Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

Questions to kaz:

Why is your objection to tax benefits to childless married couples limited to childless gay couples?

What is the material difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple that warrants more favorable tax treatment for the latter?

OK, I'll answer your questions one more time. After that when you ask me again, I'm just going to call you stupid.

Why is your objection to tax benefits to childless married couples limited to childless gay couples?

Turn on your brain for a half a second and the answer to your question is obvious. How would it be otherwise? Marriage is you get married, spend time together, then you have kids. Interestingly Seawytch supported that with that 90% of marriages have kids. So it's a pretty good average.

How is it possible to not grant marriage to childless straight couples? How would you know they aren't going to want or be able to have kids? You wait until the baby is born? What if it dies? Then do you take it away? The idea you don't grant marriage until after the sex and kids is stupid. That isn't the "concept of marriage" and if you are denying you know that, then you are just a liar.

What is the material difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple that warrants more favorable tax treatment for the latter?

The childless straight couple was one of the unfortunate 10% of straight marriages that don't result in kids. The childless gay couple was one of the unfortunate 100% of gay couples that don't result in kids. There are no guarantees in life. You have to take chances. But betting on certain failure isn't taking a chance.

- OK, I answered your question yet again. Here's the deal. You can build on my answer and rebut it. But if you ignore it again and ask the question, I'm going to just seriously fuck with you from here on out. You are getting tired, kiddie

 

[Pop23]

Gays can't have children, they have to use sperm and eggs. Only a female's eggs and a man's sperm can create a child. At least for now.

If gays have to use sperm and eggs to procreate, what do straight people use?

A gay couple can't procreate, it requires eggs and sperm.

A gay couple can procreate in exactly the same manner as any straight couple where one or both of the couple are infertile.

What a truly stupid argument.

By arguing that there is something wrong when gays do it- you are saying that the millions of straight Americans who use fertility assistance are somehow 'less' than hetero couples who don't need that assistance.

What a bigot.

All same sex couples require an outside source to have children.

A few straight couples do.

Wanna speak about demographics?

Sure- lets speak Demographics- why the hell do you care about who uses outside assistance to have children?

Demographics- go look up the numbers if you can find them- fairly certain you will find in absolute numbers millions more hetero couples using sperm and egg donation than gay couples.

I'll stiplate that you are correct in the above. But as a percentage of population one demographic group uses IV in a minuscule amount, often using the components within the couple and the othe demographic group MUST use IV to conceive and can never use components from both partners.

The two demographic groups use of IV are no where near comparable, making the two groups distinctly different.

Agreed?

 

[bripat9643]

Children are harmed by being adopted by homosexuals, measurably to being adopted by heterosexuals,.

Says who? You- the bigot?

The children being adopted by homosexuals are overwhelmingly either the offspring of one of them- so you would prefer to deny them a second parent- or children abandoned by their biological heterosexual parents.

It is telling that you care only about the potential harm caused by a loving couple who want to give a home to children- but not about the certain harm caused by the biological parents who abandoned them.

Children are better off with a mother and father than in a homosexual couple's home, measurably so. Whether it is by income, education attainment, criminal record(lack thereof), depression, drug use etc.

I would rather gays not make test tube babies, absolutely.

Study after study proves you wrong. Children do best in two parent households, the gender of the parents does not change the outcomes.

Wrong. All your studies are little more than queer propaganda. They are all fatally flawed.

Riiiiiight...close to, what, 60 studies and they're all "fatally flawed". The only "flaw" is that they don't support your ridiculous assertions. Our kids are fine. They'll be better than fine once their parents can legally marry.

Hmmm . . . . yeah, they are all flawed. They have too small of a sample size, or the subjects are self-selected or a dozen other flaws. You see, when some homosexual biologists or psychologist is conducting a "study," his intent is to advance the homosexual agenda, not uncover the truth. They don't give a damn about science.

 

[kaz]

Says who? You- the bigot?

The children being adopted by homosexuals are overwhelmingly either the offspring of one of them- so you would prefer to deny them a second parent- or children abandoned by their biological heterosexual parents.

It is telling that you care only about the potential harm caused by a loving couple who want to give a home to children- but not about the certain harm caused by the biological parents who abandoned them.

Children are better off with a mother and father than in a homosexual couple's home, measurably so. Whether it is by income, education attainment, criminal record(lack thereof), depression, drug use etc.

I would rather gays not make test tube babies, absolutely.

Study after study proves you wrong. Children do best in two parent households, the gender of the parents does not change the outcomes.

Wrong. All your studies are little more than queer propaganda. They are all fatally flawed.

Riiiiiight...close to, what, 60 studies and they're all "fatally flawed". The only "flaw" is that they don't support your ridiculous assertions. Our kids are fine. They'll be better than fine once their parents can legally marry.

Hmmm . . . . yeah, they are all flawed. They have too small of a sample size, or the subjects are self-selected or a dozen other flaws. You see, when some homosexual biologists or psychologist is conducting a "study," his intent is to advance the homosexual agenda, not uncover the truth. They don't give a damn about science.

Seawytch proves that with comments like that studies prove there is no difference. No scientist who ever did a real study would make such a sweeping statement. Studies can only not show differences using certain measurements under certain conditions. Studies cannot prove there is no difference and no one who understands science and statistics would say that it did.

Obviously there are men and women in the world. That is how we evolved. Sure, kids of gay couples can turn out fine. My dad was a dead beat who left when I was five. My brother, sister and I all have multiple graduate degrees. Yet clearly we all have had to compensate for not having a steady father relationship. Ideal is one of each. We should not move beyond ideal until we have to

 

[NYcarbineer]

Questions to kaz:

Why is your objection to tax benefits to childless married couples limited to childless gay couples?

What is the material difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple that warrants more favorable tax treatment for the latter?

OK, I'll answer your questions one more time. After that when you ask me again, I'm just going to call you stupid.

Why is your objection to tax benefits to childless married couples limited to childless gay couples?

Turn on your brain for a half a second and the answer to your question is obvious. How would it be otherwise? Marriage is you get married, spend time together, then you have kids. Interestingly Seawytch supported that with that 90% of marriages have kids. So it's a pretty good average.

How is it possible to not grant marriage to childless straight couples? How would you know they aren't going to want or be able to have kids? You wait until the baby is born? What if it dies? Then do you take it away? The idea you don't grant marriage until after the sex and kids is stupid. That isn't the "concept of marriage" and if you are denying you know that, then you are just a liar.

What is the material difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple that warrants more favorable tax treatment for the latter?

The childless straight couple was one of the unfortunate 10% of straight marriages that don't result in kids. The childless gay couple was one of the unfortunate 100% of gay couples that don't result in kids. There are no guarantees in life. You have to take chances. But betting on certain failure isn't taking a chance.

- OK, I answered your question yet again. Here's the deal. You can build on my answer and rebut it. But if you ignore it again and ask the question, I'm going to just seriously fuck with you from here on out. You are getting tired, kiddie

1. Why not support denying joint filing to all childless couples regardless of sexual orientation? That's the tax break you're concerned about.

2. What's the material reproductive difference between a same sex couple and opposite sex couple wherein one or both of the partners is sterile?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Children are better off with a mother and father than in a homosexual couple's home, measurably so. Whether it is by income, education attainment, criminal record(lack thereof), depression, drug use etc.

I would rather gays not make test tube babies, absolutely.

Study after study proves you wrong. Children do best in two parent households, the gender of the parents does not change the outcomes.

Wrong. All your studies are little more than queer propaganda. They are all fatally flawed.

Riiiiiight...close to, what, 60 studies and they're all "fatally flawed". The only "flaw" is that they don't support your ridiculous assertions. Our kids are fine. They'll be better than fine once their parents can legally marry.

Hmmm . . . . yeah, they are all flawed. They have too small of a sample size, or the subjects are self-selected or a dozen other flaws. You see, when some homosexual biologists or psychologist is conducting a "study," his intent is to advance the homosexual agenda, not uncover the truth. They don't give a damn about science.

Seawytch proves that with comments like that studies prove there is no difference. No scientist who ever did a real study would make such a sweeping statement. Studies can only not show differences using certain measurements under certain conditions. Studies cannot prove there is no difference and no one who understands science and statistics would say that it did.

Obviously there are men and women in the world. That is how we evolved. Sure, kids of gay couples can turn out fine. My dad was a dead beat who left when I was five. My brother, sister and I all have multiple graduate degrees. Yet clearly we all have had to compensate for not having a steady father relationship. Ideal is one of each. We should not move beyond ideal until we have to

lol, so your own life is evidence for the opposite side of the argument you're trying to make.

 

[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

Despite kaz's desperate efforts to bury his own OP, let's bring it back, and what it really says:

1. Clearly he separates opposite sex marriage from same sex marriage.

2. Clearly he singles out gay couples for not reproducing, and clearly he gives opposite sex couples a pass if they don't or cannot reproduce.

3. His main point, as a question, is:

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?

Note that it's people who have GAY sex who do not perpetuate the species, as opposed to people who have sex, gay or straight, who do not perpetuate the species.

Questions to kaz:

Why is your objection to tax benefits to childless married couples limited to childless gay couples?

What is the material difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple that warrants more favorable tax treatment for the latter?

You ask me this question over and over and I answer it over and over. Why should I bother if you don't retain the answer? You don't like my argument so you're going to ignore it isn't an argument

I'm just reminding everyone how wrong you are on this.

 

[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

Despite kaz's desperate efforts to bury his own OP, let's bring it back, and what it really says:

1. Clearly he separates opposite sex marriage from same sex marriage.

2. Clearly he singles out gay couples for not reproducing, and clearly he gives opposite sex couples a pass if they don't or cannot reproduce.

3. His main point, as a question, is:

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?

Note that it's people who have GAY sex who do not perpetuate the species, as opposed to people who have sex, gay or straight, who do not perpetuate the species.

Questions to kaz:

Why is your objection to tax benefits to childless married couples limited to childless gay couples?

What is the material difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple that warrants more favorable tax treatment for the latter?

You ask me this question over and over and I answer it over and over. Why should I bother if you don't retain the answer? You don't like my argument so you're going to ignore it isn't an argument

Why should a man/woman marriage where the man is sterile, and the wife has a baby from a sperm donor

get to file jointly?

 

[bripat9643]

Questions to kaz:

Why is your objection to tax benefits to childless married couples limited to childless gay couples?

What is the material difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple that warrants more favorable tax treatment for the latter?

OK, I'll answer your questions one more time. After that when you ask me again, I'm just going to call you stupid.

Why is your objection to tax benefits to childless married couples limited to childless gay couples?

Turn on your brain for a half a second and the answer to your question is obvious. How would it be otherwise? Marriage is you get married, spend time together, then you have kids. Interestingly Seawytch supported that with that 90% of marriages have kids. So it's a pretty good average.

How is it possible to not grant marriage to childless straight couples? How would you know they aren't going to want or be able to have kids? You wait until the baby is born? What if it dies? Then do you take it away? The idea you don't grant marriage until after the sex and kids is stupid. That isn't the "concept of marriage" and if you are denying you know that, then you are just a liar.

What is the material difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple that warrants more favorable tax treatment for the latter?

The childless straight couple was one of the unfortunate 10% of straight marriages that don't result in kids. The childless gay couple was one of the unfortunate 100% of gay couples that don't result in kids. There are no guarantees in life. You have to take chances. But betting on certain failure isn't taking a chance.

- OK, I answered your question yet again. Here's the deal. You can build on my answer and rebut it. But if you ignore it again and ask the question, I'm going to just seriously fuck with you from here on out. You are getting tired, kiddie

1. Why not support denying joint filing to all childless couples regardless of sexual orientation? That's the tax break you're concerned about.

Why should we do that, just so queers feel better about themselves? Why don't the queers come out for such a bill?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Questions to kaz:

Why is your objection to tax benefits to childless married couples limited to childless gay couples?

What is the material difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple that warrants more favorable tax treatment for the latter?

OK, I'll answer your questions one more time. After that when you ask me again, I'm just going to call you stupid.

Why is your objection to tax benefits to childless married couples limited to childless gay couples?

Turn on your brain for a half a second and the answer to your question is obvious. How would it be otherwise? Marriage is you get married, spend time together, then you have kids. Interestingly Seawytch supported that with that 90% of marriages have kids. So it's a pretty good average.

How is it possible to not grant marriage to childless straight couples? How would you know they aren't going to want or be able to have kids? You wait until the baby is born? What if it dies? Then do you take it away? The idea you don't grant marriage until after the sex and kids is stupid. That isn't the "concept of marriage" and if you are denying you know that, then you are just a liar.

What is the material difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple that warrants more favorable tax treatment for the latter?

The childless straight couple was one of the unfortunate 10% of straight marriages that don't result in kids. The childless gay couple was one of the unfortunate 100% of gay couples that don't result in kids. There are no guarantees in life. You have to take chances. But betting on certain failure isn't taking a chance.

- OK, I answered your question yet again. Here's the deal. You can build on my answer and rebut it. But if you ignore it again and ask the question, I'm going to just seriously fuck with you from here on out. You are getting tired, kiddie

1. Why not support denying joint filing to all childless couples regardless of sexual orientation? That's the tax break you're concerned about.

Why should we do that, just so queers feel better about themselves? Why don't the queers come out for such a bill?

It's kaz's idea, not mine, only in his idea he gets to discriminate against gay people.

In kaz's dementia, if your widowed grandma finds a new husband, she and he can file jointly. If your widowed grandmother marries a woman, they can't file jointly.

You explain why that is not retarded.

 

[GreenBean]

Says who? You- the bigot?

The children being adopted by homosexuals are overwhelmingly either the offspring of one of them- so you would prefer to deny them a second parent- or children abandoned by their biological heterosexual parents.

It is telling that you care only about the potential harm caused by a loving couple who want to give a home to children- but not about the certain harm caused by the biological parents who abandoned them.

Children are better off with a mother and father than in a homosexual couple's home, measurably so. Whether it is by income, education attainment, criminal record(lack thereof), depression, drug use etc.

I would rather gays not make test tube babies, absolutely.

Study after study proves you wrong. Children do best in two parent households, the gender of the parents does not change the outcomes.

Wrong. All your studies are little more than queer propaganda. They are all fatally flawed.

Riiiiiight...close to, what, 60 studies and they're all "fatally flawed". The only "flaw" is that they don't support your ridiculous assertions. Our kids are fine. They'll be better than fine once their parents can legally marry.

Hmmm . . . . yeah, they are all flawed. They have too small of a sample size, or the subjects are self-selected or a dozen other flaws. You see, when some homosexual biologists or psychologist is conducting a "study," his intent is to advance the homosexual agenda, not uncover the truth. They don't give a damn about science.

Scientific Objectivity, is the basis of all TRUE science, . Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings.

Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire
to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc ..
Today, it is nowhere to be found in Gay Propaganda Studies and whats worse the one time illustrious organization the American Psychological Association, commandeered by Gay activism openly promotes fudged results and sweeps valid findings that harm Gay activism under the carpet.

Scientific Objectivity has been swept under the carpet and completely forgotten.

Homophobia as [a form of] intimidation is a much feared technique employed by Gay Agendaites to stifle, ridicule and in a professional sense, destroy anybody or anything that would dare oppose or even think about disagreeing with the gay agenda.

 

[GreenBean]

Questions to kaz:

Why is your objection to tax benefits to childless married couples limited to childless gay couples?

What is the material difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple that warrants more favorable tax treatment for the latter?

OK, I'll answer your questions one more time. After that when you ask me again, I'm just going to call you stupid.

Why is your objection to tax benefits to childless married couples limited to childless gay couples?

Turn on your brain for a half a second and the answer to your question is obvious. How would it be otherwise? Marriage is you get married, spend time together, then you have kids. Interestingly Seawytch supported that with that 90% of marriages have kids. So it's a pretty good average.

How is it possible to not grant marriage to childless straight couples? How would you know they aren't going to want or be able to have kids? You wait until the baby is born? What if it dies? Then do you take it away? The idea you don't grant marriage until after the sex and kids is stupid. That isn't the "concept of marriage" and if you are denying you know that, then you are just a liar.

What is the material difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple that warrants more favorable tax treatment for the latter?

The childless straight couple was one of the unfortunate 10% of straight marriages that don't result in kids. The childless gay couple was one of the unfortunate 100% of gay couples that don't result in kids. There are no guarantees in life. You have to take chances. But betting on certain failure isn't taking a chance.

- OK, I answered your question yet again. Here's the deal. You can build on my answer and rebut it. But if you ignore it again and ask the question, I'm going to just seriously fuck with you from here on out. You are getting tired, kiddie

1. Why not support denying joint filing to all childless couples regardless of sexual orientation? That's the tax break you're concerned about.

Why should we do that, just so queers feel better about themselves? Why don't the queers come out for such a bill?

It's kaz's idea, not mine, only in his idea he gets to discriminate against gay people.

In kaz's dementia, if your widowed grandma finds a new husband, she and he can file jointly. If your widowed grandmother marries a woman, they can't file jointly.

You explain why that is not retarded.

Do you consider incarcerating criminals to be discrimination ? - all people should be equally incarcerated

Do you consider treating Drug Addicts to be discrimination ? - all people clean or addicted should have to go through Rehab aka Behavioral modifictaion

Do you pat a heroin fiend on the back and say there there little fella - you should be a proud Junkie - I think not

Neither should one pat a queer on the back and say there there little fella you should be a proud queer.

 

[Faun]

ROLF! The first thing a queer always does when debating one of their issues is accuse his opponent of being a queer.

You mean like you've been doing throughout this thread? Guess this is your way of coming out of the closet, huh?

 

[GreenBean]

What is that divine color of lipstick you are wearing?

I don't where lipstick, queer.

Well, you must have rubbed rose petals on your lips, doll.

Are you claiming that's my picture, queer? They're a couple of dykes, like you.

Now, now, calm down, girl. Your secret is safe with me.

ROLF! The first thing a queer always does when debating one of their issues is accuse his opponent of being a queer. They are utterly lacking any sense of integrity or honor.

Either that or a Homophobe , it's a tactic known as "jamming"


Jamming The objective of jamming is to force opponents into silence by accusations of homophobia, latent homosexual tendencies and bigotry . The purpose being to create a social stigmatization of anyone whom opposes the Agenda. Jamming is to ridicule the opponent in the eyes of the world and to evoke the "pack mentality" .


Mentally healthy human beings will naturally feel a sense of shame and exclusion when they perceive that they are not part of the the pack, both in their thoughts and actions. The Jammimg tactic is to evoke a sense of shame in the opponent when his opposition to the gay movement and sexual perversion surfaces. Gay propaganda will depict opponents as homophobic and queer hating redneck bigots, as crude obnoxious loudmouths. It can depict them being isolated from the pack, shunned criticized, and despised. Most importantly however, it must depict gays as experiencing horrific persecution and suffering as a result of the "homophobic - queer hating red necks" . The opponent must be made the villain, both in the eyes of the uninvolved, and when possible in their own eyes also.

"Jamming is basically psychological terrorism intended to silence expression of or support for any dissenting opinion.

Jamming employs the science of Direct Emotional Modeling and Associative Conditioning." Gay Brainwashing Techniques

 

[Seawytch]

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

Despite kaz's desperate efforts to bury his own OP, let's bring it back, and what it really says:

1. Clearly he separates opposite sex marriage from same sex marriage.

2. Clearly he singles out gay couples for not reproducing, and clearly he gives opposite sex couples a pass if they don't or cannot reproduce.

3. His main point, as a question, is:

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?

Note that it's people who have GAY sex who do not perpetuate the species, as opposed to people who have sex, gay or straight, who do not perpetuate the species.

Questions to kaz:

Why is your objection to tax benefits to childless married couples limited to childless gay couples?

What is the material difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple that warrants more favorable tax treatment for the latter?

You ask me this question over and over and I answer it over and over. Why should I bother if you don't retain the answer? You don't like my argument so you're going to ignore it isn't an argument

I'm just reminding everyone how wrong you are on this.

He's playing with percentages, but should be looking at the actual numbers. The number of married straight couples without children is far, far greater than the number of gay couples without them.

He's a bigot that doesn't like the way gays have sex.

 

[Pop23]

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

Despite kaz's desperate efforts to bury his own OP, let's bring it back, and what it really says:

1. Clearly he separates opposite sex marriage from same sex marriage.

2. Clearly he singles out gay couples for not reproducing, and clearly he gives opposite sex couples a pass if they don't or cannot reproduce.

3. His main point, as a question, is:

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?

Note that it's people who have GAY sex who do not perpetuate the species, as opposed to people who have sex, gay or straight, who do not perpetuate the species.

Questions to kaz:

Why is your objection to tax benefits to childless married couples limited to childless gay couples?

What is the material difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple that warrants more favorable tax treatment for the latter?

You ask me this question over and over and I answer it over and over. Why should I bother if you don't retain the answer? You don't like my argument so you're going to ignore it isn't an argument

I'm just reminding everyone how wrong you are on this.

He's playing with percentages, but should be looking at the actual numbers. The number of married straight couples without children is far, far greater than the number of gay couples without them.

He's a bigot that doesn't like the way gays have sex.

Of course there are far more opposite Gender couples than same sex couples, the numbers would have to be much larger since the disparity is 96% to 4%.

Statistics are normally done by percentage in any case, so if you have a point, do so in a relevent basis.

Quoting a statistic using a percentage does not make one a bigot, it actually makes one knowledgable.

Your use of raw numbers would indicate a weak statistical argument

 

[Seawytch]

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

Despite kaz's desperate efforts to bury his own OP, let's bring it back, and what it really says:

1. Clearly he separates opposite sex marriage from same sex marriage.

2. Clearly he singles out gay couples for not reproducing, and clearly he gives opposite sex couples a pass if they don't or cannot reproduce.

3. His main point, as a question, is:

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?

Note that it's people who have GAY sex who do not perpetuate the species, as opposed to people who have sex, gay or straight, who do not perpetuate the species.

Questions to kaz:

Why is your objection to tax benefits to childless married couples limited to childless gay couples?

What is the material difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple that warrants more favorable tax treatment for the latter?

You ask me this question over and over and I answer it over and over. Why should I bother if you don't retain the answer? You don't like my argument so you're going to ignore it isn't an argument

I'm just reminding everyone how wrong you are on this.

He's playing with percentages, but should be looking at the actual numbers. The number of married straight couples without children is far, far greater than the number of gay couples without them.

He's a bigot that doesn't like the way gays have sex.

Of course there are far more opposite couples than same sex couples, the numbers would have to be much larger since the disparity is 96% to 4%.

Statistics are normally done by percentage in any case, so if you have a point, do so in a relevent basis.

You're right...there is no point to this ridiculous discussion. There are far, far (by the hundreds of thousands) more "subsidized" straight married couples not having kids than there are gay "subsidized" married couples.

Looks like you're catching on to how silly anti gay bigots arguments are...and how easily they fail.

 

[Pop23]

Despite kaz's desperate efforts to bury his own OP, let's bring it back, and what it really says:

1. Clearly he separates opposite sex marriage from same sex marriage.

2. Clearly he singles out gay couples for not reproducing, and clearly he gives opposite sex couples a pass if they don't or cannot reproduce.

3. His main point, as a question, is:

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?

Note that it's people who have GAY sex who do not perpetuate the species, as opposed to people who have sex, gay or straight, who do not perpetuate the species.

Questions to kaz:

Why is your objection to tax benefits to childless married couples limited to childless gay couples?

What is the material difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple that warrants more favorable tax treatment for the latter?

You ask me this question over and over and I answer it over and over. Why should I bother if you don't retain the answer? You don't like my argument so you're going to ignore it isn't an argument

I'm just reminding everyone how wrong you are on this.

He's playing with percentages, but should be looking at the actual numbers. The number of married straight couples without children is far, far greater than the number of gay couples without them.

He's a bigot that doesn't like the way gays have sex.

Of course there are far more opposite couples than same sex couples, the numbers would have to be much larger since the disparity is 96% to 4%.

Statistics are normally done by percentage in any case, so if you have a point, do so in a relevent basis.

You're right...there is no point to this ridiculous discussion. There are far, far (by the hundreds of thousands) more "subsidized" straight married couples not having kids than there are gay "subsidized" married couples.

Looks like you're catching on to how silly anti gay bigots arguments are...and how easily they fail.

You acuse others of playing with percentages, then do so yourself?

It's your dishonesty (obviously so you can acuse others of being a bigot) that is so troubling.

And yet, opposite sex coupling produce taxpayers. All taxpayers are a result of same. So it would appear a tax break would be appropriate.

The OP's question is about same sex coupling, which has never created a tax payer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Questions to kaz:

Why is your objection to tax benefits to childless married couples limited to childless gay couples?

What is the material difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple that warrants more favorable tax treatment for the latter?

OK, I'll answer your questions one more time. After that when you ask me again, I'm just going to call you stupid.

Why is your objection to tax benefits to childless married couples limited to childless gay couples?

Turn on your brain for a half a second and the answer to your question is obvious. How would it be otherwise? Marriage is you get married, spend time together, then you have kids. Interestingly Seawytch supported that with that 90% of marriages have kids. So it's a pretty good average.

How is it possible to not grant marriage to childless straight couples? How would you know they aren't going to want or be able to have kids? You wait until the baby is born? What if it dies? Then do you take it away? The idea you don't grant marriage until after the sex and kids is stupid. That isn't the "concept of marriage" and if you are denying you know that, then you are just a liar.

What is the material difference between a childless gay couple and a childless straight couple that warrants more favorable tax treatment for the latter?

The childless straight couple was one of the unfortunate 10% of straight marriages that don't result in kids. The childless gay couple was one of the unfortunate 100% of gay couples that don't result in kids. There are no guarantees in life. You have to take chances. But betting on certain failure isn't taking a chance.

- OK, I answered your question yet again. Here's the deal. You can build on my answer and rebut it. But if you ignore it again and ask the question, I'm going to just seriously fuck with you from here on out. You are getting tired, kiddie

1. Why not support denying joint filing to all childless couples regardless of sexual orientation? That's the tax break you're concerned about.

Why should we do that, just so queers feel better about themselves? Why don't the queers come out for such a bill?

It's kaz's idea, not mine, only in his idea he gets to discriminate against gay people.

In kaz's dementia, if your widowed grandma finds a new husband, she and he can file jointly. If your widowed grandmother marries a woman, they can't file jointly.

You explain why that is not retarded.

Do you consider incarcerating criminals to be discrimination ? - all people should be equally incarcerated

Do you consider treating Drug Addicts to be discrimination ? - all people clean or addicted should have to go through Rehab aka Behavioral modifictaion

Do you pat a heroin fiend on the back and say there there little fella - you should be a proud Junkie - I think not

Neither should one pat a queer on the back and say there there little fella you should be a proud queer.

So you think gay bank robbers should get longer sentences than straight ones.

Goddam that's funny.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Then don't promote their lifestyle- no one will force you to have sex with any homosexual.

Like I said- your problem is just with your bigotry towards homosexuals.

Promoting the lifestyle includes providing them government licenses for marriage, giving them tax breaks, benefits etc for their lifestyle, also the government promotes the lifestyle by forcing businesses to serve them. Society should only promote the traditional nuclear family, no polygamy, no homosexuality etc.

Society should follow its own tenets of due process of law and equal protection. There's simply no rational reason to deny gays and lesbians marriage. Nor does denying them serve a valid state interest or a legitimate legislative purpose.

Worse, it harms their children by the 10s of thousands. While benefiting no child.

Children are harmed by being adopted by homosexuals, measurably to being adopted by heterosexuals,.

Says who? You- the bigot?

The children being adopted by homosexuals are overwhelmingly either the offspring of one of them- so you would prefer to deny them a second parent- or children abandoned by their biological heterosexual parents.

It is telling that you care only about the potential harm caused by a loving couple who want to give a home to children- but not about the certain harm caused by the biological parents who abandoned them.

Children are better off with a mother and father than in a homosexual couple's home, measurably so. Whether it is by income, education attainment, criminal record(lack thereof), depression, drug use etc.

I would rather gays not make test tube babies, absolutely.

Children are better off in a home with a relative high income. Should we outlaw low income people marrying?