Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Syriusly]

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

First of all you are mixing apples and oranges- which doesn't surprise me. You talk about gays and sex- but not straights and sex. So is your thread about sex- or marriage?

Secondly- based upon purely a financial question- not the moral one- then you are in agreement then that marriage benefits should only go to couples who have children and live together?

But you want to exclude homosexual couples- because their children don't deserve the benefits of the state?

This is the problem with the anti-homosexual agenda. You have issues with consistency.

If we looked at this purely from your pure financial point of view- we would not allow any such benefits to any couple who does not have children- and then we would provide that financial benefit to any couple who does have children.

But you just want to give the financial benefits to straight couples.

Because you approve of how they have sex.

^That.

God hates gays more than murderers, it's an abomination to humanity. At least murderers only kill one person. Gays not only do not procreate but they poison the rest of society

LOL.....Kaz trolling again.

 

[kaz]

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.

Strawman

 

[kaz]

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

First of all you are mixing apples and oranges- which doesn't surprise me. You talk about gays and sex- but not straights and sex. So is your thread about sex- or marriage?

Secondly- based upon purely a financial question- not the moral one- then you are in agreement then that marriage benefits should only go to couples who have children and live together?

But you want to exclude homosexual couples- because their children don't deserve the benefits of the state?

This is the problem with the anti-homosexual agenda. You have issues with consistency.

If we looked at this purely from your pure financial point of view- we would not allow any such benefits to any couple who does not have children- and then we would provide that financial benefit to any couple who does have children.

But you just want to give the financial benefits to straight couples.

Because you approve of how they have sex.

^That.

God hates gays more than murderers, it's an abomination to humanity. At least murderers only kill one person. Gays not only do not procreate but they poison the rest of society

LOL.....Kaz trolling again.

You know gay is a disease, right? The CDC says so

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does ANYONE on this board know what kaz is talking about? Or should we write it off to simple garden variety incoherent ignorance and let it go at that?

 

[Seawytch]

Let's see...our kids were born in 1999 and 2002...we didn't get civilly married until 2008. I got the tax breaks for the kids BEFORE I got civilly married.

How weird that one has nothing to do with the other...rendering Kaz's point...ridiculous.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

LOL....its sooo funny watching Kaz being reduced to a whiney bitch- because he can't provide a coherent response.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Strawman

Cite the money gays get. Cite the post if you think you've already posted it.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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

Law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adult, couples in a same-sex Civil Marriage provide the exact same benefit to society that Law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting, adult, couples in a different-sex Civil Marriage provide.

In some jurisdictions some different-sex couples are required to show proof of infertility before being allowed to Civilly Marry.


>>>>

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's see...our kids were born in 1999 and 2002...we didn't get civilly married until 2008. I got the tax breaks for the kids BEFORE I got civilly married.

How weird that one has nothing to do with the other...rendering Kaz's point...ridiculous.

kaz is trying to say gays get a subsidy for NOT having children. I know, WTF?

 

[Syriusly]

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

First of all you are mixing apples and oranges- which doesn't surprise me. You talk about gays and sex- but not straights and sex. So is your thread about sex- or marriage?

Secondly- based upon purely a financial question- not the moral one- then you are in agreement then that marriage benefits should only go to couples who have children and live together?

But you want to exclude homosexual couples- because their children don't deserve the benefits of the state?

This is the problem with the anti-homosexual agenda. You have issues with consistency.

If we looked at this purely from your pure financial point of view- we would not allow any such benefits to any couple who does not have children- and then we would provide that financial benefit to any couple who does have children.

But you just want to give the financial benefits to straight couples.

Because you approve of how they have sex.

^That.

God hates gays more than murderers, it's an abomination to humanity. At least murderers only kill one person. Gays not only do not procreate but they poison the rest of society

LOL.....Kaz trolling again.

You know gay is a disease, right? The CDC says so

Oh I forgot to add- Kaz trolling and lying again.

But that is like pointing out that the sun came up this morning.

 

[kaz]

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.

Wow, great point. Instead of saying government marriage perpetuates the species, I should have said that's the concept of marriage. Oh, wait, I did. Thanks for being retarded, it makes merely stupid people feel smart.

Cuz....thats weird.

Poor fucking argument.

LOL, the guy who didn't grasp my first sentence says this, classic

 

[Seawytch]

If there is a societal benefit to civil marriage, it applies to gays and straights. If there isn't a societal benefit, it ain't the gays fault.!

 

[bendog]

No Kaz, you didn't do shite. Now IF you'd said we should stop subsidizing having kids, regardless of the parents' sexual orientation, then you wouldn't be a hypocrite.

And, that would be an interesting proposition. Our immigration policy, which for decades has given tacit approval to "illegal" immigration, is actually premised upon expanding population. Soc Sec and Medicare are presmised upon this. But, given the post-industrial revolution economies, is that really the way to go?

 

[kaz]

Let's see...our kids were born in 1999 and 2002...we didn't get civilly married until 2008. I got the tax breaks for the kids BEFORE I got civilly married.

How weird that one has nothing to do with the other...rendering Kaz's point...ridiculous.

kaz is trying to say gays get a subsidy for NOT having children. I know, WTF?

strawman

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

LOL....its sooo funny watching Kaz being reduced to a whiney bitch- because he can't provide a coherent response.

He hit the quicksand running. People should think before they post.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

There is no such thing as government marriage, ya retard. That is your strawman.

 

[BluesLegend]

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?

Gays can feel free to lobby their representatives in congress to pass bills favorable to gays.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Let's see...our kids were born in 1999 and 2002...we didn't get civilly married until 2008. I got the tax breaks for the kids BEFORE I got civilly married.

How weird that one has nothing to do with the other...rendering Kaz's point...ridiculous.

kaz is trying to say gays get a subsidy for NOT having children. I know, WTF?

strawman

What is the gay marriage subsidy? What do gays get?

 

[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.

Wow, great point. Instead of saying government marriage perpetuates the species, I should have said that's the concept of marriage. Oh, wait, I did. Thanks for being retarded, it makes merely stupid people feel smart.

Cuz....thats weird.

Poor fucking argument.

LOL, the guy who didn't grasp my first sentence says this, classic

The concept of marrage is to perpetuate the species?

Thats just fucking boiler plate idiocy for a zillion fucking reasons.

Wow

 

[Syriusly]

have gay sex.....

I pared Kaz's OP down to his essential point.