Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by kaz, May 19, 2015.

  1. kaz
    Offline

    kaz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    46,299
    Thanks Received:
    4,705
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Independence Hall
    Ratings:
    +16,438
    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
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Funny Funny x 2
  2. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    18,020
    Thanks Received:
    1,612
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,172
    Following that logic I don't see the purpose of subsidizing, if that's what we want to call it, heterosexual couples either. You say for the propagation of the species, but I see no actual benefit from other people having children. There are naturally other problems I see with this analysis, but I'm sure you can anticipate them and they don't fall within the narrow financial aspect you're looking to discuss.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. kaz
    Offline

    kaz Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    Messages:
    46,299
    Thanks Received:
    4,705
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Independence Hall
    Ratings:
    +16,438
    You know I'm against government marriage, I don't contradict that in this post. You know that if you have long term memory. And you have to have noticed I started with "I at least get the concept." That isn't the point of this thread. There are better solutions to everything government marriage supposedly solves that could be applied to everyone. Flat taxes, elimination of the evil death tax and so on. But that isn't the point of the thread. Actually Seawytch inspirited it by being a dick in our recent conversation
     
  4. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,629
    Thanks Received:
    7,823
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,227
    They'll argue things like "fairness" and "equal protection." But your point is well taken. There is no benefit to society from gay marriage.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. The Irish Ram
    Offline

    The Irish Ram LITTLE GIRL / Ram Tough

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    13,156
    Thanks Received:
    3,166
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    diagonally parked in a parallel universe
    Ratings:
    +12,298
    There is an overpopulation concern by the real 1%. The Global Initiative has embraced abortion and gay coupling to curb the population.
     
  6. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    18,020
    Thanks Received:
    1,612
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,172
    I do know that, which is why I think this is an odd post to begin with, but I understand what you're trying to do I think. I responded strictly to the financial aspect you want to discuss by pointing out that there is no financial gain from subsidizing heterosexual couples anymore than there is homosexual couples.
     
  7. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    18,020
    Thanks Received:
    1,612
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,172
    What benefit does "society" get from heterosexual marriage? Your being married to a woman is of no benefit to me or anybody else I know personally, and if a poll were taken I'd say the majority of Americans would say they derive no benefit from your marriage. I have no idea whether you're married or not, for the record, merely hypothesizing that you are.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. orogenicman
    Offline

    orogenicman Darwin was a pastafarian

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2013
    Messages:
    8,554
    Thanks Received:
    824
    Trophy Points:
    175
    Ratings:
    +1,774
    And what of those straight couples who don't intend on having children? Better yet, why should other taxpayers have to subsidize straight mating?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. RKMBrown
    Offline

    RKMBrown Gold Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    17,506
    Thanks Received:
    1,583
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,297
    You are very confused. You talk as if government is your GOD. As if government has handed down the decree that you shall go forth and multiply.

    Just because you justify in your own haid that your child tax break is just because your child will be a good little tax payer, does not actually justify your tax break, nor does it justify you PISSING on gays for daring the want the right to marry.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Luddly Neddite
    Offline

    Luddly Neddite Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Messages:
    61,709
    Thanks Received:
    9,448
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +26,581

    If the fundie nutters get what they want, this is a first step in requiring heterosexual couples to reproduce in order for their marriage to be legally recognized and for them to get the couple's tax break.

    Note to OP -

    1. If you're not gay, you really can't say what their sex is like FOR THEM.

    2. No one "subsidizes" stay-at-home mothers and, if they can afford it, there's no other reason why a gay parent cannot stay home with their child.

    Gays make up less than 5% of our population. An even smaller percentage of those will get married. You really think this will amount to much money?

    The hateful RWs really need to stop their meddling and MYOB.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2

Share This Page

Search tags for this page
bob hopes children
,
content
,
lesbian couple chemically altering
,

subsidize gay people

,
tax payers subsudizing gay marriage
,
why is the uaw more important than taxpayers
,
why should taxpayers pay for gays