Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[bripat9643]

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.

No one claimed that, numskull.

 

[Faun]

Let me correct your difficulties with replying to posts so I can address yet more of your kazzing

Umm, no, it wasn't Democrat talking points which destroyed your OP.

It was the sheer idiocy of it. In case you missed it ... you justified government subsidizing of straight marriages for the purpose of raising children .... your OP failed before the very first response because it didn't occur to you that gay marriages can also result in raising children.

First of all, skippy, OP does not refer to OP as in OP ED, OP on the internet means Original Poster. It is a person. Me. Note the "OP" by my name. That is why you aren't making sense when you use the word. That's why I keep referring to my "OP post." I am the "OP."

Wrong as usual dumbfuck, "OP" can stand for either "Original Poster" OR "Opening Post." Despite your ignorance, I used the abbreviation correctly.

Second, Strawman, I didn't "justif(y) tax breaks." I'm actually against them. I said the reason people think we need government marriage is children. No one thinks you need tax breaks to hold hands and go to the movies and share an apartment with your honey. The $$$ is so that you can afford to stay home and have children. Do you notice parntering without kids already saves money. That isn't what people think.

More kazzing. Yes, you justified it when you said it's beneficial...

"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." ~ kaz​

If you are saying you don't know that, you think people think tax breaks are to save you more money than already sharing expenses, then I am calling you a liar. You do know that.

The liar is you in trying to maneuver your OP away from parents raising children to parents bearing children.

And why are you trying so desperately to change your OP? Because even you know it failed.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Every "straight" married couple is childless until they have children, so that argument is idiotic.

 

[Faun]

Now you're lying again.

Anyone here surprised?

I never denied Reagan was handed a recession.

Oh, this one's going to hurt. Seriously? You realize this site has a search function. What did you say here again?

"I never denied Reagan was handed a recession"

That right, Skippy? Let's go to the video tape.

Again ... Obama inherited an economy in recession ... Reagan did not

I point out how Reagan was handed an economy which wasn't in recession (which it wasn"t)

I said Reagan didn't inherit a recession because he didn't

Oh, that's gotta hurt, even for someone ramming things up their own ass as often as you do. You are the liar, clown Romney. That is classic

Since you're too fucking stupid, let me help you out....

In none of those quotes do I say Reagan was or was not "handed a recession." I say either "he inherited an economy" or he was "handed an economy."

I had a hunch you were going to fall for that.



And yes, Reagan was "handed a recession" ... by Paul Volker. See that? I'm still not blaming Reagan for the recession despite you repeatedly claiming I do.

 

[Faun]

Umm, no, it wasn't Democrat talking points which destroyed your OP.

It was the sheer idiocy of it. In case you missed it ... you justified government subsidizing of straight marriages for the purpose of raising children .... your OP failed before the very first response because it didn't occur to you that gay marriages can also result in raising children.[\quote]

First of all, skippy, OP does not refer to OP as in OP ED, OP on the internet means Original Poster. It is a person. Me. Note the "OP" by my name. That is why you aren't making sense when you use the word. That's why I keep referring to my "OP post." I am the "OP."

Second, Strawman, I didn't "justif(y) tax breaks." I'm actually against them. I said the reason people think we need government marriage is children. No one thinks you need tax breaks to hold hands and go to the movies and share an apartment with your honey. The $$$ is so that you can afford to stay home and have children. Do you notice parntering without kids already saves money. That isn't what people think.

If you are saying you don't know that, you think people think tax breaks are to save you more money than already sharing expenses, then I am calling you a liar. You do know that.

As for adoption, there are tax breaks for adoption, there are also tax breaks for taking care of foster kids. You don't give marriage breaks for that, you give marriage breaks for fucking and breeding. At least that's what the concept is.

If you want to give more breaks for kids, then argue that. Your gay tax breaks are obviously not because you want them to be able to afford to adopt and have test tube babies, that is another lie. But you are full of lies. You are a clown, and you are just like the clown on your avatar. Even you can't think of any differences at all much less that approach my differences with him

Learn how to use the quote function. Is there a reply in there?

You just gotta be a dick, don't you? Well, you are you, your avatar shows that.

Did you ever come up with any disagreements with Romney?

Holyfuckingshit!

Again -- YOU VOTED for the "dick" in my avatar.

 

[kaz]

And why are you trying so desperately to change your OP? Because even you know it failed.

I'm trying to change it by preventing you from changing it. The dancing is you, Romney the clown

 

[kaz]

Umm, no, it wasn't Democrat talking points which destroyed your OP.

It was the sheer idiocy of it. In case you missed it ... you justified government subsidizing of straight marriages for the purpose of raising children .... your OP failed before the very first response because it didn't occur to you that gay marriages can also result in raising children.[\quote]

First of all, skippy, OP does not refer to OP as in OP ED, OP on the internet means Original Poster. It is a person. Me. Note the "OP" by my name. That is why you aren't making sense when you use the word. That's why I keep referring to my "OP post." I am the "OP."

Second, Strawman, I didn't "justif(y) tax breaks." I'm actually against them. I said the reason people think we need government marriage is children. No one thinks you need tax breaks to hold hands and go to the movies and share an apartment with your honey. The $$$ is so that you can afford to stay home and have children. Do you notice parntering without kids already saves money. That isn't what people think.

If you are saying you don't know that, you think people think tax breaks are to save you more money than already sharing expenses, then I am calling you a liar. You do know that.

As for adoption, there are tax breaks for adoption, there are also tax breaks for taking care of foster kids. You don't give marriage breaks for that, you give marriage breaks for fucking and breeding. At least that's what the concept is.

If you want to give more breaks for kids, then argue that. Your gay tax breaks are obviously not because you want them to be able to afford to adopt and have test tube babies, that is another lie. But you are full of lies. You are a clown, and you are just like the clown on your avatar. Even you can't think of any differences at all much less that approach my differences with him

Learn how to use the quote function. Is there a reply in there?

You just gotta be a dick, don't you? Well, you are you, your avatar shows that.

Did you ever come up with any disagreements with Romney?

Holyfuckingshit!

Again -- YOU VOTED for the "dick" in my avatar.

You still can't think of any differences between you and Romney, ay? Have you given up at this point?

 

[Faun]

And why are you trying so desperately to change your OP? Because even you know it failed.

I'm trying to change it by preventing you from changing it. The dancing is you, Romney the clown

Poor, dumbfuck.... how can I be changing your OP when I'm quoting you??

"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." ~ kaz"​

Those are your words, not mine. That is you justifying a cost to tax payers to raise children.

</thread-fail>

 

[Faun]

Umm, no, it wasn't Democrat talking points which destroyed your OP.

It was the sheer idiocy of it. In case you missed it ... you justified government subsidizing of straight marriages for the purpose of raising children .... your OP failed before the very first response because it didn't occur to you that gay marriages can also result in raising children.[\quote]

First of all, skippy, OP does not refer to OP as in OP ED, OP on the internet means Original Poster. It is a person. Me. Note the "OP" by my name. That is why you aren't making sense when you use the word. That's why I keep referring to my "OP post." I am the "OP."

Second, Strawman, I didn't "justif(y) tax breaks." I'm actually against them. I said the reason people think we need government marriage is children. No one thinks you need tax breaks to hold hands and go to the movies and share an apartment with your honey. The $$$ is so that you can afford to stay home and have children. Do you notice parntering without kids already saves money. That isn't what people think.

If you are saying you don't know that, you think people think tax breaks are to save you more money than already sharing expenses, then I am calling you a liar. You do know that.

As for adoption, there are tax breaks for adoption, there are also tax breaks for taking care of foster kids. You don't give marriage breaks for that, you give marriage breaks for fucking and breeding. At least that's what the concept is.

If you want to give more breaks for kids, then argue that. Your gay tax breaks are obviously not because you want them to be able to afford to adopt and have test tube babies, that is another lie. But you are full of lies. You are a clown, and you are just like the clown on your avatar. Even you can't think of any differences at all much less that approach my differences with him

Learn how to use the quote function. Is there a reply in there?

You just gotta be a dick, don't you? Well, you are you, your avatar shows that.

Did you ever come up with any disagreements with Romney?

Holyfuckingshit!

Again -- YOU VOTED for the "dick" in my avatar.

You still can't think of any differences between you and Romney, ay? Have you given up at this point?

Sure, here's a big difference -- I didn't want that "dick" to be president of the United States.

You did.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

God, you are so delusional. Do the facts every impinge on your brain at any point? No matter how many times you get the snot kicked out of you, you come back with same already exploded arguments.

 

[Lilah]

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.

"Marital bliss" is what results from the union of a man and a woman. No matter how endlessly you blabber, you can never change that irrefutable fact.

You betcha

 

[kaz]

And why are you trying so desperately to change your OP? Because even you know it failed.

I'm trying to change it by preventing you from changing it. The dancing is you, Romney the clown

Poor, dumbfuck.... how can I be changing your OP when I'm quoting you??

"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." ~ kaz"​

Those are your words, not mine. That is you justifying a cost to tax payers to raise children.

</thread-fail>

Because you cut out the rest of the quote where I said that is the "concept of marriage." Those three words were actually important. Clown Romney.

 

[kaz]

Learn how to use the quote function. Is there a reply in there?

You just gotta be a dick, don't you? Well, you are you, your avatar shows that.

Did you ever come up with any disagreements with Romney?

Holyfuckingshit!

Again -- YOU VOTED for the "dick" in my avatar.

You still can't think of any differences between you and Romney, ay? Have you given up at this point?

Sure, here's a big difference -- I didn't want that "dick" to be president of the United States.

You did.

No one I wanted was in the finals, Skippy. You wanted guys who's only real difference was skin color. Romney's a clown, and you still can't think of anything you disagree with him on

 

[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.

"Marital bliss" is what results from the union of a man and a woman. No matter how endlessly you blabber, you can never change that irrefutable fact.

You betcha

Which is you?

 

[Lilah]

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.

"Marital bliss" is what results from the union of a man and a woman. No matter how endlessly you blabber, you can never change that irrefutable fact.

You betcha

Which is you?

You made a funny; I like that.

 

[kaz]

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.

No one claimed that, numskull.

You really gotta wonder, don't you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

God, you are so delusional. Do the facts every impinge on your brain at any point? No matter how many times you get the snot kicked out of you, you come back with same already exploded arguments.

What facts?

Are there clauses in state marriage contracts that require couples to have children?

Please cite them, state by state.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

"Marital bliss" is what results from the union of a man and a woman. No matter how endlessly you blabber, you can never change that irrefutable fact.

You betcha

What do you think that proves?

Here's one for you:

 

[bripat9643]

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.

God, you are so delusional. Do the facts every impinge on your brain at any point? No matter how many times you get the snot kicked out of you, you come back with same already exploded arguments.

What facts?

Are there clauses in state marriage contracts that require couples to have children?

Please cite them, state by state.

You're too stupid to waste time on with a substantive response. This has already been explained at least 10,000 times. Pretending you don't get the point only makes you look stupid.

 

[Lilah]

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.

"Marital bliss" is what results from the union of a man and a woman. No matter how endlessly you blabber, you can never change that irrefutable fact.

You betcha

What do you think that proves?

Here's one for you:

What is that divine color of lipstick you are wearing?