Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Pop23]

you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing them

Could you identify, specifically please, what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child?

Not raising mind you, but for producing.

Thank you in advance.


>>>>

Deductions for pregnancy related medical needs for both the baby and the mother.

Deductions for the care of the mother for issues related to the pregnancy both pre birth and after birthing. Some of these last the lifetime of the mother.

Medical and psychological care for mothers suffering PPD, which can last months and years, which left untreated can lead to suicide.

Interestingly enough, there are also deductions available for the cost of medical procedures and prescription drugs to help opposite sex couples not to procreate. Did you know that without these Opposite sex couples will produce children more often? I'm not seeing that as an issue with same sex couples. You? Are those deductions therefore discrimating?

Oh, another interesting point, same sex coupling NEVER produced unplanned pregnancies.

Do I need to go on?

I appreciate the advanced thanks

 

[TNHarley]

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

Gays usually adopt. I would think that's a good thing
That's a good idea. Why don't we just get the government out of marriage COMPLETELY since they have no constitutional authority to do so?
However, since they are, and our constitution forbids institutional discrimination, they should get subsidized just like straits.

 

[Wildman]

gay mating?

physically imposible.., but fucking is.

has anyone here ever been fucked? think about it.

i have, first that comes to mind is the IRS!!

 

[Seawytch]

you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing them

Could you identify, specifically please, what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child?

Not raising mind you, but for producing.

Thank you in advance.


>>>>

Deductions for pregnancy related medical needs for both the baby and the mother.

Deductions for the care of the mother for issues related to the pregnancy both pre birth and after birthing. Some of these last the lifetime of the mother.

Medical and psychological care for mothers suffering PPD, which can last months and years, which left untreated can lead to suicide.

Interestingly enough, there are also deductions available for the cost of medical procedures and prescription drugs to help opposite sex couples not to procreate. Did you know that without these Opposite sex couples will produce children more often? I'm not seeing that as an issue with same sex couples. You? Are those deductions therefore discrimating?

Oh, another interesting point, same sex coupling NEVER produced unplanned pregnancies.

Do I need to go on?

I appreciate the advanced thanks

You did not answer the question posed with your anti gay response.

 

[Pop23]

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

Gays usually adopt. I would think that's a good thing
That's a good idea. Why don't we just get the government out of marriage COMPLETELY since they have no constitutional authority to do so?
However, since they are, and our constitution forbids institutional discrimination, they should get subsidized just like straits.

The government should get out, I agree. Eventually it will have to, at least as we know marriage to be.

Simply too much of it is based on traditional values. When you look closely at the law, most assume it to be a partnership based on love, faithfulness and sexual contact, but I can't find those in existing statute.

All I can see is that it's a partnership a that requires consent, a fee and a signed document to be legal. The need for such a simplistic, arbitrary law is beyond me.

 

[Pop23]

you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing them

Could you identify, specifically please, what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child?

Not raising mind you, but for producing.

Thank you in advance.


>>>>

Deductions for pregnancy related medical needs for both the baby and the mother.

Deductions for the care of the mother for issues related to the pregnancy both pre birth and after birthing. Some of these last the lifetime of the mother.

Medical and psychological care for mothers suffering PPD, which can last months and years, which left untreated can lead to suicide.

Interestingly enough, there are also deductions available for the cost of medical procedures and prescription drugs to help opposite sex couples not to procreate. Did you know that without these Opposite sex couples will produce children more often? I'm not seeing that as an issue with same sex couples. You? Are those deductions therefore discrimating?

Oh, another interesting point, same sex coupling NEVER produced unplanned pregnancies.

Do I need to go on?

I appreciate the advanced thanks

You did not answer the question posed with your anti gay response.

I did bigot. You just don't like them.

The deductions, each and everyone of them benefit the couple, not just the mother.

Which brings me to another one. Couples and marriage counciling that is required for the problems that can arise to the marriage by the birth of, or the death at birth of the child.

The hits just keep on a coming

 

[Seawytch]

you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing them

Could you identify, specifically please, what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child?

Not raising mind you, but for producing.

Thank you in advance.


>>>>

Deductions for pregnancy related medical needs for both the baby and the mother.

Deductions for the care of the mother for issues related to the pregnancy both pre birth and after birthing. Some of these last the lifetime of the mother.

Medical and psychological care for mothers suffering PPD, which can last months and years, which left untreated can lead to suicide.

Interestingly enough, there are also deductions available for the cost of medical procedures and prescription drugs to help opposite sex couples not to procreate. Did you know that without these Opposite sex couples will produce children more often? I'm not seeing that as an issue with same sex couples. You? Are those deductions therefore discrimating?

Oh, another interesting point, same sex coupling NEVER produced unplanned pregnancies.

Do I need to go on?

I appreciate the advanced thanks

You did not answer the question posed with your anti gay response.

I did bigot. You just don't like them.

The question was:

what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child​

Your response did not provide any tax break that is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person producing a child.

"Deductions for pregnancy related medical needs for both the baby and the mother"

That is not given to one and not the other

"Deductions for the care of the mother for issues related to the pregnancy both pre birth and after birthing. Some of these last the lifetime of the mother."

That is not given to one and not the other

"Medical and psychological care for mothers suffering PPD, which can last months and years, which left untreated can lead to suicide."

Not given to one and not the other

The rest is just more of your anti gay non sequiturs.

 

[Pop23]

you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing them

Could you identify, specifically please, what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child?

Not raising mind you, but for producing.

Thank you in advance.


>>>>

Deductions for pregnancy related medical needs for both the baby and the mother.

Deductions for the care of the mother for issues related to the pregnancy both pre birth and after birthing. Some of these last the lifetime of the mother.

Medical and psychological care for mothers suffering PPD, which can last months and years, which left untreated can lead to suicide.

Interestingly enough, there are also deductions available for the cost of medical procedures and prescription drugs to help opposite sex couples not to procreate. Did you know that without these Opposite sex couples will produce children more often? I'm not seeing that as an issue with same sex couples. You? Are those deductions therefore discrimating?

Oh, another interesting point, same sex coupling NEVER produced unplanned pregnancies.

Do I need to go on?

I appreciate the advanced thanks

You did not answer the question posed with your anti gay response.

I did bigot. You just don't like them.

The question was:

what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child​

Your response did not provide any tax break that is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person producing a child.

"Deductions for pregnancy related medical needs for both the baby and the mother"

That is not given to one and not the other

"Deductions for the care of the mother for issues related to the pregnancy both pre birth and after birthing. Some of these last the lifetime of the mother."

That is not given to one and not the other

"Medical and psychological care for mothers suffering PPD, which can last months and years, which left untreated can lead to suicide."

Not given to one and not the other

The rest is just more of your anti gay non sequiturs.

Poor SeaWytch, I did edit to add marriage counceling that the birth, death or adoption of the child, might be required to save the marriage. Also a deduction, and one the single would not require.

And, as I also added, the hits just keep on coming.

How'd you like the birth control part? That's an expense that same sex coupling doesn't require, does it sweethaert?

The question was actually nothin but deflection anyway as same sex couples cannot procreate.

The idea of the question was to make the reader look away from you and at another, instead of looking at the OP's original question.

Your side are nothing if not outstanding marketers!

 

[Seawytch]

Could you identify, specifically please, what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child?

Not raising mind you, but for producing.

Thank you in advance.


>>>>

Deductions for pregnancy related medical needs for both the baby and the mother.

Deductions for the care of the mother for issues related to the pregnancy both pre birth and after birthing. Some of these last the lifetime of the mother.

Medical and psychological care for mothers suffering PPD, which can last months and years, which left untreated can lead to suicide.

Interestingly enough, there are also deductions available for the cost of medical procedures and prescription drugs to help opposite sex couples not to procreate. Did you know that without these Opposite sex couples will produce children more often? I'm not seeing that as an issue with same sex couples. You? Are those deductions therefore discrimating?

Oh, another interesting point, same sex coupling NEVER produced unplanned pregnancies.

Do I need to go on?

I appreciate the advanced thanks

You did not answer the question posed with your anti gay response.

I did bigot. You just don't like them.

The question was:

what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child​

Your response did not provide any tax break that is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person producing a child.

"Deductions for pregnancy related medical needs for both the baby and the mother"

That is not given to one and not the other

"Deductions for the care of the mother for issues related to the pregnancy both pre birth and after birthing. Some of these last the lifetime of the mother."

That is not given to one and not the other

"Medical and psychological care for mothers suffering PPD, which can last months and years, which left untreated can lead to suicide."

Not given to one and not the other

The rest is just more of your anti gay non sequiturs.

Poor SeaWytch, I did edit to add marriage counceling that the birth, death or adoption of the child, might be required to save the marriage. Also a deduction, and one the single would not require.

And, as I also added, the hits just keep on coming.

How'd you like the birth control part? That's an expense that same sex coupling doesn't require, does it sweethaert?

The question was actually nothin but deflection anyway as same sex couples cannot procreate.

The idea of the question was to make the reader look away from you and at another, instead of looking at the OP's original question.

Your side are nothing if not outstanding marketers!

Poor pops...couldn't answer the question posed so he went off on his own little anti gay rant that was spanked down.

Poor pops doesn't understand that procreation isn't parenting. He thinks because he can cum in a woman, that makes him a parent. Truly sad.

What tax break do you get for buying birth control? See, that didn't answer the question and instead went off on another anti gay non sequitur that you think "get's" gays somehow.

So straights have to buy more birth control than gays...gays have to buy more lube. And?

 

[kaz]

Yes, I'm sure. If you and your partner were the biological parents, you'd be written up in medical journals. You have a link for that?

That's not what I said. I said that our children came from a 100% gay union...not that my wife and I are the biological parents. My wife and I are their parents, however, legally and where it matters, in the heart.

My wife and I have children, Kaz just like you do. We are the ones responsible for their upbringing and care. I'll keep "subsidizing" you and you keep "subsidizing" me. You can try to get those subsidies taken away for both of us. Have fun storming the castle!

All such siblings are created by opposite gender couplings. The sexuality is irrelevant.

So you must procreate using an opposite sex partner, whether that partner is straight or gay.

Kaz could not procreate using a same gender partner, no matter if they were straight or gay.

So? Procreation isn't parenting...unless you want to say adoptive parents aren't "real" parents. Do you want to say that? Do you want to say that the millions of couples that you ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) aren't "real" parents?

Do you want to say that my wife and I aren't the "real" parents of our children?

you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing them

You don't get tax breaks for producing them. Jesus where do you nutters come up with this shit?

Did you read the OP post?

 

[kaz]

you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing them

Could you identify, specifically please, what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child?

Not raising mind you, but for producing.

Thank you in advance.


>>>>

Sure, lower tax rates for two people living on one income. Did you read the OP?

 

[kaz]

gay mating?

physically imposible.., but fucking is.

has anyone here ever been fucked? think about it.

i have, first that comes to mind is the IRS!!

I hear the term "mating" used for the pairing of a couple to live together involving sex. Ive never heard children as being necessary for a couple to have mated

 

[Pop23]

Deductions for pregnancy related medical needs for both the baby and the mother.

Deductions for the care of the mother for issues related to the pregnancy both pre birth and after birthing. Some of these last the lifetime of the mother.

Medical and psychological care for mothers suffering PPD, which can last months and years, which left untreated can lead to suicide.

Interestingly enough, there are also deductions available for the cost of medical procedures and prescription drugs to help opposite sex couples not to procreate. Did you know that without these Opposite sex couples will produce children more often? I'm not seeing that as an issue with same sex couples. You? Are those deductions therefore discrimating?

Oh, another interesting point, same sex coupling NEVER produced unplanned pregnancies.

Do I need to go on?

I appreciate the advanced thanks

You did not answer the question posed with your anti gay response.

I did bigot. You just don't like them.

The question was:

what tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child​

Your response did not provide any tax break that is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person producing a child.

"Deductions for pregnancy related medical needs for both the baby and the mother"

That is not given to one and not the other

"Deductions for the care of the mother for issues related to the pregnancy both pre birth and after birthing. Some of these last the lifetime of the mother."

That is not given to one and not the other

"Medical and psychological care for mothers suffering PPD, which can last months and years, which left untreated can lead to suicide."

Not given to one and not the other

The rest is just more of your anti gay non sequiturs.

Poor SeaWytch, I did edit to add marriage counceling that the birth, death or adoption of the child, might be required to save the marriage. Also a deduction, and one the single would not require.

And, as I also added, the hits just keep on coming.

How'd you like the birth control part? That's an expense that same sex coupling doesn't require, does it sweethaert?

The question was actually nothin but deflection anyway as same sex couples cannot procreate.

The idea of the question was to make the reader look away from you and at another, instead of looking at the OP's original question.

Your side are nothing if not outstanding marketers!

Poor pops...couldn't answer the question posed so he went off on his own little anti gay rant that was spanked down.

Poor pops doesn't understand that procreation isn't parenting. He thinks because he can cum in a woman, that makes him a parent. Truly sad.

What tax break do you get for buying birth control? See, that didn't answer the question and instead went off on another anti gay non sequitur that you think "get's" gays somehow.

So straights have to buy more birth control than gays...gays have to buy more lube. And?

Birth control is a legal medical deduction.

I noticed you refused to comment on the deductibility on marriage counclining.

I supplied one, as I was asked, single government benefit granted a couple for producing a child, not granted a single woman........

Crickets.

 

[WorldWatcher]

you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing them

Could you identify, specifically please,

Not raising mind you, but for producing.

Thank you in advance.


>>>>

1. Deductions for pregnancy related medical needs for both the baby and the mother.

2. Deductions for the care of the mother for issues related to the pregnancy both pre birth and after birthing. Some of these last the lifetime of the mother.

3. Medical and psychological care for mothers suffering PPD, which can last months and years, which left untreated can lead to suicide.

4. Interestingly enough, there are also deductions available for the cost of medical procedures and prescription drugs to help opposite sex couples not to procreate. Did you know that without these Opposite sex couples will produce children more often? I'm not seeing that as an issue with same sex couples. You? Are those deductions therefore discrimating?

5. Oh, another interesting point, same sex coupling NEVER produced unplanned pregnancies.

6. Do I need to go on?

7. I appreciate the advanced thanks

Numbering added for response purposes...

1. Deductions for pregnancy related medical needs for both the baby and the mother.

Those deductions are only available to married couples and not single mothers? (Which is what the question asked. So this is fail.)​

2. Deductions for the care of the mother for issues related to the pregnancy both pre birth and after birthing. Some of these last the lifetime of the mother.

Those deductions are only available to married couples and not single mothers? (Which is what the question asked. So this is fail.)​

3. Medical and psychological care for mothers suffering PPD, which can last months and years, which left untreated can lead to suicide.

Those deductions are only available to married couples and not single mothers? (Which is what the question asked. So this is fail.)​

4. Interestingly enough, there are also deductions available for the cost of medical procedures and prescription drugs to help opposite sex couples not to procreate. Did you know that without these Opposite sex couples will produce children more often? I'm not seeing that as an issue with same sex couples. You? Are those deductions therefore discrimating?

Those deductions are only available to married couples and not single mothers or same-sex married couples trying to conceive using the same methods that non-fertile heterosexual couples seeking medical assistance to conceive? (Which is what the question asked. So this is fail.)​

5. Oh, another interesting point, same sex coupling NEVER produced unplanned pregnancies.

Irrelevant to the question about what deductions are only available to married couples producing a child and not a single person producing a child.​

6. Do I need to go on?

Yes since you haven't provided a single example of a tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child, which was the question.​

7. I appreciate the advanced thanks

Care to try again?​

>>>>

 

[Pop23]

you get tax breaks for raising kids, we're talking about tax breaks for producing them

Could you identify, specifically please,

Not raising mind you, but for producing.

Thank you in advance.


>>>>

1. Deductions for pregnancy related medical needs for both the baby and the mother.

2. Deductions for the care of the mother for issues related to the pregnancy both pre birth and after birthing. Some of these last the lifetime of the mother.

3. Medical and psychological care for mothers suffering PPD, which can last months and years, which left untreated can lead to suicide.

4. Interestingly enough, there are also deductions available for the cost of medical procedures and prescription drugs to help opposite sex couples not to procreate. Did you know that without these Opposite sex couples will produce children more often? I'm not seeing that as an issue with same sex couples. You? Are those deductions therefore discrimating?

5. Oh, another interesting point, same sex coupling NEVER produced unplanned pregnancies.

6. Do I need to go on?

7. I appreciate the advanced thanks

Numbering added for response purposes...

1. Deductions for pregnancy related medical needs for both the baby and the mother.

Those deductions are only available to married couples and not single mothers? (Which is what the question asked. So this is fail.)​

2. Deductions for the care of the mother for issues related to the pregnancy both pre birth and after birthing. Some of these last the lifetime of the mother.

Those deductions are only available to married couples and not single mothers? (Which is what the question asked. So this is fail.)​

3. Medical and psychological care for mothers suffering PPD, which can last months and years, which left untreated can lead to suicide.

Those deductions are only available to married couples and not single mothers? (Which is what the question asked. So this is fail.)​

4. Interestingly enough, there are also deductions available for the cost of medical procedures and prescription drugs to help opposite sex couples not to procreate. Did you know that without these Opposite sex couples will produce children more often? I'm not seeing that as an issue with same sex couples. You? Are those deductions therefore discrimating?

Those deductions are only available to married couples and not single mothers or same-sex married couples trying to conceive using the same methods that non-fertile heterosexual couples seeking medical assistance to conceive? (Which is what the question asked. So this is fail.)​

5. Oh, another interesting point, same sex coupling NEVER produced unplanned pregnancies.

Irrelevant to the question about what deductions are only available to married couples producing a child and not a single person producing a child.​

6. Do I need to go on?

Yes since you haven't provided a single example of a tax break is available to a married couple producing a child that is not available to a single person that produces a child, which was the question.​

7. I appreciate the advanced thanks

Care to try again?​

>>>>

I believe I did, did you miss the one about marriage counseling for couples who's reproduction, death of the child during birth, disfigurement during pregnancy or birth, or the effects that a disabled child, Had on the marriage and how that is tax DEDUCTABLE?

You wanted one, you got it.

You're welcome in advance.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I believe I did, did you miss the one about marriage counseling for couples who's reproduction, death of the child during birth, disfigurement during pregnancy or birth, or the effects that a disabled child, Had on the marriage and how that is tax DEDUCTABLE?

You wanted one, you got it.

You're welcome in advance.

Reproductive counseling is deductible as a medical expense (if you use the long form and itemize deductions for expenses not covered by insurance) whether the couple is married or single.

Deductible reproductive counseling expenses is not limited to those in a Civil Marriage.

So again, the example fails in the context of the question - which was what tax deductions exist only based on being Civilly Married that doesn't apply to non-married people producing a child.

The answer remains - none.

>>>>

 

[Pop23]

I believe I did, did you miss the one about marriage counseling for couples who's reproduction, death of the child during birth, disfigurement during pregnancy or birth, or the effects that a disabled child, Had on the marriage and how that is tax DEDUCTABLE?

You wanted one, you got it.

You're welcome in advance.

Reproductive counseling is deductible as a medical expense (if you use the long form and itemize deductions for expenses not covered by insurance) whether the couple is married or single.

Deductible reproductive counseling expenses is not limited to those in a Civil Marriage.

So again, the example fails in the context of the question - which was what tax deductions exist only based on being Civilly Married that doesn't apply to non-married people producing a child.

The answer remains - none.

>>>>

Oh, so marriage counseling is now reproductive counseling?

Got it, and the answer remains yes.

But you deflected, didn't you.

Now one for you, since this is about subsidizing mating, which only opposite sex couples do, and since opposite sex couplings produce all life, should non producing couplings (and the married couples) pay higher taxes for freeloading on productive couples?

No? Why? Cuz then they couldn't afford the thousands per month they spend on interior decorating and doggy daycares?

 

[WorldWatcher]

[

Oh, so marriage counseling is now reproductive counseling?

When involving reproduction yes.

Your examples were reproduction, death of the child during birth, disfigurement during pregnancy or birth, or the effects that a disabled child, Had on the marriage and how that is tax DEDUCTABLE?"

Reproduction counseling - Tax deductible whether you are married or not and it's not covered by insurance.

Disfigurement counseling - Tax deductible whether you are married or not and it's not covered by insurance.

Disabled child counseling - Tax deductible whether you are married or not and it's not covered by insurance.

Now one for you, since this is about subsidizing mating, which only opposite sex couples do, and since opposite sex couplings produce all life, should non producing couplings (and the married couples) pay higher taxes for freeloading on productive couples?

The question that was asked had to do with tax deduction that were exclusive to producing a child.

There answer was "none", failing on that you are trying to move the goal posts.

No? Why? Cuz then they couldn't afford the thousands per month they spend on interior decorating and doggy daycares?

If you want to have different tax rates based on whether a couple gives birth to a biological child, have at it.

But you will be increasing tax rates on more different-sex couples without children than there are same-sex couples. Good luck with that.

BTW - will adoptive parents that can't have their own biological children get the higher or lower tax rate?



>>>>

 

[Pop23]

[

Oh, so marriage counseling is now reproductive counseling?

When involving reproduction yes.

Your examples were reproduction, death of the child during birth, disfigurement during pregnancy or birth, or the effects that a disabled child, Had on the marriage and how that is tax DEDUCTABLE?"

Reproduction counseling - Tax deductible whether you are married or not and it's not covered by insurance.

Disfigurement counseling - Tax deductible whether you are married or not and it's not covered by insurance.

Disabled child counseling - Tax deductible whether you are married or not and it's not covered by insurance.

Now one for you, since this is about subsidizing mating, which only opposite sex couples do, and since opposite sex couplings produce all life, should non producing couplings (and the married couples) pay higher taxes for freeloading on productive couples?

The question that was asked had to do with tax deduction that were exclusive to producing a child.

There answer was "none", failing on that you are trying to move the goal posts.

No? Why? Cuz then they couldn't afford the thousands per month they spend on interior decorating and doggy daycares?

If you want to have different tax rates based on whether a couple gives birth to a biological child, have at it.

But you will be increasing tax rates on more different-sex couples without children than there are same-sex couples. Good luck with that.

BTW - will adoptive parents that can't have their own biological children get the higher or lower tax rate?



>>>>

Why duck the obvious. The counseling is in regards to the marriage and the damage the reproduction caused to it.

It's another marketing red herring

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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

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

Note to OP -

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

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

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

The hateful RWs really need to stop their meddling and MYOB.

You first....