Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[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?

Why should I pay for your family?

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

You are stupid

What if you tried building on my answer instead of ignoring it and endlessly asking the same question as if I hadn't?

 

[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?

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

You realize that made no sense where you posted it? Probably not...

 

[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

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?

No, that's still you

 

[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?

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

Wow.

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

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.

So you name all the voices in your head "kaz?" Doesn't that get confusing?

 

[kaz]

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.

Actually I am for no one having government marriage. But you knew that, you are a liar

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

There is no compelling state interest.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Actually I am for no one having government marriage. But you knew that, you are a liar

That's totally irrelevant since you know govt marriage isn't going to disappear.

Interesting though that you say marriage benefits are justified for man/woman couples who have children, but you want to get rid of those benefits.

Which is it?

 

[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.

Strawman

Why? You said raising children is expensive so the government should help pay for it.

 

[kaz]

Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

Why should taxpayers have to subsidize ANYTHING?


.

It is a fair point

Yes, I've repeatedly advocated flat taxes and an end to government marriage. I'm pretty sure you both know that.

This thread is tongue in cheek, it's holding the left to their own standard. Like the government shut down where Obama The Magnificent Incompetent actually spent more money shutting down government than operating it and they are still bitter at Republicans for spending money standing up to them than caving and giving his Imperial Highness what he wanted

 

[kaz]

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?

There is no compelling state interest.

Yes, like giving gays marriage licenses when gay sex doesn't produce children. Where's the benefit in that? There's not

 

[kaz]

Interesting though that you say marriage benefits are justified for man/woman couples who have children, but you want to get rid of those benefits.

Which is it?

You are seriously not a bright guy. Do you read the thread at all ever? Or do you just post?

 

[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?

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

Wow.

Strawman

Why? You said raising children is expensive so the government should help pay for it.

We should pay for kids to live in an ideal man/woman headed household. That's how we evolved. It has nothing to do with morality. Two left shoes isn't a pair of shoes, it doesn't fit our feet

 

[Syriusly]

the other half is your hate for Americans who happen to be gay.

There you go with that "hate" word again.

There is his hate, and then there's yours--for those who happen to disagree with gay marriage.

Nope- I don't hate anyone- even idiot bigots.

 

[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?

Asked and answered

If the answer was, "yes," then you were full of shit; if the answer was, "no," then you have the explanation for why gays getting married are also entitled to the tax break.

 

[Syriusly]

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

The gay couple wasn't having children either ex-post or ex-ante. The straight couple was 90% having children ex-ante. Decisions have to be made ex-ante, not ex-post. You keep ignoring my pointing that out. How do you go back and change the upfront choice?

You and the law do not care- whether the straight couple can or cannot have children- the man could be missing his nads and you would give him the bennies without any question. Two 80 year olds get marry- and you give them bennies without question

But a gay couples raising 5 kids- you would deny them the bennies you give to the two 80 year olds.

Just because they are gay- and since the result of doing that is to take money from their family- clearly you want to harm their children also.

 

[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

If the answer was, "yes," then you were full of shit; if the answer was, "no," then you have the explanation for why gays getting married are also entitled to the tax break.

Your lack of grasp of liner time has nothing to do with intelligence. Well, it does, but not in a good way

 

[kaz]

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

The gay couple wasn't having children either ex-post or ex-ante. The straight couple was 90% having children ex-ante. Decisions have to be made ex-ante, not ex-post. You keep ignoring my pointing that out. How do you go back and change the upfront choice?

You and the law do not care- whether the straight couple can or cannot have children- the man could be missing his nads and you would give him the bennies without any question. Two 80 year olds get marry- and you give them bennies without question

But a gay couples raising 5 kids- you would deny them the bennies you give to the two 80 year olds.

Just because they are gay- and since the result of doing that is to take money from their family- clearly you want to harm their children also.

I hate children too. That's funny. You're losing it now. It's best for children to be in a man/woman household. It's how we evolved.

It's funny how you get all jacked out of shape over creationism, you talk about how people evolved. But when it's pointed out we also evolved with man/woman parents, nuh uh, that doesn't matter. You are just as religious as the Christians, obviously we did

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Strawman

Why? You said raising children is expensive so the government should help pay for it.

We should pay for kids to live in an ideal man/woman headed household. That's how we evolved. It has nothing to do with morality. Two left shoes isn't a pair of shoes, it doesn't fit our feet

Yet we pay for kids to live with any parent.

What you want to do is ensure that the children of gays are raised with less money than the children of straights.

Family a: Bob and Carol- 2 kids- earn 100,000- lets pretend the 'bennies' are $10,000- and tax rate 40%- those children are raised with a net of approximately $64,000

Famil b: Bob and Carroll- 2 kids earn 100,000- same situation- their kids would be raised with a net of $60,000

You penalize children raised by gay couples.

 

[Syriusly]

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

The gay couple wasn't having children either ex-post or ex-ante. The straight couple was 90% having children ex-ante. Decisions have to be made ex-ante, not ex-post. You keep ignoring my pointing that out. How do you go back and change the upfront choice?

You and the law do not care- whether the straight couple can or cannot have children- the man could be missing his nads and you would give him the bennies without any question. Two 80 year olds get marry- and you give them bennies without question

But a gay couples raising 5 kids- you would deny them the bennies you give to the two 80 year olds.

Just because they are gay- and since the result of doing that is to take money from their family- clearly you want to harm their children also.

I hate children too. That's funny. You're losing it now. It's best for children to be in a man/woman household. It's how we evolved.
d

Explain any other rational other than you despise the children of gay couples to justify you wanting to take money away from them to give to childless 80's year old married couples?