Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

You are the one who keeps saying I'm kazzing, gay boy. I am just agreeing with you, I don't accept the inherent truth of liberalism that you worship

And since I was crystal clear that I use the term, "kazzing," as a synonym for "lying," if you are agreeing with me, you are admitting you are lying.

Yes, I covered that, homey. We all know that liberalism is truth, only our hatred and greed prevents us from admitting that. So to deny the inherent truth of liberalism is kazzing. We covered that

Yes, I'm kazzing again, I still don't admit liberalism is truth

Then this isn't a nation for you, it's for liberals...

That's a contradiction, I am a liberal, you are not

 

[kaz]

You don't give a shit about anything, particularly anyone but yourself. Which is why it always cracks me up when you say you're a liberal because liberals care about people. Liberalism is what everything is about to you, what you can get out of it. You failed in the city and moved to Green Acres where you hate your toothless neighbors and you want government to redistribute some love to you

Liberals like Liberalism, not people, at least not by definition. I'm a liberal, who knows that humans are a disease...

You are the disease, and there is nothing liberal about you in any way

No one can help you so don't look to me to try. You are all tell, and all wrong...

You say when the founding fathers said what I do they were right, now I'm wrong, and since you agree with them on nothing, that's OK, you are them because that as over 200 years ago. So you are them now, they would disagree with everything they said. You think that makes you smart, I think it makes you an idiot

Do you have that in English?

That was in English. I am afraid I cannot translate it for you into your native tongue, idiocy

 

[Faun]

You dolt. Our country was founded on the ideal that Congress can raise taxes. From the earliest days, people were forced to pay taxes for things they didn't agree with.

That's not an "ideal," numskull. They viewed it as a painful necessity, not something desirable. This country was founded on the ideal of liberty, that men should be free to pursue their own ends, rather than, as liberals believe, men are the means for rulers to pursue their ends.

Getting back to the point you're now trying to deflect from .... from our earliest days, people had to pay tax for something they didn't agree with. That's inherent in collecting taxes. Without realizing it, you called the founding fathers, "Liberal."

Glad to see, in your heart, you believe this country was founded on Liberalism.

The difference is the founding fathers believed in taxes for the "general good." That means everyone benefits. Roads, military, they are available for all. Sure some use them more than others and some value them more than others, but everyone does benefit from them. Socialists like you support the opposite, the specific good. Taking money from one person and giving it to another. That specific good comes at the direct expense of other citizens, it harms them. That was not the system our forefathers set up

Of which specific good do you speak?

You realize I answered that in the post you quoted? Redistribution of wealth, gay boy. There was none of that in the Federal government under the founding fathers and the Constitution prohibits it

Great, on top of being a pathological kazzer, you're a moron too. Anytime the government collects taxes from those who have and provides services for those who have not, they are redistributing wealth. That was built into the Constitution.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Liberals like Liberalism, not people, at least not by definition. I'm a liberal, who knows that humans are a disease...

You are the disease, and there is nothing liberal about you in any way

No one can help you so don't look to me to try. You are all tell, and all wrong...

You say when the founding fathers said what I do they were right, now I'm wrong, and since you agree with them on nothing, that's OK, you are them because that as over 200 years ago. So you are them now, they would disagree with everything they said. You think that makes you smart, I think it makes you an idiot

Do you have that in English?

That was in English. I am afraid I cannot translate it for you into your native tongue, idiocy

If that was English to you then that explains a great deal about how your mind doesn't work...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And since I was crystal clear that I use the term, "kazzing," as a synonym for "lying," if you are agreeing with me, you are admitting you are lying.

Yes, I covered that, homey. We all know that liberalism is truth, only our hatred and greed prevents us from admitting that. So to deny the inherent truth of liberalism is kazzing. We covered that

Yes, I'm kazzing again, I still don't admit liberalism is truth

Then this isn't a nation for you, it's for liberals...

That's a contradiction, I am a liberal, you are not

You are nothing like a liberal, not even close. Among other things, they live in the real world...

 

[Seawytch]

Nope. You used the word upset. It's not even a synonym for annoyed.

You're so scared to debate me you have to stretch for reasons not to? Don't respond instead of trying to find a pussy way out.

The SCOTUS ruling annoyed you didn't it?

You know what quotes mean and neither of us used them. You are a liar with no integrity. Straight up, ho, you are

You said upset. Your original statement said upset. Annoy isn't upset...not even a synonym.

I was annoyed at the ruling and I won, so I know it annoyed you. It didn't upset you, but it DID annoy you.

Stop responding if you don't want to debate me, pussy.

Oh, and keep subsidizing my gay mating too.

When I didn't quote the word upset and you didn't either, you knew exactly what that meant. You are a liar and you have no honor

I'm sorry. Simple oversight. "Upset" was specified. I said annoyed....which you are.

I never for a second thought you'd be upset. Annoyed at the ruling, yes...which you are but I never assumed "upset" like Key, Bripat or Sil.

Spin, spin, spin, you have no integrity. You made a bet, now you're reneging on it. I don't care about your being banned for two weeks. You were just being a bitch and nagging me for something you remembered doing thinking it was going to be too hard to find in the search engine with thousands of posts. I tried to blow you off, but you kept being a ho. So I just wanted some consequence for that. I thought you'd Welsh, I told you that. You did. Just admit it for what it is. You lost, you aren't honoring the bet

I merely called you on your mistaken statement...which remains a mistaken statement. I never assumed you'd be upset over the ruling, only annoyed.

Don't compound your mistake by trying to claim you aren't exactly what I'd said you'd be, annoyed.

 

[Faun]

Nope, it's not. You're just too stupid to know any better.

So why do you keep arguing the inherent truth of liberalism if you don't believe in it? You even created a word for those of us who don't believe the inherent truth of liberalism, we are "kazzing." Great word, BTW, thank you for that

Because there is no inherent truth in any ideology. I can't believe you are stupid enough to think there is or that an entire group believes there is.

As far as the term, kazzing, I've only ever used it as a replacement for the word "lying." Seems I struck a nerve though as you are trying desperately to alter how you think it is I employ it.

You like recovering covered ground, yes, to deny liberalism is kazzing. Like everyone, I know liberalism is truth, everyone does. To deny liberalism is a lie. You mentioned that

You're kazzing again. I never said that.

You say it all the time, you even created a word for not blindly believing in the inherent truth of liberalism, kazzing. I love it, thanks!

Nah, I created a synonym for "lying."

Now I get to sit back and watch you desperately try to re-appropriate the term. Clearly, I struck a nerve.

 

[NoNukes]

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

There is no proof that having two of the same sex parents is different than having different sex parents.

 

[bripat9643]

That's not an "ideal," numskull. They viewed it as a painful necessity, not something desirable. This country was founded on the ideal of liberty, that men should be free to pursue their own ends, rather than, as liberals believe, men are the means for rulers to pursue their ends.

Liberty comes from Liberalism and Liberals, dumbass.

True, classic liberalism. Today we are called libertarians. You are an authoritarian leftist. You are no more liberal than North Korea is a Democratic Republic

You are nothing like a liberal, and nothing like the Founders. They would have voted you off the island. They already had selfish real children to deal with.

So I agree with them on almost everything and you agree with them on nothing, which makes you one of them and me not. Got it

Nazis hated liberals. There's not much we could have agreed upon, but there is some.

Actually they didn't. Before he war, the Nazis greatly admired FDR. Liberals and Nazis are pretty much the same thing.

Mises Daily Mises Institute

The Nazi press enthusiastically hailed the early New Deal measures: America, like the Reich, had decisively broken with the "uninhibited frenzy of market speculation." The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip" (p. 190).​

 

[bripat9643]

Now you're changing the subject. Nazis believe that society has rules that you are bound to follow, don't they? Nazis claimed their rules were for the good of the German volk, just as you claim your rules are for the good of America.

Nazis liked dog and children, that doesn't make people who like dogs and children Nazis. Grow up, Bri-piss.

Isn't that the theory that says conservatives are racist because that numskull in South Carolina who killed 9 people is a "conservative?"

Conservatives are racist because conservatives are racist. All humans are.

Do all humans hate Jews too or is that just you?

All humans are racist, and I hate Zionists, and all religions of course.

Then what's your objection to preventing queers from getting married?

 

[Syriusly]

I can't believe this thread is even still going

This entire thread is just Kaz's whine about homosexuals.

To recap:

Kaz is married and gets the marriage bennies. He wants to deny them to couples if they cannot reproduce together- but only gay couples.

Kaz has his bennies and wants to gay couples to pay for his bennies, and wants to deny those gay couples his bennies.

Even more so, since Kaz claims that marriage is to encourage child rearing among couples- those bennies are given to every childless straight couple- but he wants to deny them to every gay couple raising children.

Yes- the gay couple who adopts 5 kids abandoned by their straight biological parents- Kaz thinks that marriage bennies (according to Kaz to encourage procreation) should be denied to that couple.

But thinks that any childless straight couple should get them.

Especially Kaz and his wife.

 

[bripat9643]

The difference is the founding fathers believed in taxes for the "general good." That means everyone benefits. Roads, military, they are available for all. Sure some use them more than others and some value them more than others, but everyone does benefit from them. Socialists like you support the opposite, the specific good. Taking money from one person and giving it to another. That specific good comes at the direct expense of other citizens, it harms them. That was not the system our forefathers set up

You have no idea what liberals believe, you never ask, you only tell, and you're dead wrong of course.

The only consistency in your posts is the dearth of content

Death, Taxes, and Change. Those you can count on...

Those and you not being able to back up your argument

I never make one I can't, that's you.

So, bigotry is OK when you do it, but not when other people do it? Is that really what you're trying to say?

 

[bripat9643]

Yep, forcing people to do what they don't want to do is what liberalism is all about. Only the truly servile and totalitarian would gloat about something like that.

You dolt. Our country was founded on the ideal that Congress can raise taxes. From the earliest days, people were forced to pay taxes for things they didn't agree with.

That's not an "ideal," numskull. They viewed it as a painful necessity, not something desirable. This country was founded on the ideal of liberty, that men should be free to pursue their own ends, rather than, as liberals believe, men are the means for rulers to pursue their ends.

Getting back to the point you're now trying to deflect from .... from our earliest days, people had to pay tax for something they didn't agree with. That's inherent in collecting taxes. Without realizing it, you called the founding fathers, "Liberal."

Glad to see, in your heart, you believe this country was founded on Liberalism.

They were 18th century liberals, not Stalinists as the people call themselves liberal today are. Modern liberals are opposed to freedom.

Again, the fact that the Founding Fathers thought taxes were necessary doesn't alter the fact that they viewed them as an evil. They weren't an "ideal" by any stretch of the imagination.

You were the one to label, forcing people to pay for things they don't agree with, as "liberal." Now you're trying to change the definition of Liberal since the one you used applies to our founding fathers?

Actually what I said is "forcing people to do what they don't want to do is what liberalism is all about." That applies to more than just taxation.

As I said, unlike you, the Founding Fathers viewed taxation as a necessary evil. They intended to keep it as limited as possible. They would have been appalled by the income tax. Government at all levels only took in about 5% of our GDP in the first 150 years of this country's existence.The definition of "liberal" I applied to you doesn't apply to the Founding Fathers.

 

[bripat9643]

You are the one who keeps saying I'm kazzing, gay boy. I am just agreeing with you, I don't accept the inherent truth of liberalism that you worship

And since I was crystal clear that I use the term, "kazzing," as a synonym for "lying," if you are agreeing with me, you are admitting you are lying.

Yes, I covered that, homey. We all know that liberalism is truth, only our hatred and greed prevents us from admitting that. So to deny the inherent truth of liberalism is kazzing. We covered that

Yes, I'm kazzing again, I still don't admit liberalism is truth

Then this isn't a nation for you, it's for liberals...

Currently that's true, because this nation has devolved into a fascist tyranny.

 

[bripat9643]

That's not an "ideal," numskull. They viewed it as a painful necessity, not something desirable. This country was founded on the ideal of liberty, that men should be free to pursue their own ends, rather than, as liberals believe, men are the means for rulers to pursue their ends.

Getting back to the point you're now trying to deflect from .... from our earliest days, people had to pay tax for something they didn't agree with. That's inherent in collecting taxes. Without realizing it, you called the founding fathers, "Liberal."

Glad to see, in your heart, you believe this country was founded on Liberalism.

The difference is the founding fathers believed in taxes for the "general good." That means everyone benefits. Roads, military, they are available for all. Sure some use them more than others and some value them more than others, but everyone does benefit from them. Socialists like you support the opposite, the specific good. Taking money from one person and giving it to another. That specific good comes at the direct expense of other citizens, it harms them. That was not the system our forefathers set up

Of which specific good do you speak?

You realize I answered that in the post you quoted? Redistribution of wealth, gay boy. There was none of that in the Federal government under the founding fathers and the Constitution prohibits it

Great, on top of being a pathological kazzer, you're a moron too. Anytime the government collects taxes from those who have and provides services for those who have not, they are redistributing wealth. That was built into the Constitution.

That's true, to a certain extent, but that isn't the principle goal of building roads or providing a national defence. In the case of welfare, Social Security and Medicare, however, that is the principle goal.

 

[bripat9643]

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

There is no proof that having two of the same sex parents is different than having different sex parents.

ROFL! There is abundant evidence for it, including the testimony of those who were raised under such scenarios.

 

[NoNukes]

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

There is no proof that having two of the same sex parents is different than having different sex parents.

ROFL! There is abundant evidence for it, including the testimony of those who were raised under such scenarios.

In the Irish referendum on gay marriage the No side was trying these scare tactics and the psychologists and other experts came out and disputed what they had to say. Children are better off and more well adjusted with two parents, does not matter the sex. There is no evidence to prove otherwise. You are just making things up to support your argument, there is nothing to back it up. You are a failure.

 

[bripat9643]

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

There is no proof that having two of the same sex parents is different than having different sex parents.

ROFL! There is abundant evidence for it, including the testimony of those who were raised under such scenarios.

In the Irish referendum on gay marriage the No side was trying these scare tactics and the psychologists and other experts came out and disputed what they had to say. Children are better off and more well adjusted with two parents, does not matter the sex. There is no evidence to prove otherwise. You are just making things up to support your argument, there is nothing to back it up. You are a failure.

The sex does matter, and the so-called "experts" are nothing more than propagandists.

"Better off" as opposed to what, living in an institution?

 

[kaz]

That's not an "ideal," numskull. They viewed it as a painful necessity, not something desirable. This country was founded on the ideal of liberty, that men should be free to pursue their own ends, rather than, as liberals believe, men are the means for rulers to pursue their ends.

Getting back to the point you're now trying to deflect from .... from our earliest days, people had to pay tax for something they didn't agree with. That's inherent in collecting taxes. Without realizing it, you called the founding fathers, "Liberal."

Glad to see, in your heart, you believe this country was founded on Liberalism.

The difference is the founding fathers believed in taxes for the "general good." That means everyone benefits. Roads, military, they are available for all. Sure some use them more than others and some value them more than others, but everyone does benefit from them. Socialists like you support the opposite, the specific good. Taking money from one person and giving it to another. That specific good comes at the direct expense of other citizens, it harms them. That was not the system our forefathers set up

Of which specific good do you speak?

You realize I answered that in the post you quoted? Redistribution of wealth, gay boy. There was none of that in the Federal government under the founding fathers and the Constitution prohibits it

Great, on top of being a pathological kazzer, you're a moron too. Anytime the government collects taxes from those who have and provides services for those who have not, they are redistributing wealth. That was built into the Constitution.

I don't know what a "pathological" kazzer means, I'm just committed to rebutting liberal lies. Is that what you mean?

And the military is not redistributing wealth, idiot. What made you think it was other than sheer stupidity?

 

[kaz]

Yes, I covered that, homey. We all know that liberalism is truth, only our hatred and greed prevents us from admitting that. So to deny the inherent truth of liberalism is kazzing. We covered that

Yes, I'm kazzing again, I still don't admit liberalism is truth

Then this isn't a nation for you, it's for liberals...

That's a contradiction, I am a liberal, you are not

You are nothing like a liberal, not even close. Among other things, they live in the real world...

Right, you live in the real world and realize you can't make it on your own, you need government to take care of you. I live in a fantasy world thinking that I can take care of myself.

Actually if you think about it, we both live in the real world, don't we?