Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

Note to OP -

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

And I don't want to know. Regardless, it's irrelevant to my post

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.

You don't get that tax breaks for things that other people pay are a subsidy? Tax breaks across the board are not, but the here's a break for fucking someone of the same sex is, someone else has to pay it. LOL. I'm sure you don't, you don't get much. Someone else has to make that up, Skippy. Government sure as hell doesn't spend less when they get less.

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?

According to the CDC, about 2.2%. But that's a deflection. It's also pure hypocrisy over your hyperventilating over every dollar that goes to things you oppose because we can't afford it

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

Since you are afraid to tell them yourself, I'll let them know for you.

So apparently from the third quote above, you are agreeing society gets no benefit from gay marriage, so we should stop funding it

 

[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

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?

What benefit does society get from sanctioning marriage?

My 80 something uncle got married last year to a woman in her 70's- what benefit does societ get from sanctioning their marriage?

Even more to the point- he is somewhat wealthy- if he dies before she does- she will inherit his estate without paying any estate tax.

How do other taxpayers benefit from that?

 

[kaz]

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.

I even said it as I get the concept, I never said I agree it's an effective solution, it's not

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"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..."

Wrong.

You clearly don't 'get it' at all.

Infertile opposite-sex couples are allowed to marry, and older married opposite-sex couples are not compelled to divorce because they're no longer able to have children.

Marriage is the union of two equal, consenting adult partners not related to each other in a committed relationship recognized by the state where the state participates as a party to the marriage contract, procreation has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits of the contract or marriage.

Consequently the premise of your thread fails as a straw man fallacy

 

[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

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?

True, but more specifically is what is the financial benefit. If we are funding something with $$$, we should have a $$$ reason for doing it

 

[CowboyTed]

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?

What benefit to society is it putting up with bigoted racist homophobic idiots? but we still do it...

If it was benefit to society then Alabama broke ass would have been cut off ages ago..

 

[g5000]

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?

True, but more specifically is what is the financial benefit. If we are funding something with $$$, we should have a $$$ reason for doing it

There is no financially sane reason for giving government gifts to people who are going to marry, mate, and/or have children regardless of government intervention in their lives.

None.

It's a gimme gimme gimme boondoggle. Nothing more.

 

[kaz]

I don't think the government should subsidize any sexual arrangement. That is just bizarre.

Agreed, doesn't contradict me. I'm measuring the left in this by their own standard, not mine

Today, most straight people get divorced or don't even have children.

If conservatives really want the government out of their lives, then they will kick them out of marriage as well.

But alas, we all like our government subsidized lives whether we are a middle class conservative or a left winger living in the ghetto getting their food stamps.

Agreed, again...

So you agree there is no financial benefit to society to fund gay marriage?

 

[Syriusly]

? Tax breaks across the board are not, but the here's a break for fucking someone of the same sex is, someone else has to pay it. it

What is it with bigots like you- that you are obsessed with gay sex?

I assume you don't obsess about how your straight neighbors have sex- or when your brother gets married, you are not fantasizing about how he and his wife will be having sex.

But you state that gay marriage is just about fucking.

Why are you so obsessed with gay sex?

Why do you assume that a gay couple gets married for different reasons than any other couple?

I didn't get married to have children. I didn't get married to have sex.

Did you?

What is it with bigots like you- that you are obsessed with gay sex?

I assume you don't obsess about how your straight neighbors have sex- or when your brother gets married, you are not fantasizing about how he and his wife will be having sex.

But you state that gay marriage is just about fucking.

Why are you so obsessed with gay sex?

Why do you assume that a gay couple gets married for different reasons than any other couple?

I didn't get married to have children. I didn't get married to have sex.

Did you?

 

[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

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?

True, but more specifically is what is the financial benefit. If we are funding something with $$$, we should have a $$$ reason for doing it

You aren't. Gays fund you.

 

[RKMBrown]

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?

ROFL pretty funny when someone is incapable of working with percentages. Yes, there are a heluva lot more white folk in the USA than any other group. The issue is not the size of the group, the issue is the percentage of people in the group that are permanently poor based on their dependence and allegiance to hand-out programs of the democrat party.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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????

Very good point.

This thread is just one more sign of the phobe's desperation.

There is not reason why gay should not have the exact same marriage as straights. None.

Except, of course, the meddling RWs want total control over people's lives.

 

[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

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?

Gays already have equality. Problem solved, next...

What is the answer to the question actually asked? What financial benefit is there to society we should fund gay mating?

 

[g5000]

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????

Very good point.

This thread is just one more sign of the phobe's desperation.

There is not reason why gay should not have the exact same marriage as straights. None.

Except, of course, the meddling RWs want total control over people's lives.

It's worse than that. They want the government gifts all to themselves.

 

[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

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?

Yes

 

[RKMBrown]

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????

Very good point.

This thread is just one more sign of the phobe's desperation.

There is not reason why gay should not have the exact same marriage as straights. None.

Except, of course, the meddling RWs want total control over people's lives.

Uhmm.. you mean and the meddling LWs that want control over people's lives. This is not a left vs. right issue. This is an authoritarian vs liberty issue that spans parties.

 

[g5000]

Gays already have equality.

Nope. They do not have equal protection of the marriage laws and all the government cash and prizes bestowed and protected by those laws.

Nice try, retard.

 

[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

I don't think the government should subsidize any sexual arrangement. That is just bizarre.

Today, most straight people get divorced or don't even have children.

If conservatives really want the government out of their lives, then they will kick them out of marriage as well.

But alas, we all like our government subsidized lives whether we are a middle class conservative or a left winger living in the ghetto getting their food stamps.

Most strauight people get divorced? Seriously?
If you want to kick the government out of:
divorce
alimony
child support
adoption
inheritance
then OK, I guess. But I'd like to hear what will replace it.

Wow- all of the things that gay couples are trying to achieve.

 

[BluesLegend]

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?

True, but more specifically is what is the financial benefit. If we are funding something with $$$, we should have a $$$ reason for doing it

There is no financially sane reason for giving government gifts to people who are going to marry, mate, and/or have children regardless of government intervention in their lives.

None.

It's a gimme gimme gimme boondoggle. Nothing more.

I keep having to remind the left, its not the government's money its the people's money and if the people have decided to encourage traditional marriage between men and women, to encourage the traditional family using a bit of the peoples money then so be it its their money.

 

[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

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.

You don't know what a strawman is, LOL. If I did what you said I did, that would be begging the question, you retard, not a strawman. Learn the english language. Government schools have failed you, it's sad

Your reading comprehension is terrible