Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[JakeStarkey]

Kaz is ranting on about his silly fascination with taxation is theftation, to use a Kaz term.

 

[toxicmedia]

I totally agree... but you need to tell that to the lefties as it is they that ignore the fact that overwhelmingly people view marriage as one man and one woman.

I think you're twisting things here.

People do overwhelmingly view most marriages as being between a man and a woman, but that's just because gays are only 2% to whatever% of the public.

More than 50% of Americans think gay marriage is just fine

60%, at this point.

Believing gays should be allowed to government marry is very different from perceiving two men as marriage, Sparky

Who cares what you perceive.

Just butt out of their lives with your unjustified prudish meddling.

Yes, not getting tax breaks. They can do whatever they want, I just don't want to pay them for it. It's like living in Nazi Germany, isn't it? Hitler didn't give gays tax breaks for mating either. And he put Jews into pogroms. Makes you think, doesn't it? You liberals sure do deeply love other people's money

This response has nothing to do with my post that you responded to.

Did you make a mistake?

Because it looks as though in response to my suggestion that you quit involving yourself in the lives of gay people, you started saying crap about Gays being like Nazis.

Look, I don't want to pay for your social security or medicare, because none of it will be there for me, but you don't hear me calling you a Nazi.

Where your tax dollars go, in lieu of a trifle bit of money you think gays should be paying extra, are not a ala carte. After you've paid you taxes, they get spent by the people we elect. If you can't muster enough winning candidates that share your opinion, tax dollars will be spent on things you don't like....and that has nothing to do with Hitler's intolerance for gays, Jews, and liberals.

Are you that tapped out you have to play the Hitler card?...and well played it was NOT

 

[Faun]

Ironic that's your go to line in response to my telling you ... again ... that the view of the SCOTUS doesn't change my view. Didn't think that one through, did you, Sparky?

Too bad you're too stupid to understand what I've thought though. You don't seem to comprehend you've already revealed your hand.... you think the Supreme Court is not the authority to render such a decicion. You idiotically think their ability to do so is not Constitutional. Of course you'll be popping an aneurysm over this. Your rightardism will be on full display as you screech about judicial activism.

You're a rightard. That's what rightards do.

So you thought it through, meditated, subjected your views to tough scrutiny and thoroughly and repeatedly challenged them from from every conceivable angle. And only through that routhless process of applying pure reason did you finally at long last after seemingly endless deliberation did conclude the Democratic is right on every talking point and for the same reasons they told you to think that in the first place.

And you're the thinker, Rodin, got it. Actually, you're a clown. But who am I telling, you already know that! You keep telling us!

Translation...

Yep, you're poppin' an aneurysm when they render a decision on this.

 

[toxicmedia]

I totally agree... but you need to tell that to the lefties as it is they that ignore the fact that overwhelmingly people view marriage as one man and one woman.

I think you're twisting things here.

People do overwhelmingly view most marriages as being between a man and a woman, but that's just because gays are only 2% to whatever% of the public.

More than 50% of Americans think gay marriage is just fine

60%, at this point.

Believing gays should be allowed to government marry is very different from perceiving two men as marriage, Sparky

Who cares what you perceive.

Just butt out of their lives with your unjustified prudish meddling.

ROFLMNAO

The Homo-cult shoves their degeneracy in our face and demand we accept it or else.

In response, I offer a heartfelt... FUCKYOU. I'm in for the Or ELSE. Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

That's how it is and it's not changing. If you don't like it, that's just a bonus as far as I'm concerned.

I always love your posts.

Keys is hysterical, like my Cantankerous old Uncle Jack

 

[toxicmedia]

Who cares what you perceive.

Just butt out of their lives with your unjustified prudish meddling.

Yes, not getting tax breaks. They can do whatever they want, I just don't want to pay them for it. It's like living in Nazi Germany, isn't it? Hitler didn't give gays tax breaks for mating either. And he put Jews into pogroms. Makes you think, doesn't it? You liberals sure do deeply love other people's money

And Godwin's Law has arrived!

Why didn't Kaz's OP advocate getting rid of the married tax break altogether? The mind reels...

Apparently Kaz is ok with subsidizing gay's who are married as long as they are married to a heterosexual partner, but not if they get married to a gay partner.

Strawman. I'm for flat taxes for all, no progressive rates, no deductions, so this is pulled out of your ass. And since you know that, you are actually a liar

So the OP was a lie? 300 pages of you denying gays the right to marriage and all you really meant to say is who cares about gay marriage, we need flat tax?

Sure! Kaz already explained that to me.

He's all for gay marriage, he just can't support it because it's unconstitutional

 

[Faun]

So you think that despite 60% of the country thinking gays should be able to civilly marry...they don't actually believe they are married when the get married?

And I thought you had reading comprehension issues. Wow, I was right...

You don't believe gays are "really" married like you and your wife are do you, Kaz?

I think you're not. You are playing house. Marriage isn't being in for it for what you get out of it and not giving your partner their way even when you realize it's more important to them than you. I don't think that's a gay thing, I think that's a you're self centered thing. There are lots of self centered straights too

We're not talking about your fascination with me...or your throwing your wife under the bus so you don't have to seem such the hypocrite.

Well, of course I'm fascinated with you. You are a genius. You post on message boards ... and get responses to your posts. It's amazing. Obviously only people fascinated by you would actually respond to a post on a message board. I mean who else would do that?

Idiot

Do you believe gays are "really" married like you and the wifey are?

I don't think it has to do with gay. I actually just said that, "I don't think that's a gay thing, I think that's a you're self centered thing. There are lots of self centered straights too"

Idiot

You're still ducking and dodging the question. I'm asking you a very specific question. Steven and Joseph are two men who have been together for 10 years and have gotten married. Mary and Theodore are a man and a woman. They've been together for 5 years and have gotten married. Do you, Kaz, consider both of them married?

That's a leftist question because you consider court government marriage = legislature government marriage = marriage. I consider all three of those different. That's clear from the conversation, yet you insist on the ambiguous to me question of are they "married."

For the gay couple, if you mean the third definition of actually "married" I say yes. As for the government you want in your marriage, if it's the second it's legitimate and if the first it's not because it was enabled by the courts committing a crime against the American people. I've told you this before, I'm not sure why it continues to elude you.

Because you're a flaming imbecile and nobody accepts your hallucinogenic definitions because you're a flaming imbecile. Like here ... where you imagine there's 3 different types of government sanctioned marriage.

Fucking nuts kazzed.

 

[Faun]

I think you're twisting things here.

People do overwhelmingly view most marriages as being between a man and a woman, but that's just because gays are only 2% to whatever% of the public.

More than 50% of Americans think gay marriage is just fine

60%, at this point.

Believing gays should be allowed to government marry is very different from perceiving two men as marriage, Sparky

Who cares what you perceive.

Just butt out of their lives with your unjustified prudish meddling.

ROFLMNAO

The Homo-cult shoves their degeneracy in our face and demand we accept it or else.

In response, I offer a heartfelt... FUCKYOU. I'm in for the Or ELSE. Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

That's how it is and it's not changing. If you don't like it, that's just a bonus as far as I'm concerned.

I always love your posts.

Keys is hysterical, like my Cantankerous old Uncle Jack

He admitted he's a proud gay man. Perhaps that has something to do with it?

 

[kaz]

Strawman. I'm for flat taxes for all, no progressive rates, no deductions, so this is pulled out of your ass. And since you know that, you are actually a liar

So the OP was a lie? 300 pages of you denying gays the right to marriage and all you really meant to say is who cares about gay marriage, we need flat tax?

The OP post doesn't say I'm against the flat tax, Holmes

Correct. It says you're against gay marriage.

True, I'm against straight marriage too.

So since you're not a liberal, why does a thread mocking liberals for not having consistent standards bother you so much again?

What bothers me is a person claiming to be a libertarian ... turning around and saying "I'm against two people getting married." It's none of your BUSINESS IF TWO CONSENTING ADULTS WANT TO GET MARRIED YOU POS.

So it bothers you that someone calling themselves a "libertarian" would be against government validation of their relationship and access to unequal treatment under the law



Um ... OK?

 

[kaz]

I think you're twisting things here.

People do overwhelmingly view most marriages as being between a man and a woman, but that's just because gays are only 2% to whatever% of the public.

More than 50% of Americans think gay marriage is just fine

60%, at this point.

Believing gays should be allowed to government marry is very different from perceiving two men as marriage, Sparky

Who cares what you perceive.

Just butt out of their lives with your unjustified prudish meddling.

Yes, not getting tax breaks. They can do whatever they want, I just don't want to pay them for it. It's like living in Nazi Germany, isn't it? Hitler didn't give gays tax breaks for mating either. And he put Jews into pogroms. Makes you think, doesn't it? You liberals sure do deeply love other people's money

This response has nothing to do with my post that you responded to.

Did you make a mistake?

Because it looks as though in response to my suggestion that you quit involving yourself in the lives of gay people, you started saying crap about Gays being like Nazis.

Look, I don't want to pay for your social security or medicare, because none of it will be there for me, but you don't hear me calling you a Nazi.

Where your tax dollars go, in lieu of a trifle bit of money you think gays should be paying extra, are not a ala carte. After you've paid you taxes, they get spent by the people we elect. If you can't muster enough winning candidates that share your opinion, tax dollars will be spent on things you don't like....and that has nothing to do with Hitler's intolerance for gays, Jews, and liberals.

Are you that tapped out you have to play the Hitler card?...and well played it was NOT

From the guy with a sense of humor. Now that's funny...

 

[kaz]

Ironic that's your go to line in response to my telling you ... again ... that the view of the SCOTUS doesn't change my view. Didn't think that one through, did you, Sparky?

Too bad you're too stupid to understand what I've thought though. You don't seem to comprehend you've already revealed your hand.... you think the Supreme Court is not the authority to render such a decicion. You idiotically think their ability to do so is not Constitutional. Of course you'll be popping an aneurysm over this. Your rightardism will be on full display as you screech about judicial activism.

You're a rightard. That's what rightards do.

So you thought it through, meditated, subjected your views to tough scrutiny and thoroughly and repeatedly challenged them from from every conceivable angle. And only through that routhless process of applying pure reason did you finally at long last after seemingly endless deliberation did conclude the Democratic is right on every talking point and for the same reasons they told you to think that in the first place.

And you're the thinker, Rodin, got it. Actually, you're a clown. But who am I telling, you already know that! You keep telling us!

Translation...

Yep, you're poppin' an aneurysm when they render a decision on this.

From the clown car, noted

 

[kaz]

Yes, not getting tax breaks. They can do whatever they want, I just don't want to pay them for it. It's like living in Nazi Germany, isn't it? Hitler didn't give gays tax breaks for mating either. And he put Jews into pogroms. Makes you think, doesn't it? You liberals sure do deeply love other people's money

And Godwin's Law has arrived!

Why didn't Kaz's OP advocate getting rid of the married tax break altogether? The mind reels...

Apparently Kaz is ok with subsidizing gay's who are married as long as they are married to a heterosexual partner, but not if they get married to a gay partner.

Strawman. I'm for flat taxes for all, no progressive rates, no deductions, so this is pulled out of your ass. And since you know that, you are actually a liar

So the OP was a lie? 300 pages of you denying gays the right to marriage and all you really meant to say is who cares about gay marriage, we need flat tax?

Sure! Kaz already explained that to me.

He's all for gay marriage, he just can't support it because it's unconstitutional

Strawman

 

[kaz]

And I thought you had reading comprehension issues. Wow, I was right...

I think you're not. You are playing house. Marriage isn't being in for it for what you get out of it and not giving your partner their way even when you realize it's more important to them than you. I don't think that's a gay thing, I think that's a you're self centered thing. There are lots of self centered straights too

We're not talking about your fascination with me...or your throwing your wife under the bus so you don't have to seem such the hypocrite.

Well, of course I'm fascinated with you. You are a genius. You post on message boards ... and get responses to your posts. It's amazing. Obviously only people fascinated by you would actually respond to a post on a message board. I mean who else would do that?

Idiot

Do you believe gays are "really" married like you and the wifey are?

I don't think it has to do with gay. I actually just said that, "I don't think that's a gay thing, I think that's a you're self centered thing. There are lots of self centered straights too"

Idiot

You're still ducking and dodging the question. I'm asking you a very specific question. Steven and Joseph are two men who have been together for 10 years and have gotten married. Mary and Theodore are a man and a woman. They've been together for 5 years and have gotten married. Do you, Kaz, consider both of them married?

That's a leftist question because you consider court government marriage = legislature government marriage = marriage. I consider all three of those different. That's clear from the conversation, yet you insist on the ambiguous to me question of are they "married."

For the gay couple, if you mean the third definition of actually "married" I say yes. As for the government you want in your marriage, if it's the second it's legitimate and if the first it's not because it was enabled by the courts committing a crime against the American people. I've told you this before, I'm not sure why it continues to elude you.

Because you're a flaming imbecile and nobody accepts your hallucinogenic definitions because you're a flaming imbecile. Like here ... where you imagine there's 3 different types of government sanctioned marriage.

Fucking nuts kazzed.

That classic toxicidiot sense of humor again, thanks for showing me how that's done....

 

[orogenicman]

Marriage is what society says it is. If society says that two men or two women who love each other should be able to marry, who are you or I to refuse them?

I totally agree... but you need to tell that to the lefties as it is they that ignore the fact that overwhelmingly people view marriage as one man and one woman.

WTF? In what alternative reality?

In the alternative reality your living in... .

In my reality, I was married to a wonderful woman for 14 years. You?

35 years...

So, did you have a point you wanted to make?

 

[orogenicman]

I totally agree... but you need to tell that to the lefties as it is they that ignore the fact that overwhelmingly people view marriage as one man and one woman.

I think you're twisting things here.

People do overwhelmingly view most marriages as being between a man and a woman, but that's just because gays are only 2% to whatever% of the public.

More than 50% of Americans think gay marriage is just fine

60%, at this point.

Believing gays should be allowed to government marry is very different from perceiving two men as marriage, Sparky

Who cares what you perceive.

Just butt out of their lives with your unjustified prudish meddling.

ROFLMNAO

The Homo-cult shoves their degeneracy in our face and demand we accept it or else.

In response, I offer a heartfelt... FUCKYOU. I'm in for the Or ELSE. Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

That's how it is and it's not changing. If you don't like it, that's just a bonus as far as I'm concerned.

Erm, we are all Homos, dude. or are you some other genera of which we are unaware?

 

[toxicmedia]

60%, at this point.

Believing gays should be allowed to government marry is very different from perceiving two men as marriage, Sparky

Who cares what you perceive.

Just butt out of their lives with your unjustified prudish meddling.

Yes, not getting tax breaks. They can do whatever they want, I just don't want to pay them for it. It's like living in Nazi Germany, isn't it? Hitler didn't give gays tax breaks for mating either. And he put Jews into pogroms. Makes you think, doesn't it? You liberals sure do deeply love other people's money

This response has nothing to do with my post that you responded to.

Did you make a mistake?

Because it looks as though in response to my suggestion that you quit involving yourself in the lives of gay people, you started saying crap about Gays being like Nazis.

Look, I don't want to pay for your social security or medicare, because none of it will be there for me, but you don't hear me calling you a Nazi.

Where your tax dollars go, in lieu of a trifle bit of money you think gays should be paying extra, are not a ala carte. After you've paid you taxes, they get spent by the people we elect. If you can't muster enough winning candidates that share your opinion, tax dollars will be spent on things you don't like....and that has nothing to do with Hitler's intolerance for gays, Jews, and liberals.

Are you that tapped out you have to play the Hitler card?...and well played it was NOT

From the guy with a sense of humor. Now that's funny...

That would be a valid point if what you said before it was funny

 

[toxicmedia]

We're not talking about your fascination with me...or your throwing your wife under the bus so you don't have to seem such the hypocrite.

Well, of course I'm fascinated with you. You are a genius. You post on message boards ... and get responses to your posts. It's amazing. Obviously only people fascinated by you would actually respond to a post on a message board. I mean who else would do that?

Idiot

Do you believe gays are "really" married like you and the wifey are?

I don't think it has to do with gay. I actually just said that, "I don't think that's a gay thing, I think that's a you're self centered thing. There are lots of self centered straights too"

Idiot

You're still ducking and dodging the question. I'm asking you a very specific question. Steven and Joseph are two men who have been together for 10 years and have gotten married. Mary and Theodore are a man and a woman. They've been together for 5 years and have gotten married. Do you, Kaz, consider both of them married?

That's a leftist question because you consider court government marriage = legislature government marriage = marriage. I consider all three of those different. That's clear from the conversation, yet you insist on the ambiguous to me question of are they "married."

For the gay couple, if you mean the third definition of actually "married" I say yes. As for the government you want in your marriage, if it's the second it's legitimate and if the first it's not because it was enabled by the courts committing a crime against the American people. I've told you this before, I'm not sure why it continues to elude you.

Because you're a flaming imbecile and nobody accepts your hallucinogenic definitions because you're a flaming imbecile. Like here ... where you imagine there's 3 different types of government sanctioned marriage.

Fucking nuts kazzed.

That classic toxicidiot sense of humor again, thanks for showing me how that's done....

I'm beginning to think you don't appreciate my witty reparte'

But don't answer that question, because knowing you disapprove would break my heart, and shape my destiny.

 

[Care4all]

I totally agree... but you need to tell that to the lefties as it is they that ignore the fact that overwhelmingly people view marriage as one man and one woman.

I think you're twisting things here.

People do overwhelmingly view most marriages as being between a man and a woman, but that's just because gays are only 2% to whatever% of the public.

More than 50% of Americans think gay marriage is just fine

60%, at this point.

Believing gays should be allowed to government marry is very different from perceiving two men as marriage, Sparky

Who cares what you perceive.

Just butt out of their lives with your unjustified prudish meddling.

Yes, not getting tax breaks. They can do whatever they want, I just don't want to pay them for it. It's like living in Nazi Germany, isn't it? Hitler didn't give gays tax breaks for mating either. And he put Jews into pogroms. Makes you think, doesn't it? You liberals sure do deeply love other people's money

Is giving a ''tax break'' by lowering the tax rate on the wealthiest highest tax bracket, ''making us who did not get this tax break, pay for the wealthiest's tax break''? Or, as you all claimed, giving the wealthiest a tax break is just letting them keep more of their ''own money''?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kaz simply does not believe he is living ina a fake creation mentally of his own making.

 

[Skylar]

I think you're twisting things here.

People do overwhelmingly view most marriages as being between a man and a woman, but that's just because gays are only 2% to whatever% of the public.

More than 50% of Americans think gay marriage is just fine

60%, at this point.

Believing gays should be allowed to government marry is very different from perceiving two men as marriage, Sparky

Who cares what you perceive.

Just butt out of their lives with your unjustified prudish meddling.

Yes, not getting tax breaks. They can do whatever they want, I just don't want to pay them for it. It's like living in Nazi Germany, isn't it? Hitler didn't give gays tax breaks for mating either. And he put Jews into pogroms. Makes you think, doesn't it? You liberals sure do deeply love other people's money

Is giving a ''tax break'' by lowering the tax rate on the wealthiest highest tax bracket, ''making us who did not get this tax break, pay for the wealthiest's tax break''? Or, as you all claimed, giving the wealthiest a tax break is just letting them keep more of their ''own money''?

Care......you're confused. If its gays, then any tax break is a subsidy. If its the rich, then any tax break is letting them keep more of their own money.

You lost your way when you didn't take the double standard into account. Consistency has nothing to with it. As Kaz demonstrates here:

First of all, a tax credit is a subsidy

Yes comrade, not taking a company's money is the same as giving them money. All money is the people's money.

Post 21
Unintended Consequences. Page 3 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Now if they were gay oil execs, apparently it would be a subsidy. If they're straight 'all money is the people's money'.

If not for double standards, Kaz would have no standards at all.

 

[Seawytch]

60%, at this point.

Believing gays should be allowed to government marry is very different from perceiving two men as marriage, Sparky

Who cares what you perceive.

Just butt out of their lives with your unjustified prudish meddling.

Yes, not getting tax breaks. They can do whatever they want, I just don't want to pay them for it. It's like living in Nazi Germany, isn't it? Hitler didn't give gays tax breaks for mating either. And he put Jews into pogroms. Makes you think, doesn't it? You liberals sure do deeply love other people's money

And Godwin's Law has arrived!

Why didn't Kaz's OP advocate getting rid of the married tax break altogether? The mind reels...

Godwin's law, LOL. I raised it to mock you idiots.

And as for your point on the tax break, there is seriously something wrong with you. I've advocated flat taxes probably a hundred times in this thread alone. You need to see your doctor, there is something seriously wrong with your ability to form long term memories. Seriously, write this down as you obviously won't remember it.

Seriously, you don't remember me saying endlessly everyone should pay the same tax rate, no progressive taxes, no deductions, they should be flat. That's what you want to go with, that you don't remember me saying that? Seriously, wow

So we're back to "why didn't your OP say that" instead of singling out gays? Why not start a thread on getting rid of the married tax break, period? Oh I remember...that's not click bait and gay bashing is.

Your need for validation is so sad.