Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Totally missing the point.
What is the benefit to society of gay marriage?

ZERO. Nuttly like most left wingers just wants to impose his morality on the rest of us.

Americans want to impose equality. Indeed, our country was founded on that principle.

The real question is why do anti-America RWs fight equality?

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

Totally missing the point.
What is the benefit to society of gay marriage?

ZERO. Nuttly like most left wingers just wants to impose his morality on the rest of us.

Americans want to impose equality. Indeed, our country was founded on that principle.

The real question is why do anti-America RWs fight equality?

No it was not founded on that principle.
Can you not answer the question of the OP?

 

[bodecea]

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

Following that logic I don't see the purpose of subsidizing, if that's what we want to call it, heterosexual couples either. You say for the propagation of the species, but I see no actual benefit from other people having children. There are naturally other problems I see with this analysis, but I'm sure you can anticipate them and they don't fall within the narrow financial aspect you're looking to discuss.

You know I'm against government marriage, I don't contradict that in this post. You know that if you have long term memory. And you have to have noticed I started with "I at least get the concept." That isn't the point of this thread. There are better solutions to everything government marriage supposedly solves that could be applied to everyone. Flat taxes, elimination of the evil death tax and so on. But that isn't the point of the thread. Actually Seawytch inspirited it by being a dick in our recent conversation

So you don't have a government marriage, right?

So you have actively worked (for years) to eliminate government marriage by writing your Congressman, starting petitions, sending money to groups lobbying to eliminate government marriage (are there even such groups out there?), right?

 

[RKMBrown]

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

You are very confused. You talk as if government is your GOD. As if government has handed down the decree that you shall go forth and multiply.

Just because you justify in your own haid that your child tax break is just because your child will be a good little tax payer, does not actually justify your tax break, nor does it justify you PISSING on gays for daring the want the right to marry.

Can you answer the question? What benefit does society get from sanctioning gay marriage?

You're kidding right? You want to know what benefit society gets out of family units? Sigh.... First off why should society demand a benefit from a family unit? What the hell does any family unit "OWE" society?

Government WORKS FOR US. They are our EMPLOYEES. We use, in this case, our government employees to arbitrate contracts. For example, marriage licenses between two consenting adults. If there is a divorce, or other issue of legal matter with regard to said marriage our government employees are PAID to arbitrate said issues.

So the answer is "no, you cannot answer the question of the OP."
Thanks for clarifying.

The question is a strawman, presupposing that marriages owe society some form of benefit for some supposed subsidizing that is going on for marriages. My answer to the OP was very clear. The strawman is bullshit.

 

[bodecea]

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

You are very confused. You talk as if government is your GOD. As if government has handed down the decree that you shall go forth and multiply.

Just because you justify in your own haid that your child tax break is just because your child will be a good little tax payer, does not actually justify your tax break, nor does it justify you PISSING on gays for daring the want the right to marry.

Can you answer the question? What benefit does society get from sanctioning gay marriage?

The exact same benefit it gets from sanctioning straight marriages. (Which goes to the core of the SUCCESSFUL court arguments FOR legal gay marriage as per the 14th amendment)

 

[g5000]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species.

The idiotic assumption behind this "concept" is that people will stop having sex and kids if the government doesn't pay them to, and it just does not get more retarded than that.

Was the human race on the verge of dying out before the government gifts were put in place?

NOPE!!!

You just want to keep those gifts for yourself. You are attempting to rationalize a way to keep your special privileges. That's all this is.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

You are very confused. You talk as if government is your GOD. As if government has handed down the decree that you shall go forth and multiply.

Just because you justify in your own haid that your child tax break is just because your child will be a good little tax payer, does not actually justify your tax break, nor does it justify you PISSING on gays for daring the want the right to marry.

Can you answer the question? What benefit does society get from sanctioning gay marriage?

You're kidding right? You want to know what benefit society gets out of family units? Sigh.... First off why should society demand a benefit from a family unit? What the hell does any family unit "OWE" society?

Government WORKS FOR US. They are our EMPLOYEES. We use, in this case, our government employees to arbitrate contracts. For example, marriage licenses between two consenting adults. If there is a divorce, or other issue of legal matter with regard to said marriage our government employees are PAID to arbitrate said issues.

So the answer is "no, you cannot answer the question of the OP."
Thanks for clarifying.

The question is a strawman, presupposing that marriages owe society some form of benefit for some supposed subsidizing that is going on for marriages. My answer to the OP was very clear. The strawman is bullshit.

OK so the answer is "no, you cannot answer the question of the OP."
We got it. No surprise When confronted with adverse facts you typically deny they exist.

 

[The Rabbi]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species.

The idiotic assumption behind this "concept" is that people will stop having sex and kids if the government doesn't pay them to, and it just does not get more retarded than that.

Was the human race on the verge of dying out before the government gifts were put in place?

NOPE!!!

No that is no tthe assumption behind it.
Guess again.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Totally missing the point.
What is the benefit to society of gay marriage?

Dumb question but the answer is - same as for straight couples. No difference.


.

Clearly that cannot be. Straight couples tend to procreate. Gay couples cannot.
Next.

"Tend to" does not define as "always will". And yet those who do not/cannot procreate are allowed to marry. And some gay couples tend to have children too.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

What benefit does "society" get from heterosexual marriage? Your being married to a woman is of no benefit to me or anybody else I know personally, and if a poll were taken I'd say the majority of Americans would say they derive no benefit from your marriage. I have no idea whether you're married or not, for the record, merely hypothesizing that you are.

That is wrong. Kaz dealt with the benefit in the OP.

Kaz said the propagation of the species, but your having children has zero benefit to me. Kaz merely stated that this was a benefit without defending it.

 

[Votto]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species.

The idiotic assumption behind this "concept" is that people will stop having sex and kids if the government doesn't pay them to, and it just does not get more retarded than that.

Was the human race on the verge of dying out before the government gifts were put in place?

NOPE!!!

Actually Progs want everyone to have less children because they are convinced that all the world's problems stem from over population.

That's why they favor gay marriage, abortion, and the destruction of the world economy.

The thinking is, the better the economy the longer people live.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

What benefit does "society" get from heterosexual marriage? Your being married to a woman is of no benefit to me or anybody else I know personally, and if a poll were taken I'd say the majority of Americans would say they derive no benefit from your marriage. I have no idea whether you're married or not, for the record, merely hypothesizing that you are.

That is wrong. Kaz dealt with the benefit in the OP.

Kaz said the propagation of the species, but your having children has zero benefit to me. Kaz merely stated that this was a benefit without defending it.

OK you need to go back to the OP and read qhat he actually wrote. Once you understand that we can proceed.

 

[The Rabbi]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species.

The idiotic assumption behind this "concept" is that people will stop having sex and kids if the government doesn't pay them to, and it just does not get more retarded than that.

Was the human race on the verge of dying out before the government gifts were put in place?

NOPE!!!

Actually Progs want everyone to have less children because they are convinced that all the world's problems stem from over population.

That's why they favor gay marriage, abortion, and the destruction of the world economy.

The thinking is, the better the economy the longer people live.

Liberals see people are a liability. Conservatives see them as an asset.

 

[RKMBrown]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species.

The idiotic assumption behind this "concept" is that people will stop having sex and kids if the government doesn't pay them to, and it just does not get more retarded than that.

Was the human race on the verge of dying out before the government gifts were put in place?

NOPE!!!

Actually Progs want everyone to have less children because they are convinced that all the world's problems stem from over population.

That's why they favor gay marriage, abortion, and the destruction of the world economy.

The thinking is, the better the economy the longer people live.

Liberals see people are a liability. Conservatives see them as an asset.

Nonsense. Authoritarians see people as one of an asset or a liability. Libertarians just see people. There are authoritarian liberals as well as authoritarian conservatives.

 

[The Rabbi]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species.

The idiotic assumption behind this "concept" is that people will stop having sex and kids if the government doesn't pay them to, and it just does not get more retarded than that.

Was the human race on the verge of dying out before the government gifts were put in place?

NOPE!!!

Actually Progs want everyone to have less children because they are convinced that all the world's problems stem from over population.

That's why they favor gay marriage, abortion, and the destruction of the world economy.

The thinking is, the better the economy the longer people live.

Liberals see people are a liability. Conservatives see them as an asset.

Nonsense. Authoritarians see people as one of an asset or a liability. Libertarians just see people. There are authoritarian liberals as well as authoritarian conservatives.

That makes zero sense. Then again you were never good at this thought stuff.

 

[RKMBrown]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species.

The idiotic assumption behind this "concept" is that people will stop having sex and kids if the government doesn't pay them to, and it just does not get more retarded than that.

Was the human race on the verge of dying out before the government gifts were put in place?

NOPE!!!

Actually Progs want everyone to have less children because they are convinced that all the world's problems stem from over population.

That's why they favor gay marriage, abortion, and the destruction of the world economy.

The thinking is, the better the economy the longer people live.

Liberals see people are a liability. Conservatives see them as an asset.

Nonsense. Authoritarians see people as one of an asset or a liability. Libertarians just see people. There are authoritarian liberals as well as authoritarian conservatives.

That makes zero sense. Then again you were never good at this thought stuff.

Let me get this straight. You see politics in a single dimension, a line between left and right on all issues. I on the other hand see politics in the real world, a world with multiple dimension. However, you think I'm the one not good with the "thought stuff."

Heh... yeah most rudimentary beings, that only see the world in a limited set of dimensions, get confused when the world does not match their world view.

 

[g5000]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species.

The idiotic assumption behind this "concept" is that people will stop having sex and kids if the government doesn't pay them to, and it just does not get more retarded than that.

Was the human race on the verge of dying out before the government gifts were put in place?

NOPE!!!

Actually Progs want everyone to have less children because they are convinced that all the world's problems stem from over population.

That's why they favor gay marriage, abortion, and the destruction of the world economy.

The thinking is, the better the economy the longer people live.

Liberals see people are a liability. Conservatives see them as an asset.

Straw men fallacies which do nothing to support the idiotic concept that people need to be paid by their government to fuck and have kids.

Since the both of you support this government behavioral control program, perhaps you should examine who it is who are the "progressives" and who it is who is the conservative.

You are a couple of welfare slaves on the government plantation who don't want to leave the massah's porch and strike out on your own.

 

[bodecea]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species.

The idiotic assumption behind this "concept" is that people will stop having sex and kids if the government doesn't pay them to, and it just does not get more retarded than that.

Was the human race on the verge of dying out before the government gifts were put in place?

NOPE!!!

Actually Progs want everyone to have less children because they are convinced that all the world's problems stem from over population.

That's why they favor gay marriage, abortion, and the destruction of the world economy.

The thinking is, the better the economy the longer people live.

So cool that you have the power to tell us what an entire group wants.

 

[The Rabbi]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species.

The idiotic assumption behind this "concept" is that people will stop having sex and kids if the government doesn't pay them to, and it just does not get more retarded than that.

Was the human race on the verge of dying out before the government gifts were put in place?

NOPE!!!

Actually Progs want everyone to have less children because they are convinced that all the world's problems stem from over population.

That's why they favor gay marriage, abortion, and the destruction of the world economy.

The thinking is, the better the economy the longer people live.

Liberals see people are a liability. Conservatives see them as an asset.

Straw men fallacies which do nothing to support the idiotic concept that people need to be paid by their government to fuck and have kids.

Since the both of you support this government behavioral control program, perhaps you should examine who it is who are the "progressives" and who it is who is the conservative.

Ironic post is ironic.
Ron Paul supports traditional marriage btw.

 

[g5000]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species.

The idiotic assumption behind this "concept" is that people will stop having sex and kids if the government doesn't pay them to, and it just does not get more retarded than that.

Was the human race on the verge of dying out before the government gifts were put in place?

NOPE!!!

Actually Progs want everyone to have less children because they are convinced that all the world's problems stem from over population.

That's why they favor gay marriage, abortion, and the destruction of the world economy.

The thinking is, the better the economy the longer people live.

Liberals see people are a liability. Conservatives see them as an asset.

Straw men fallacies which do nothing to support the idiotic concept that people need to be paid by their government to fuck and have kids.

Since the both of you support this government behavioral control program, perhaps you should examine who it is who are the "progressives" and who it is who is the conservative.

Ironic post is ironic.
Ron Paul supports traditional marriage btw.

Ron Paul supports eliminating the very government gifts of which I speak.

You are a welfare slave on the government plantation who does not want to leave the massah's porch and strike out on your own.

Same sex marriage wouldn't even be an issue were it not for all the government gifts involved, you dumb slave!