

Corporate tax breaks are funding corporations!!!!

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

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

LOL, you're a tool

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

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

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

There is no 'gay' financial subsidy.

You're just wrong, Buckwheat

So I've reduced you to having no rebuttal. Goddam you're dumber than PoliticalChic and Where are my Keys combined.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Corporate tax breaks are funding corporations!!!!

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

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

LOL, you're a tool

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

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

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

There is no 'gay' financial subsidy.

You're just wrong, Buckwheat

Cite the gay funding. What money is it? Where does it come from? Where does it go?

 

[kaz]

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

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

That isn't the question, Sparky.

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

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

Read the post you quoted

You said that there is no financial benefit to society to fund gay marriage. I asked why there has to be a financial benefit to doing the right thing? A question you've yet to respond to

I stated in the op and in my answer this is a financial thread. You want to demand an answer to another question, here's what you do. Start another thread and mention me. I'll try to address it.

Secondly, you have made two unsupported claims in your post. The first, that there is no financial benefit to society, and the second, that society is funding gay "mating". You should support your claims, otherwise, people will think you are just making it up.

It's a question to you, shit for brains. I'm calling you a liar for your claims to write academic papers. There is no fucking way in hell anyone would publish a paper with your name on it. You can't follow simple logic. There are lots of ways to argue my post. You are just flat out not comprehending it

 

[kaz]

Corporate tax breaks are funding corporations!!!!

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

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

LOL, you're a tool

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

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

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

There is no 'gay' financial subsidy.

You're just wrong, Buckwheat

Cite the gay funding. What money is it? Where does it come from? Where does it go?

Learn the tax code

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

They'll argue things like "fairness" and "equal protection." But your point is well taken. There is no benefit to society from gay marriage.

What benefit does "society" get from heterosexual marriage? Your being married to a woman is of no benefit to me or anybody else I know personally, and if a poll were taken I'd say the majority of Americans would say they derive no benefit from your marriage. I have no idea whether you're married or not, for the record, merely hypothesizing that you are.

That is wrong. Kaz dealt with the benefit in the OP.

Kaz said the propagation of the species, but your having children has zero benefit to me. Kaz merely stated that this was a benefit without defending it.

Actually I said that's the "concept behind it." If you are saying you don't know most people think the purpose of government marriage is children, I'm calling you a liar. You do know that

I'd be willing to put money on the idea that most people think the purpose of marriage is love for your spouse and a desire to bind yourself to them. If one's goal was merely to have children then marriage isn't necessary for that.

 

[orogenicman]

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

So you oppose the courts doing it?

Why would I oppose the courts for doing their jobs?

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

The courts interpret and enforce the law. That is what society agrees is their role. You didn't know this? Huh.

 

[bodecea]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

If the fundie nutters get what they want, this is a first step in requiring heterosexual couples to reproduce in order for their marriage to be legally recognized and for them to get the couple's tax break.

Note to OP -

1. If you're not gay, you really can't say what their sex is like FOR THEM.

2. No one "subsidizes" stay-at-home mothers and, if they can afford it, there's no other reason why a gay parent cannot stay home with their child.

Gays make up less than 5% of our population. An even smaller percentage of those will get married. You really think this will amount to much money?

The hateful RWs really need to stop their meddling and MYOB.

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

True, but more specifically is what is the financial benefit. If we are funding something with $$$, we should have a $$$ reason for doing it

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

None.

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

I keep having to remind the left, its not the government's money its the people's money and if the people have decided to encourage traditional marriage between men and women, to encourage the traditional family using a bit of the peoples money then so be it its their money.

And gays and gay couples are of the people too. Or don't you think so?

 

[bodecea]

There is an overpopulation concern by the real 1%. The Global Initiative has embraced abortion and gay coupling to curb the population.

That would be affecting the wrong population, we aren't having enough kids in the US. It doesn't help Ethiopia to not have kids here

Actually, minorities in this country are largely having healthy batches of children. The group that is not generating enough children are white people. They have the lowest rate in the country.

I said that's the concept behind it, this is a tangent. I don't even agree with government marriage at all

You keep saying that....and yet what are you DOING about it?

 

[orogenicman]

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

That isn't the question, Sparky.

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

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

Read the post you quoted

You said that there is no financial benefit to society to fund gay marriage. I asked why there has to be a financial benefit to doing the right thing? A question you've yet to respond to

I stated in the op and in my answer this is a financial thread. You want to demand an answer to another question, here's what you do. Start another thread and mention me. I'll try to address it.

And yet you posted it in the politics forum. All I am asking is for you to support your claims.

Secondly, you have made two unsupported claims in your post. The first, that there is no financial benefit to society, and the second, that society is funding gay "mating". You should support your claims, otherwise, people will think you are just making it up.

It's a question to you, shit for brains. I'm calling you a liar for your claims to write academic papers. There is no fucking way in hell anyone would publish a paper with your name on it. You can't follow simple logic. There are lots of ways to argue my post. You are just flat out not comprehending it

My papers get published because I provide verifiable support for my claims. You? Not so much. Oh, and who is "votto"? I posted those words. Not some fictional character from your own mind.

 

[G.T.]

Perpetuation of the species has nothing to do with marriage. One doesnt preclude the other.

So, the op to me is a non starter until he can show that people will cease to know how to procreate and would allow themselves to become extinct, while sentient and all, because straight marriage as sanctioned by govt doesnt exist.

Cuz....thats weird.

Poor fucking argument.

 

[bendog]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

Following that logic I don't see the purpose of subsidizing, if that's what we want to call it, heterosexual couples either. You say for the propagation of the species, but I see no actual benefit from other people having children. There are naturally other problems I see with this analysis, but I'm sure you can anticipate them and they don't fall within the narrow financial aspect you're looking to discuss.

You know I'm against government marriage, I don't contradict that in this post. You know that if you have long term memory. And you have to have noticed I started with "I at least get the concept." That isn't the point of this thread. There are better solutions to everything government marriage supposedly solves that could be applied to everyone. Flat taxes, elimination of the evil death tax and so on. But that isn't the point of the thread. Actually Seawytch inspirited it by being a dick in our recent conversation

I do know that, which is why I think this is an odd post to begin with, but I understand what you're trying to do I think. I responded strictly to the financial aspect you want to discuss by pointing out that there is no financial gain from subsidizing heterosexual couples anymore than there is homosexual couples.

Kaz is saying he doesn't like gay marriage. It's not complicated.

 

[bodecea]

If the fundie nutters get what they want, this is a first step in requiring heterosexual couples to reproduce in order for their marriage to be legally recognized and for them to get the couple's tax break.

Note to OP -

1. If you're not gay, you really can't say what their sex is like FOR THEM.

2. No one "subsidizes" stay-at-home mothers and, if they can afford it, there's no other reason why a gay parent cannot stay home with their child.

Gays make up less than 5% of our population. An even smaller percentage of those will get married. You really think this will amount to much money?

The hateful RWs really need to stop their meddling and MYOB.

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

Dumb question but the answer is - same as for straight couples. No difference.


.

Clearly that cannot be. Straight couples tend to procreate. Gay couples cannot.
Next.

"Tend to" does not define as "always will". And yet those who do not/cannot procreate are allowed to marry. And some gay couples tend to have children too.

Gay couples cannot have children... it's physiology 101.

So? The ability to have children is not on any marriage license in any state. Even churches agree it isn't a requirement.

 

[bodecea]

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

Are you cool with that?

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

Sure you are.....you keep saying that....but won't answer my frequently asked question about what you are doing about it......except talking the talk.

 

[bodecea]

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

Do you support taxpayer money going to the poor who ARE producing children?

No

If you're producing children you cannot afford you should be arrested for child abuse.

Ah yes... Party of small government indeed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

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

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

There is no 'gay' financial subsidy.

You're just wrong, Buckwheat

Cite the gay funding. What money is it? Where does it come from? Where does it go?

Learn the tax code

So you can't even identify the money you're bitching about.

Goddam you have embarrassed yourself in this thread. If you had the character to be embarrassed by your own idiocy.

 

[kaz]

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

Are you cool with that?

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

Sure you are.....you keep saying that....but won't answer my frequently asked question about what you are doing about it......except talking the talk.

I've answered the question so many times, you dumb bimbo, I'm sick of answering it. I am trying to change minds. I've had many people tell me they never thought of that before, but I make sense, they are open to it. You want to grab a sign with a stick and go masturbate with a bunch of other liberals, that is ineffective.

you can not like my answer, but stop being such a dumb slut and process it. You keep saying I didn't answer it, I did, wench.

 

[bodecea]

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

No one is saying that but you.

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

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

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

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

And then we are back to....what have YOU been doing to eliminate the government (and the financial benefit) out of marriage? Besides NOT having a government marriage yourself, correct? Because if you did have a legal marriage that would be highly hypocritical, wouldn't it?

 

[kaz]

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

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

There is no 'gay' financial subsidy.

You're just wrong, Buckwheat

Cite the gay funding. What money is it? Where does it come from? Where does it go?

Learn the tax code

So you can't even identify the money you're bitching about.

Goddam you have embarrassed yourself in this thread. If you had the character to be embarrassed by your own idiocy.

Already did, you just didn't like the answer

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

There is no 'gay' financial subsidy.

You're just wrong, Buckwheat

Cite the gay funding. What money is it? Where does it come from? Where does it go?

Learn the tax code

So you can't even identify the money you're bitching about.

Goddam you have embarrassed yourself in this thread. If you had the character to be embarrassed by your own idiocy.

Already did, you just didn't like the answer

No you didn't. You didn't cite any money gays get for being gay.

 

[kaz]

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

No one is saying that but you.

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

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

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

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

And then we are back to....what have YOU been doing to eliminate the government (and the financial benefit) out of marriage? Besides NOT having a government marriage yourself, correct? Because if you did have a legal marriage that would be highly hypocritical, wouldn't it?

I've answered the question so many times, you dumb bimbo, I'm sick of answering it. I am trying to change minds. I've had many people tell me they never thought of that before, but I make sense, they are open to it. You want to grab a sign with a stick and go masturbate with a bunch of other liberals, that is ineffective.

you can not like my answer, but stop being such a dumb slut and process it. You keep saying I didn't answer it, I did, wench.