Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

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.

Before the bet, you went on to say you didn't tell me how I feel at all. Then after the bet, suddenly it was shades of gray. Don't justify Welshing on the bet, just say you aren't going to do it. There is no enforcement other than your honor, which means there is no enforcement as you have none. I did accurately predict that before the bet as well if you recall

 

[kaz]

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.

I'm not sure what your problem is, gay boy, but I keep agreeing with you. You believe everyone knows liberals are right, so to not be liberal is to lie. That is what kazzing is all about, refuting your lies

 

[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

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

Not other than being a human being there isn't, no. Clearly when you grew up you saw that children have different relationships with male and female parents. That is how we evolved. You saw it constantly through your life. I never said to not have a male and female parent is to be a failure. I grew up in a single parent home. My brother, sister and I each have multiple graduate degrees. But we clearly missed having a father. You can deny it all you want, but based on your own experience if you are honest, you will agree a parent of each sex is ideal

 

[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

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.

So your relationship with your mother and father was exactly the same, they were genderless automatons to you. Liar, you don't believe that, you know what you are saying is ridiculous

 

[Faun]

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?

Just look in the mirror to see a pathological kazzer. As far as the military, poor people can't afford the protection of a military. That's a service provided for them by those who can afford it.

 

[Faun]

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.

I'm not sure what your problem is, gay boy, but I keep agreeing with you. You believe everyone knows liberals are right, so to not be liberal is to lie. That is what kazzing is all about, refuting your lies

Right about what?

And kazzing has always been a synonym for lying. It remains that despite you valiant efforts to change it to something other than that. Efforts which reveal it bothers you.

 

[kaz]

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?

Just look in the mirror to see a pathological kazzer. As far as the military, poor people can't afford the protection of a military. That's a service provided for them by those who can afford it.

Right, and that has nothing to do with "transferring wealth." A military is like insurance, it protects what you have. It doesn't make you richer. Buy a dictionary

 

[kaz]

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.

I'm not sure what your problem is, gay boy, but I keep agreeing with you. You believe everyone knows liberals are right, so to not be liberal is to lie. That is what kazzing is all about, refuting your lies

Right about what?

And kazzing has always been a synonym for lying. It remains that despite you valiant efforts to change it to something other than that. Efforts which reveal it bothers you.

So when you make an effort to define kazzing it doesn't mean it bothers you, when I do, it means it does. Here's a cookie, go play, gay boy

 

[Faun]

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?

Just look in the mirror to see a pathological kazzer. As far as the military, poor people can't afford the protection of a military. That's a service provided for them by those who can afford it.

Right, and that has nothing to do with "transferring wealth." A military is like insurance, it protects what you have. It doesn't make you richer. Buy a dictionary

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.

I'm not sure what your problem is, gay boy, but I keep agreeing with you. You believe everyone knows liberals are right, so to not be liberal is to lie. That is what kazzing is all about, refuting your lies

Right about what?

And kazzing has always been a synonym for lying. It remains that despite you valiant efforts to change it to something other than that. Efforts which reveal it bothers you.

So when you make an effort to define kazzing it doesn't mean it bothers you, when I do, it means it does. Here's a cookie, go play, gay boy

Why on Earth would the term, kazzing, bother me? It wouldn't, of course. You, however, are clearly bothered by it. Evidence of such is you ignoring other posters who began to use it.

And you didn't answer the question ... what is it you think I believe Liberals are right about?

 

[kaz]

Why on Earth would the term, kazzing, bother me?

You tell me, you're the one who keeps getting upset about it and having to justify it. What about I agree with you don't you understand? You think liberalism is defined simply as truth. Everyone knows it's truth, so those of us who deny it are lying. Just like Christians think everyone knows Jesus is truth, we simply have to accept the truth. I am always kazzing, I reject your crap. Liberalism is group think greed, hate and bigotry. You are the liars, you're not honest about your true intentions. You're in it for yourself. Just read Paint's posts, he's more honest than the rest of you combined. He thinks humans are a disease, he doesn't give a shit about them. Of course he's a liberal.

It wouldn't, of course. You, however, are clearly bothered by it. Evidence of such is you ignoring other posters who began to use it.

You fags can circle jerk all you want, but if you won't get a room at least stay away from me so you don't keep splattering cum on my shoes, it's disgusting to see

And you didn't answer the question ... what is it you think I believe Liberals are right about?

You're right that the Republicans suck, but what does that have to do with anything?

A better question is to you, what are they wrong about? You claim not to blindly believe them

 

[Faun]

Why on Earth would the term, kazzing, bother me?

You tell me, you're the one who keeps getting upset about it and having to justify it. What about I agree with you don't you understand? You think liberalism is defined simply as truth. Everyone knows it's truth, so those of us who deny it are lying. Just like Christians think everyone knows Jesus is truth, we simply have to accept the truth. I am always kazzing, I reject your crap. Liberalism is group think greed, hate and bigotry. You are the liars, you're not honest about your true intentions. You're in it for yourself. Just read Paint's posts, he's more honest than the rest of you combined. He thinks humans are a disease, he doesn't give a shit about them. Of course he's a liberal.

It wouldn't, of course. You, however, are clearly bothered by it. Evidence of such is you ignoring other posters who began to use it.

You fags can circle jerk all you want, but if you won't get a room at least stay away from me so you don't keep splattering cum on my shoes, it's disgusting to see

And you didn't answer the question ... what is it you think I believe Liberals are right about?

You're right that the Republicans suck, but what does that have to do with anything?

A better question is to you, what are they wrong about? You claim not to blindly believe them

Thanks for reminding me how delusional you are.

I don't believe liberalism is defined as truth. That would be you listening to your hallucinations again. Kazzing is lying. Always has been since I started using the term as a verb. You ignore posts from others who used it and you've been trying desperately to redefine the term with me. I need no other indication I've gotten under your skin by using it. Nor am I shocked to see you're stupid enough to reveal how much it bothers you. As far as what liberals are wrong about, for one, they blindly give away money in programs like welfare and disability to far too many people who are gaming the system and don't deserve it.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Before the bet, you went on to say you didn't tell me how I feel at all. Then after the bet, suddenly it was shades of gray. Don't justify Welshing on the bet, just say you aren't going to do it. There is no enforcement other than your honor, which means there is no enforcement as you have none. I did accurately predict that before the bet as well if you recall

Nope, but nice try.

Kaz: You repeatedly informed me I was going to be upset when the Supreme Court ruled what they did. I responded repeatedly I thought they would rule this way and you are wrong, it wouldn't affect my view at all.

That is what I called you on..me repeatedly telling you were "going to be upset". This was an untrue statement on your part. I said, once, that the ruling would annoy you. Annoy is not upset. Upset is what WheresmyKeys and Silhouette are. I never thought the ruling would upset you.

I was correct and the ruling did annoy you.

Now, if you are such the pussy that you can't debate me and want me to leave the board, simply put me ignore or don't respond to my posts. Don't try to coward your way out of debating.

 

[kaz]

Why on Earth would the term, kazzing, bother me?

You tell me, you're the one who keeps getting upset about it and having to justify it. What about I agree with you don't you understand? You think liberalism is defined simply as truth. Everyone knows it's truth, so those of us who deny it are lying. Just like Christians think everyone knows Jesus is truth, we simply have to accept the truth. I am always kazzing, I reject your crap. Liberalism is group think greed, hate and bigotry. You are the liars, you're not honest about your true intentions. You're in it for yourself. Just read Paint's posts, he's more honest than the rest of you combined. He thinks humans are a disease, he doesn't give a shit about them. Of course he's a liberal.

It wouldn't, of course. You, however, are clearly bothered by it. Evidence of such is you ignoring other posters who began to use it.

You fags can circle jerk all you want, but if you won't get a room at least stay away from me so you don't keep splattering cum on my shoes, it's disgusting to see

And you didn't answer the question ... what is it you think I believe Liberals are right about?

You're right that the Republicans suck, but what does that have to do with anything?

A better question is to you, what are they wrong about? You claim not to blindly believe them

Thanks for reminding me how delusional you are.

I don't believe liberalism is defined as truth. That would be you listening to your hallucinations again. Kazzing is lying. Always has been since I started using the term as a verb. You ignore posts from others who used it and you've been trying desperately to redefine the term with me. I need no other indication I've gotten under your skin by using it. Nor am I shocked to see you're stupid enough to reveal how much it bothers you. As far as what liberals are wrong about, for one, they blindly give away money in programs like welfare and disability to far too many people who are gaming the system and don't deserve it.

OK, gay boy, when you want to talk about feelings again, I get bored as shit. What is your incessant need to explore my feelings based on? Do you stalk people in real life too? Any chance we can stick to the discussion rather than your constantly exploring your feminine side?

 

[kaz]

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.

Before the bet, you went on to say you didn't tell me how I feel at all. Then after the bet, suddenly it was shades of gray. Don't justify Welshing on the bet, just say you aren't going to do it. There is no enforcement other than your honor, which means there is no enforcement as you have none. I did accurately predict that before the bet as well if you recall

Nope, but nice try.

Kaz: You repeatedly informed me I was going to be upset when the Supreme Court ruled what they did. I responded repeatedly I thought they would rule this way and you are wrong, it wouldn't affect my view at all.

That is what I called you on..me repeatedly telling you were "going to be upset". This was an untrue statement on your part. I said, once, that the ruling would annoy you. Annoy is not upset. Upset is what WheresmyKeys and Silhouette are. I never thought the ruling would upset you.

I was correct and the ruling did annoy you.

You made a bet, you lost, you reneged. Life goes on. I said you would. You did. That's all there is to it

Now, if you are such the pussy that you can't debate me and want me to leave the board, simply put me ignore or don't respond to my posts. Don't try to coward your way out of debating.

Damn, you're stupid as shit. I just directly addressed this. If you have no long term memory, that's your problem. If you want to ignore my answer because it makes you so upset then that's your problem too

 

[Faun]

Why on Earth would the term, kazzing, bother me?

You tell me, you're the one who keeps getting upset about it and having to justify it. What about I agree with you don't you understand? You think liberalism is defined simply as truth. Everyone knows it's truth, so those of us who deny it are lying. Just like Christians think everyone knows Jesus is truth, we simply have to accept the truth. I am always kazzing, I reject your crap. Liberalism is group think greed, hate and bigotry. You are the liars, you're not honest about your true intentions. You're in it for yourself. Just read Paint's posts, he's more honest than the rest of you combined. He thinks humans are a disease, he doesn't give a shit about them. Of course he's a liberal.

It wouldn't, of course. You, however, are clearly bothered by it. Evidence of such is you ignoring other posters who began to use it.

You fags can circle jerk all you want, but if you won't get a room at least stay away from me so you don't keep splattering cum on my shoes, it's disgusting to see

And you didn't answer the question ... what is it you think I believe Liberals are right about?

You're right that the Republicans suck, but what does that have to do with anything?

A better question is to you, what are they wrong about? You claim not to blindly believe them

Thanks for reminding me how delusional you are.

I don't believe liberalism is defined as truth. That would be you listening to your hallucinations again. Kazzing is lying. Always has been since I started using the term as a verb. You ignore posts from others who used it and you've been trying desperately to redefine the term with me. I need no other indication I've gotten under your skin by using it. Nor am I shocked to see you're stupid enough to reveal how much it bothers you. As far as what liberals are wrong about, for one, they blindly give away money in programs like welfare and disability to far too many people who are gaming the system and don't deserve it.

OK, gay boy, when you want to talk about feelings again, I get bored as shit. What is your incessant need to explore my feelings based on? Do you stalk people in real life too? Any chance we can stick to the discussion rather than your constantly exploring your feminine side?

Aww, poor, pathological kazzer ... you're sooo lost ...

 

[kaz]

Why on Earth would the term, kazzing, bother me?

You tell me, you're the one who keeps getting upset about it and having to justify it. What about I agree with you don't you understand? You think liberalism is defined simply as truth. Everyone knows it's truth, so those of us who deny it are lying. Just like Christians think everyone knows Jesus is truth, we simply have to accept the truth. I am always kazzing, I reject your crap. Liberalism is group think greed, hate and bigotry. You are the liars, you're not honest about your true intentions. You're in it for yourself. Just read Paint's posts, he's more honest than the rest of you combined. He thinks humans are a disease, he doesn't give a shit about them. Of course he's a liberal.

It wouldn't, of course. You, however, are clearly bothered by it. Evidence of such is you ignoring other posters who began to use it.

You fags can circle jerk all you want, but if you won't get a room at least stay away from me so you don't keep splattering cum on my shoes, it's disgusting to see

And you didn't answer the question ... what is it you think I believe Liberals are right about?

You're right that the Republicans suck, but what does that have to do with anything?

A better question is to you, what are they wrong about? You claim not to blindly believe them

Thanks for reminding me how delusional you are.

I don't believe liberalism is defined as truth. That would be you listening to your hallucinations again. Kazzing is lying. Always has been since I started using the term as a verb. You ignore posts from others who used it and you've been trying desperately to redefine the term with me. I need no other indication I've gotten under your skin by using it. Nor am I shocked to see you're stupid enough to reveal how much it bothers you. As far as what liberals are wrong about, for one, they blindly give away money in programs like welfare and disability to far too many people who are gaming the system and don't deserve it.

OK, gay boy, when you want to talk about feelings again, I get bored as shit. What is your incessant need to explore my feelings based on? Do you stalk people in real life too? Any chance we can stick to the discussion rather than your constantly exploring your feminine side?

Aww, poor, pathological kazzer ... you're sooo lost ...

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Do you want to discuss anything but feelings? Are there any guy parts under your dress anywhere?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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 so much wrong and idiotic about your thread that I don't know exactly where to begin, so I'm going to start with one simple question: Exactly how does same sex marriage cost the taxpayers anything? No general or vague answer please. Itemize the costs of gay marriage to the tax payers.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

They'll argue things like "fairness" and "equal protection." But your point is well taken. There is no benefit to society from gay marriage.

That is complete horseshit Johnny Reb!'

Marriage Equality…The Right Thing to do For The Children by Progressive Patriot 9.26.13

Many opponents of same sex marriage and adoption by gay people assert that” children have a fundamental right to a mother and a father” and” that when gay couples adopt or use a surrogate, they are denying that child that fundamental right” However, public policy in New Jersey states that children have a right to a stable, nurturing and permanent home and it is well established that that goal can be realized in a variety of family structures. The NJ Department of Families and Children-the public agency charged with the responsibility of finding adoptive homes for children –states, in part, on their web site that no one will be denied the opportunity to adopt based on sexual orientation. In fact, the Department’s Division of Child Protection and Permanency (formerly DYFS) has been placing children for adoption with gay and lesbian people- those who are single and those who are in a relationship- for decades with good outcomes for the children.

And there are many, many more who still need homes while there is a dearth of people willing and able to adopt them. I know this because I worked in the foster care and adoption field in New Jersey for 26 years. I might add that children who are placed for adoption are already in a situation where they have neither a mother nor a father available to them. To imply that that a child would better off languishing in the foster care system as a ward of the state, than to be adopted into a nontraditional family is beyond absurd.

Furthermore, the vast majority of child psychologists will tell you that there are far more important factors that impact a child’s development than the gender or sexual orientation of the parents. No doubt that one could dredge up research studies that claim to prove that gay parenting is harmful. However, well established organizations like the American Psychological Association take the position that gay and lesbian parents are just as capable of rearing emotionally healthy children as anyone else.

Yet even if family composition was, as some purport, a critical factor in children’s development, the fact is that there are and will always be children in non-traditional living situations where they do not have a mother and a father. Like it or not, it is also a fact that gay and lesbian people have children, be it from a prior relationship, adoption, or surrogacy. Denying gay and lesbians the opportunity to marry does nothing to ensure that any significantly greater number of children will have a home with a mother and a father. Of course, some gay and lesbian couples will employ various means to have children, but those are children who would not have otherwise been born. The most significant effect by far will be to deny numerous children the legal rights, protections, status and stability that comes with having married parents.

And, to deny gays the ability to marry and adopt will only ensure that more children will have neither a mother nor a father. Everyone is entitled to their moral views and religious beliefs but it is disingenuous and outright shameful to use children as pawns in the lost fight against equality by bloviating about how they would be harmed by it. While single people can be great parents, the benefits to children of allowing two people who are in a committed relationship to be married are obvious for anyone willing to look at the issue objectively. Those who truly care about children should be willing to open all of the possible pathways for them to be adopted and to have married parents when possible. Those who still oppose same sex marriage but claim to care about the children are liars and hypocrites.

 

[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

There is so much wrong and idiotic about your thread that I don't know exactly where to begin, so I'm going to start with one simple question: Exactly how does same sex marriage cost the taxpayers anything? No general or vague answer please. Itemize the costs of gay marriage to the tax payers.

There is so much wrong with my post, yet you weren't able to actually provide any content. There you go, typical progressive.

Tax breaks means other people have to pay more to make up for it, Holmes.

 

[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.

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

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

So, you have nothing.