Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Faun]

You don't pay gays anything. Gays pay far more in taxes by being childless than they can ever gain from getting married.

The takers are people like you who get huge tax breaks just from breeding.

I thought you said there were no tax breaks, now suddenly you get it?

And yes, we get it for breeding. Raising a family is expensive. My question exactly. Why should gays get it for not breeding, just having sex?

People get a rax break for breeding?? Does that mean married couples who don't breed don't get a tax break?

 

[Contumacious]

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

 

[Contumacious]

Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

Why should taxpayers have to subsidize ANYTHING?


.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't pay gays anything. Gays pay far more in taxes by being childless than they can ever gain from getting married.

The takers are people like you who get huge tax breaks just from breeding.

I thought you said there were no tax breaks, now suddenly you get it?

And yes, we get it for breeding. Raising a family is expensive. My question exactly. Why should gays get it for not breeding, just having sex?

Why should I pay for your family?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't pay gays anything. Gays pay far more in taxes by being childless than they can ever gain from getting married.

The takers are people like you who get huge tax breaks just from breeding.

I thought you said there were no tax breaks, now suddenly you get it?

And yes, we get it for breeding. Raising a family is expensive. My question exactly. Why should gays get it for not breeding, just having sex?

People get a rax break for breeding?? Does that mean married couples who don't breed don't get a tax break?

The best part of the kaz experience is that he spends as much time arguing with himself as he does with us.

 

[bodecea]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

Is Kaz still crying?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You don't pay gays anything. Gays pay far more in taxes by being childless than they can ever gain from getting married.

The takers are people like you who get huge tax breaks just from breeding.

I thought you said there were no tax breaks, now suddenly you get it?

And yes, we get it for breeding. Raising a family is expensive. My question exactly. Why should gays get it for not breeding, just having sex?

So you fully support the welfare state in the area of giving poor parents tax money to cover that expensive family raising.

Wow.

 

[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?

Is Kaz still crying?

Yes, all three of him.

 

[bodecea]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

My view is that no marriage should be a government marriage. I said at least I get the "concept" of marriage. The Concept of marriage is that people accept those odds. My agreeing with that or not is irrelevant and what you said doesn't contradict my personal views, so it is irrelevant

And you are a hypocrite of the First Order. You don't care about government marriage....except for gays having government marriage.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Half wits and simpletons ....

Well that only explains half of you- the other half is your hate for Americans who happen to be gay.

Half wits and simpletons .... Well that only explains half of you- the other half is your hate for Americans who happen to be gay.

Yes, not wanting to pay gays to screw and not procreate is hating them. You got us

You don't pay gays anything. Gays pay far more in taxes by being childless than they can ever gain from getting married.

The takers are people like you who get huge tax breaks just from breeding.

And reap the benefits of those children.

If you need a doctor, that doctor is the result of male/female coupling

If I need a doctor, he is not the result of same sex coupling.

Quite the disparity, don't you think?

Ok, then let's only give tax breaks to parents who produce doctors.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Gays are after the money, Holmes. You work out who you are saying is a prostitute

So are you.

 

[Pop23]

You don't pay gays anything. Gays pay far more in taxes by being childless than they can ever gain from getting married.

The takers are people like you who get huge tax breaks just from breeding.

I thought you said there were no tax breaks, now suddenly you get it?

And yes, we get it for breeding. Raising a family is expensive. My question exactly. Why should gays get it for not breeding, just having sex?

People get a rax break for breeding?? Does that mean married couples who don't breed don't get a tax break?

You understand it's also expensive to control birth, Right?

Something same sex couples don't have to worry about, Right?

 

[Pop23]

Well that only explains half of you- the other half is your hate for Americans who happen to be gay.

Half wits and simpletons .... Well that only explains half of you- the other half is your hate for Americans who happen to be gay.

Yes, not wanting to pay gays to screw and not procreate is hating them. You got us

You don't pay gays anything. Gays pay far more in taxes by being childless than they can ever gain from getting married.

The takers are people like you who get huge tax breaks just from breeding.

And reap the benefits of those children.

If you need a doctor, that doctor is the result of male/female coupling

If I need a doctor, he is not the result of same sex coupling.

Quite the disparity, don't you think?

Ok, then let's only give tax breaks to parents who produce doctors.

You got something against Cops, soldiers, teachers, and everyone else?

All supplied by opposite sex couples.

Are you that much of a bigot?

Man, you gays get a great deal!

 

[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.

My view is that no marriage should be a government marriage. I said at least I get the "concept" of marriage. The Concept of marriage is that people accept those odds. My agreeing with that or not is irrelevant and what you said doesn't contradict my personal views, so it is irrelevant

And you are a hypocrite of the First Order. You don't care about government marriage....except for gays having government marriage.

You understand this opens up marriage to more than gays, right?

 

[Pop23]

You don't pay gays anything. Gays pay far more in taxes by being childless than they can ever gain from getting married.

The takers are people like you who get huge tax breaks just from breeding.

I thought you said there were no tax breaks, now suddenly you get it?

And yes, we get it for breeding. Raising a family is expensive. My question exactly. Why should gays get it for not breeding, just having sex?

Why should I pay for your family?

Maybe you should pay more for Doctors since same sex coupling don't produce any?

Higher taxes cuz you don't produce cops, firefighters or EMT's.

Interesting how that works.

It's a paradox

 

[Pop23]

Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

Why should taxpayers have to subsidize ANYTHING?


.

It is a fair point

 

[bodecea]

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.

My view is that no marriage should be a government marriage. I said at least I get the "concept" of marriage. The Concept of marriage is that people accept those odds. My agreeing with that or not is irrelevant and what you said doesn't contradict my personal views, so it is irrelevant

And you are a hypocrite of the First Order. You don't care about government marriage....except for gays having government marriage.

You understand this opens up marriage to more than gays, right?

Wrong.

 

[Pop23]

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.

My view is that no marriage should be a government marriage. I said at least I get the "concept" of marriage. The Concept of marriage is that people accept those odds. My agreeing with that or not is irrelevant and what you said doesn't contradict my personal views, so it is irrelevant

And you are a hypocrite of the First Order. You don't care about government marriage....except for gays having government marriage.

You understand this opens up marriage to more than gays, right?

Wrong.

Same sex hetro's will also be able to marry.

Can't see a compelling state interest in denying them those rights? Can you, or are you simply displaying bigotry?

 

[kaz]

You don't pay gays anything. Gays pay far more in taxes by being childless than they can ever gain from getting married.

The takers are people like you who get huge tax breaks just from breeding.

I thought you said there were no tax breaks, now suddenly you get it?

And yes, we get it for breeding. Raising a family is expensive. My question exactly. Why should gays get it for not breeding, just having sex?

People get a rax break for breeding?? Does that mean married couples who don't breed don't get a tax break?

Asked and answered

 

[kaz]

Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

Why should taxpayers have to subsidize ANYTHING?


.

We shouldn't