Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no such thing as government marriage. No one MARRIES THE GOVERNMENT. Duh!

Laughing at your stupidity

 

[kaz]

No it doesn't, that's just stupid. They had marriage without kids long before gays wanted to get paid to screw.
t

Ah its so sad- Kaz thinks marriage is only about getting paid to have sex.

Strawman, I covered that

I wonder if his wife knows that is how he considers their marriage?

My wife is well aware of my views on marriage. We have an understanding. I get my view, she gets her way. She's good with that

So she is okay with you considering her a government sponsored prostitute?

I work hard to keep family out of it. I'd appreciate the same in return. I'm not bringing up my wife, you are

Okay- I will do so- sorry.

You just consider both parties to the marriage to be government sponsored prostitutes?

We are good.

And I never said anyone was a prostitute. You did. How do prostitutes hire each other? I don't even get how you think that makes sense

 

[kaz]

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

Stop challenging Kaz and his words!

Really its simple- Kaz has his marriage bennies- and wants gay couples to have to pay for his marriage bennies while keeping them from gay couples.

All the rest is just his rationale for why he has his and screw the gays.

Here is a learning moment for both of you nit wits. As I said, my issue is not that he's "challenging" my words, it's that he keeps ignoring my responses and repeating his question. Debates involve processing responses and building on them, not ignoring them and repeating the same question endlessly.

Get it now? You don't, do you?

Stop challenging Kaz and his words!

Really its simple- Kaz has his marriage bennies- and wants gay couples to have to pay for his marriage bennies while keeping them from gay couples.

All the rest is just his rationale for why he has his and screw the gays.

Let's check the scorecard so far:

Kids created by having sex

Kaz - 2
All gay sex in the history of humanity - 0

Wow, I'm ahead!

 

[Faun]

No one really cares if you like it or not.

Oh, and your argument falls apart since they are not asking for anything from you.

Let's see, the libs are with you, the non-libs not. The non-libs are with me, the libs are not.

I'm not seeing how you're winning that. Declaring victory for yourself is actually a pretty strong sign of insecurity

Pointing out why your position doesn't tread water doesn't fit your narrative. Do you need to me to educate you on why; like I educated you on what "OP" means? I'll be happy to help you out.

 

[kaz]

No one really cares if you like it or not.

Oh, and your argument falls apart since they are not asking for anything from you.

Let's see, the libs are with you, the non-libs not. The non-libs are with me, the libs are not.

I'm not seeing how you're winning that. Declaring victory for yourself is actually a pretty strong sign of insecurity

Pointing out why your position doesn't tread water doesn't fit your narrative. Do you need to me to educate you on why; like I educated you on what "OP" means? I'll be happy to help you out.

I let you draw me into bickering. I'm glad such a small victory gives you such great joy. I suppose it's because you get so few, so enjoy it while you have it

 

[Faun]

No one really cares if you like it or not.

Oh, and your argument falls apart since they are not asking for anything from you.

Let's see, the libs are with you, the non-libs not. The non-libs are with me, the libs are not.

I'm not seeing how you're winning that. Declaring victory for yourself is actually a pretty strong sign of insecurity

Pointing out why your position doesn't tread water doesn't fit your narrative. Do you need to me to educate you on why; like I educated you on what "OP" means? I'll be happy to help you out.

I let you draw me into bickering. I'm glad such a small victory gives you such great joy. I suppose it's because you get so few, so enjoy it while you have it

What else do you have since your position crumbled before you?

 

[Syriusly]

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

Stop challenging Kaz and his words!

Really its simple- Kaz has his marriage bennies- and wants gay couples to have to pay for his marriage bennies while keeping them from gay couples.

All the rest is just his rationale for why he has his and screw the gays.

Here is a learning moment for both of you nit wits. As I said, my issue is not that he's "challenging" my words, it's that he keeps ignoring my responses and repeating his question. Debates involve processing responses and building on them, not ignoring them and repeating the same question endlessly.

Get it now? You don't, do you?

Stop challenging Kaz and his words!

Really its simple- Kaz has his marriage bennies- and wants gay couples to have to pay for his marriage bennies while keeping them from gay couples.

All the rest is just his rationale for why he has his and screw the gays.

Let's check the scorecard so far:

Kids created by having sex

Kaz - 2
All gay sex in the history of humanity - 0

Wow, I'm ahead!

Really its simple- Kaz has his marriage bennies- and wants gay couples to have to pay for his marriage bennies while keeping them from gay couples.

All the rest is just his rationale for why he has his and screw the gays

 

[kaz]

No one really cares if you like it or not.

Oh, and your argument falls apart since they are not asking for anything from you.

Let's see, the libs are with you, the non-libs not. The non-libs are with me, the libs are not.

I'm not seeing how you're winning that. Declaring victory for yourself is actually a pretty strong sign of insecurity

Pointing out why your position doesn't tread water doesn't fit your narrative. Do you need to me to educate you on why; like I educated you on what "OP" means? I'll be happy to help you out.

I let you draw me into bickering. I'm glad such a small victory gives you such great joy. I suppose it's because you get so few, so enjoy it while you have it

What else do you have since your position crumbled before you?

Under a barrage of leftist talking points and strawmen, yes, that was a wreck

 

[Syriusly]

Ah its so sad- Kaz thinks marriage is only about getting paid to have sex.

Strawman, I covered that

I wonder if his wife knows that is how he considers their marriage?

My wife is well aware of my views on marriage. We have an understanding. I get my view, she gets her way. She's good with that

So she is okay with you considering her a government sponsored prostitute?

I work hard to keep family out of it. I'd appreciate the same in return. I'm not bringing up my wife, you are

Okay- I will do so- sorry.

You just consider both parties to the marriage to be government sponsored prostitutes?

We are good.

And I never said anyone was a prostitute. You did. How do prostitutes hire each other? I don't even get how you think that makes sense

According to you marriage is all about the government paying married couples for sex- prostitutes get paid for sex- the government is paying both of them for sex, hence both are prostitutes.

Or maybe porn actors.

I mean logically following your odd point of view that marriage is all about the government paying couples to have sex.

 

[kaz]

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

Stop challenging Kaz and his words!

Really its simple- Kaz has his marriage bennies- and wants gay couples to have to pay for his marriage bennies while keeping them from gay couples.

All the rest is just his rationale for why he has his and screw the gays.

Here is a learning moment for both of you nit wits. As I said, my issue is not that he's "challenging" my words, it's that he keeps ignoring my responses and repeating his question. Debates involve processing responses and building on them, not ignoring them and repeating the same question endlessly.

Get it now? You don't, do you?

Stop challenging Kaz and his words!

Really its simple- Kaz has his marriage bennies- and wants gay couples to have to pay for his marriage bennies while keeping them from gay couples.

All the rest is just his rationale for why he has his and screw the gays.

Let's check the scorecard so far:

Kids created by having sex

Kaz - 2
All gay sex in the history of humanity - 0

Wow, I'm ahead!

Really its simple- Kaz has his marriage bennies- and wants gay couples to have to pay for his marriage bennies while keeping them from gay couples.

All the rest is just his rationale for why he has his and screw the gays

Strawman, and I'll pass on screwing the gays, yuck

 

[kaz]

Strawman, I covered that

My wife is well aware of my views on marriage. We have an understanding. I get my view, she gets her way. She's good with that

So she is okay with you considering her a government sponsored prostitute?

I work hard to keep family out of it. I'd appreciate the same in return. I'm not bringing up my wife, you are

Okay- I will do so- sorry.

You just consider both parties to the marriage to be government sponsored prostitutes?

We are good.

And I never said anyone was a prostitute. You did. How do prostitutes hire each other? I don't even get how you think that makes sense

According to you marriage is all about the government paying married couples for sex- prostitutes get paid for sex- the government is paying both of them for sex, hence both are prostitutes.

Or maybe porn actors.

I mean logically following your odd point of view that marriage is all about the government paying couples to have sex.

Gays are only having sex if they are paid to have sex? What is that based on?

That's even a better argument to not fund gay mating. Let's stop paying them to have sex so they stop having sex and we end the whole ridiculous issue. Now you're talking!

 

[Pop23]

Strawman, I covered that

My wife is well aware of my views on marriage. We have an understanding. I get my view, she gets her way. She's good with that

So she is okay with you considering her a government sponsored prostitute?

I work hard to keep family out of it. I'd appreciate the same in return. I'm not bringing up my wife, you are

Okay- I will do so- sorry.

You just consider both parties to the marriage to be government sponsored prostitutes?

We are good.

And I never said anyone was a prostitute. You did. How do prostitutes hire each other? I don't even get how you think that makes sense

According to you marriage is all about the government paying married couples for sex- prostitutes get paid for sex- the government is paying both of them for sex, hence both are prostitutes.

Or maybe porn actors.

I mean logically following your odd point of view that marriage is all about the government paying couples to have sex.

Isn't that the entire reason this is before the courts? Financial benefit?

Was this heterosexuals that brought the case? No?

You seem confused.

As Kaz has rightly stated, he is responsible for more children being born than all same sex coupling in the history of the world.

That's actually kinda awesome when you think of it!

That's actually very awesome when you think of it!!

 

[RKMBrown]

So she is okay with you considering her a government sponsored prostitute?

I work hard to keep family out of it. I'd appreciate the same in return. I'm not bringing up my wife, you are

Okay- I will do so- sorry.

You just consider both parties to the marriage to be government sponsored prostitutes?

We are good.

And I never said anyone was a prostitute. You did. How do prostitutes hire each other? I don't even get how you think that makes sense

According to you marriage is all about the government paying married couples for sex- prostitutes get paid for sex- the government is paying both of them for sex, hence both are prostitutes.

Or maybe porn actors.

I mean logically following your odd point of view that marriage is all about the government paying couples to have sex.

Isn't that the entire reason this is before the courts? Financial benefit?

Was this heterosexuals that brought the case? No?

You seem confused.

As Kaz has rightly stated, he is responsible for more children being born than all same sex coupling in the history of the world.

That's actually kinda awesome when you think of it!

That's actually very awesome when you think of it!!

No, asshole, marriage is not about financial benefit. Well, maybe it was for you and your wife, but you don't speak for anyone else.

 

[Syriusly]

Stop challenging Kaz and his words!

Really its simple- Kaz has his marriage bennies- and wants gay couples to have to pay for his marriage bennies while keeping them from gay couples.

All the rest is just his rationale for why he has his and screw the gays.

Here is a learning moment for both of you nit wits. As I said, my issue is not that he's "challenging" my words, it's that he keeps ignoring my responses and repeating his question. Debates involve processing responses and building on them, not ignoring them and repeating the same question endlessly.

Get it now? You don't, do you?

Stop challenging Kaz and his words!

Really its simple- Kaz has his marriage bennies- and wants gay couples to have to pay for his marriage bennies while keeping them from gay couples.

All the rest is just his rationale for why he has his and screw the gays.

Let's check the scorecard so far:

Kids created by having sex

Kaz - 2
All gay sex in the history of humanity - 0

Wow, I'm ahead!

Really its simple- Kaz has his marriage bennies- and wants gay couples to have to pay for his marriage bennies while keeping them from gay couples.

All the rest is just his rationale for why he has his and screw the gays

Strawman, and I'll pass on screwing the gays, yuck

Yet this very thread is nothing more than your rationale on why you want to screw the gays.

 

[Pop23]

I work hard to keep family out of it. I'd appreciate the same in return. I'm not bringing up my wife, you are

Okay- I will do so- sorry.

You just consider both parties to the marriage to be government sponsored prostitutes?

We are good.

And I never said anyone was a prostitute. You did. How do prostitutes hire each other? I don't even get how you think that makes sense

According to you marriage is all about the government paying married couples for sex- prostitutes get paid for sex- the government is paying both of them for sex, hence both are prostitutes.

Or maybe porn actors.

I mean logically following your odd point of view that marriage is all about the government paying couples to have sex.

Isn't that the entire reason this is before the courts? Financial benefit?

Was this heterosexuals that brought the case? No?

You seem confused.

As Kaz has rightly stated, he is responsible for more children being born than all same sex coupling in the history of the world.

That's actually kinda awesome when you think of it!

That's actually very awesome when you think of it!!

No, asshole, marriage is not about financial benefit. Well, maybe it was for you and your wife, but you don't speak for anyone else.

I'm sorry dude, mine is mine, I never went to court claiming I was somehow damaged.

 

[Pop23]

Here is a learning moment for both of you nit wits. As I said, my issue is not that he's "challenging" my words, it's that he keeps ignoring my responses and repeating his question. Debates involve processing responses and building on them, not ignoring them and repeating the same question endlessly.

Get it now? You don't, do you?

Stop challenging Kaz and his words!

Really its simple- Kaz has his marriage bennies- and wants gay couples to have to pay for his marriage bennies while keeping them from gay couples.

All the rest is just his rationale for why he has his and screw the gays.

Let's check the scorecard so far:

Kids created by having sex

Kaz - 2
All gay sex in the history of humanity - 0

Wow, I'm ahead!

Really its simple- Kaz has his marriage bennies- and wants gay couples to have to pay for his marriage bennies while keeping them from gay couples.

All the rest is just his rationale for why he has his and screw the gays

Strawman, and I'll pass on screwing the gays, yuck

Yet this very thread is nothing more than your rationale on why you want to screw the gays.

Can you not see, the two demographic groups a wildly different?

One group supplies all living beings (male/females), the other has never supplied a single being through its coupling (same sex)

I know that's hard for you to understand, but look at it this way

When you need a doctor you can thank opposite sex coupling.

When I need a doctor I can't thank same sex coupling.

 

[Syriusly]

So she is okay with you considering her a government sponsored prostitute?

I work hard to keep family out of it. I'd appreciate the same in return. I'm not bringing up my wife, you are

Okay- I will do so- sorry.

You just consider both parties to the marriage to be government sponsored prostitutes?

We are good.

And I never said anyone was a prostitute. You did. How do prostitutes hire each other? I don't even get how you think that makes sense

According to you marriage is all about the government paying married couples for sex- prostitutes get paid for sex- the government is paying both of them for sex, hence both are prostitutes.

Or maybe porn actors.

I mean logically following your odd point of view that marriage is all about the government paying couples to have sex.

Gays are only having sex if they are paid to have sex? What is that based on?

That's even a better argument to not fund gay mating. Let's stop paying them to have sex so they stop having sex and we end the whole ridiculous issue. Now you're talking!

That was based upon your idiotic claim

It's their wanting me to pay for their gay fucking I oppose.- Thats you Kaz- speaking of marriage of course- which means you believe marriage is nothing more than government sponsored prostitution.

And of course it just brings it back to:
Kaz is happy to get his government bennies and have gay couples pay for them- but he doesn't want share with them

 

[Syriusly]

Stop challenging Kaz and his words!

Really its simple- Kaz has his marriage bennies- and wants gay couples to have to pay for his marriage bennies while keeping them from gay couples.

All the rest is just his rationale for why he has his and screw the gays.

Let's check the scorecard so far:

Kids created by having sex

Kaz - 2
All gay sex in the history of humanity - 0

Wow, I'm ahead!

Really its simple- Kaz has his marriage bennies- and wants gay couples to have to pay for his marriage bennies while keeping them from gay couples.

All the rest is just his rationale for why he has his and screw the gays

Strawman, and I'll pass on screwing the gays, yuck

Yet this very thread is nothing more than your rationale on why you want to screw the gays.

Can you not see, the two demographic groups a wildly different?

One group supplies all living beings (male/females), the other has never supplied a single being through its coupling (same sex)

I know that's hard for you to understand, but look at it this way

When you need a doctor you can thank opposite sex coupling.

When I need a doctor I can't thank same sex coupling.

I see no difference between a gay couple who chooses to- or not to- have children- and to get married- or not get married and

a straight couple who is infertile- and chooses to- or not to- have children- and to get married - or not get married.

Kaz is getting his government bennies for being married to his wife- and those bennies exist with or without children.

And he is fine with having gay couples pay for his bennies.

He just wants to deny gay couples- who have or do not have children- those same bennies.

 

[Syriusly]

[

Retarded is thinking two women are "married." I have no objection to them thinking that, but most people don't. Which is why you have to keep going to the courts to decree criminal fiats to get your way

See this is what makes you a retard. The judiciary is not criminal.

Your lack of understanding of the Constitution is beyond comical.

The Judiciary is clearly criminal when they legislate from the bench. They have zero Constitutional authority to do that

No court is legislating from the bench.

They didn't in Loving v. Virginia
They didn't in Zablocki
And they are not in the current cases in front of the court.

 

[Syriusly]

So she is okay with you considering her a government sponsored prostitute?

I work hard to keep family out of it. I'd appreciate the same in return. I'm not bringing up my wife, you are

Okay- I will do so- sorry.

You just consider both parties to the marriage to be government sponsored prostitutes?

We are good.

And I never said anyone was a prostitute. You did. How do prostitutes hire each other? I don't even get how you think that makes sense

According to you marriage is all about the government paying married couples for sex- prostitutes get paid for sex- the government is paying both of them for sex, hence both are prostitutes.

Or maybe porn actors.

I mean logically following your odd point of view that marriage is all about the government paying couples to have sex.

Isn't that the entire reason this is before the courts? Financial benefit?

Was this heterosexuals that brought the case? No?
!

No.

No.