Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[The Rabbi]

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.

Ron Paul is going to be mad at you.

 

[g5000]

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.

Ron Paul is going to be mad at you.

Nope.

You have no clue, you dumb slave. You're a house ******.

"Gimme gimme gimme, and make that guy over there pay for it."

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

The opponents of interracial marriage made the same sort of argument. That the circumstances of an interracial would harm the children.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Do you support taxpayer money going to the poor who ARE producing children?

 

[g5000]

You know what would be good for the economy? Eliminating all these government gifts so that we can lower tax rates for everyone, and so that people earning identical incomes are no longer paying wildly different amounts of income taxes.

 

[orogenicman]

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!

Wow, that's quite a racist mouth you have.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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

Childless gays and gay couples pay much higher taxes and therefore it is they who are subsidizing the breeders.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You people who want a flat tax, a true one, would lose all your financial bennies from having children.

Are you cool with that?

 

[g5000]

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!

Wow, that's quite a racist mouth you have.

I am using the identical rhetoric the GOP has been using for decades. It is far past time to point out who ALL the welfare slaves are.

 

[orogenicman]

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!

Wow, that's quite a racist mouth you have.

I am using the identical rhetoric the GOP has been using for decades. It is far past time to point out who ALL the welfare slaves are.

And you realize, of course, that there are far more white people on welfare than any other group. Right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

A gay couple with no children will pay several THOUSAND dollars more in federal taxes than a hetero couple with, say, 2 kids, based on deductions and credits.

all else being equal.

Who's subsidizing who????

 

[g5000]

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!

Wow, that's quite a racist mouth you have.

I am using the identical rhetoric the GOP has been using for decades. It is far past time to point out who ALL the welfare slaves are.

And you realize, of course, that there are far more white people on welfare than any other group. Right?

There are people receiving government gifts who don't even realize they are receiving these gifts at others' expense. These are the willfully blind welfare recipients. Those who receive deductions, exemptions, and credits are all willing welfare slaves on the government plantation. And they scream like hippies when you suggest they have their government gifts taken away from them so we can lower everyone's tax rates. Then the next day they are bitching about poor people on food stamps.

Hypocrites!

Just look at them defending government gifts for having sex and kids! As if they wouldn't have sex or kids without those gifts.

Government plantation slave mentalities.

 

[kaz]

There is an overpopulation concern by the real 1%. The Global Initiative has embraced abortion and gay coupling to curb the population.

That would be affecting the wrong population, we aren't having enough kids in the US. It doesn't help Ethiopia to not have kids here

 

[orogenicman]

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!

Wow, that's quite a racist mouth you have.

I am using the identical rhetoric the GOP has been using for decades. It is far past time to point out who ALL the welfare slaves are.

And you realize, of course, that there are far more white people on welfare than any other group. Right?

There are people receiving government gifts who don't even realize they are receiving these gifts at others' expense. These are the willfully blind welfare recipients. Those who receive deductions, exemptions, and credits are all willing welfare slaves on the government plantation. And they scream like hippies when you suggest they have their government gifts taken away from them. Then the next day they are bitching about poor people on food stamps.

Hypocrites!

And, of course, you have a link to the study which validates your claim, right? Like one that gives us numbers instead of something ambiguous, and emanating off the top of one's head?

 

[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

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

I do know that, which is why I think this is an odd post to begin with, but I understand what you're trying to do I think. I responded strictly to the financial aspect you want to discuss by pointing out that there is no financial gain from subsidizing heterosexual couples anymore than there is homosexual couples.

I'm not sure how to respond to that since what you are saying is kind of askew to what I am saying, it's not really an agreement or a counter point. As I argue, there are better solutions to everything that government marriage "solves." Flat tax, elimination of the death penalty, let employers negotiate their own benefits with employees, if that's what you mean I agree.

I guess what it comes down to is if you're agreeing government marriage is a sucky solution, I agree. If you're disagreeing that perpetuation of the species isn't a legitimate concern for society, I don't. But in the end, there is nothing government solves that isn't a worse solution than not having it. We may be saying the same thing, I'm not sure.

 

[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:

And what of those straight couples who don't intend on having children? Better yet, why should other taxpayers have to subsidize straight mating?

First of all, that's deflection. The thread is about the financial benefit of gay marriage for society to subsidize it. Second of all, my position against all government marriage is well known if you read any gay threads. Including this one.

So, you got anything on the topic? What financial benefit does society get from gay government marriage that we should fund it?

 

[orogenicman]

There is an overpopulation concern by the real 1%. The Global Initiative has embraced abortion and gay coupling to curb the population.

That would be affecting the wrong population, we aren't having enough kids in the US. It doesn't help Ethiopia to not have kids here

Actually, minorities in this country are largely having healthy batches of children. The group that is not generating enough children are white people. They have the lowest rate in the country.

 

[kaz]

You are very confused. You talk as if government is your GOD

Um...OOOOKKKKKKKAAAAAYYYYYYY.

Your reading comprehension is terrible, but this is way beyond that. Be honest, you are drunk off your ass, aren't you?

 

[Syriusly]

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

First of all you are mixing apples and oranges- which doesn't surprise me. You talk about gays and sex- but not straights and sex. So is your thread about sex- or marriage?

Secondly- based upon purely a financial question- not the moral one- then you are in agreement then that marriage benefits should only go to couples who have children and live together?

But you want to exclude homosexual couples- because their children don't deserve the benefits of the state?

This is the problem with the anti-homosexual agenda. You have issues with consistency.

If we looked at this purely from your pure financial point of view- we would not allow any such benefits to any couple who does not have children- and then we would provide that financial benefit to any couple who does have children.

But you just want to give the financial benefits to straight couples.

Because you approve of how they have sex.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Ron Paul is going to be mad at you.

Yeah, except it's not quite that simple. Ron Paul believes marriage is between one man and one woman, but he doesn't think the government should enforce his beliefs or any beliefs on the subject. He would remove government from the equation entirely and let everybody define marriage as they like.