Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[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?

couples in long term committed relationships are more stable. more likely to own homes, less likely to need government assistance.
a gay couple can have children, so any of the benefits of straight couples related to the upbringing of children applies to gay couples as well.

So gays won't be in long term committed relationships without being paid for it? That by definition shoots holes through your own point

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

You cannot impose equality by virtue of the fact that no two people are the same. Everyone in this country has the ability to achieve. What you seek is equality of outcome, which will never happen. Ever.

Get over it.

The issue isn't equality of achievement. The issue is equality of opportunity.

Fair enough except marriage isn't the union of two men or two women. That's like saying that miraculously the definition of a rock is "Rocks are a transparent fluid which forms the world's streams, lakes, oceans and rain, and is the major constituent of the fluids of living things. As a chemical compound, a water molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms that are connected by covalent bonds"

It really is that simple.

 

[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

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

Deflection.

Also, I didn't make an argument, Spanky. I asked a question. And I'm asking it based on your own standard. You went ape shit that Obama spent more shutting down government than operating it, we can't afford that. It's your standard I'm holding you to

 

[kaz]

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?

No

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Thank you, the first leftist to clearly answer the question. There is no financial benefit to society to fund gay mating

Why does there need to be a financial benefit to dong the right thing?

 

[kaz]

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

Are you cool with that?

Yes, I'm against all government marriage, retard. You no long term memory because you know that

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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?

No

If you're producing children you cannot afford you should be arrested for child abuse.

 

[kaz]

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.

Fucking GOP and their rhetoric. You know because you are one, LOL

 

[orogenicman]

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?

You cannot impose equality by virtue of the fact that no two people are the same. Everyone in this country has the ability to achieve. What you seek is equality of outcome, which will never happen. Ever.

Get over it.

The issue isn't equality of achievement. The issue is equality of opportunity.

Fair enough except marriage isn't the union of two men or two women. That's like saying that miraculously the definition of a rock is "Rocks are a transparent fluid which forms the world's streams, lakes, oceans and rain, and is the major constituent of the fluids of living things. As a chemical compound, a water molecule contains one oxygen and two hydrogen atoms that are connected by covalent bonds"

It really is that simple.

Marriage is what society says it is. If society says that two men or two women who love each other should be able to marry, who are you or I to refuse them?

 

[kaz]

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.

Thank you, the first leftist to clearly answer the question. There is no financial benefit to society to fund gay mating

Why does there need to be a financial benefit to dong the right thing?

That isn't the question, Sparky.

So you admit there is no financial benefit to society for funding gay mating?

 

[ogibillm]

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?

couples in long term committed relationships are more stable. more likely to own homes, less likely to need government assistance.
a gay couple can have children, so any of the benefits of straight couples related to the upbringing of children applies to gay couples as well.

So gays won't be in long term committed relationships without being paid for it? That by definition shoots holes through your own point

will straight people not get married if they aren't getting paid for it?
by arguing that gay couples don't need incentive to become long-term partners you are also arguing that straight couples don't need encouragement to become long-term partners.

and you weren't asking if marriage should be subsidized, you were asking for the financial benefit.

the financial benefit is the same, straight or gay.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Thank you, the first leftist to clearly answer the question. There is no financial benefit to society to fund gay mating

Why does there need to be a financial benefit to dong the right thing?

That isn't the question, Sparky.

So you admit there is no financial benefit to society for funding gay mating?

There is no funding. You're mental. Stop.

 

[kaz]

will straight people not get married if they aren't getting paid for it?

Deflection aside, I answered that in my original post

 

[kaz]

So you admit there is no financial benefit to society for funding gay mating?

There is no funding. You're mental. Stop.

Corporate tax breaks are funding corporations!!!!

Income tax breaks are funding the rich!!!!!

So tax breaks to gays are funding gay mating? No, WTF? Tax breaks aren't funding.

LOL, you're a tool

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Thank you, the first leftist to clearly answer the question. There is no financial benefit to society to fund gay mating

Why does there need to be a financial benefit to dong the right thing?

That isn't the question, Sparky.

So you admit there is no financial benefit to society for funding gay mating?

I didn't say that, and you shouldn't put words in other people's mouths.

 

[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?

Yes, I'm against all government marriage, retard. You no long term memory because you know that

Marriage has nothing to do with child tax credits and dependent exemptions and childcare credits and earned income credit and on and on and on.

When you have children, your taxes go down. Your share of the tax burden goes down. Accordingly, everyone else's share of the tax burden (those without children) goes up.

You have it upside down. No surprise there.

 

[kaz]

Marriage is what society says it is. If society says that two men or two women who love each other should be able to marry, who are you or I to refuse them?

So you oppose the courts doing it?

 

[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?

couples in long term committed relationships are more stable. more likely to own homes, less likely to need government assistance.
a gay couple can have children, so any of the benefits of straight couples related to the upbringing of children applies to gay couples as well.

So gays won't be in long term committed relationships without being paid for it? That by definition shoots holes through your own point

No one is saying that but you.

But it IS similar (and just as stupid as saying)

So straights won't be in long term committed relationships without being paid for it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So you admit there is no financial benefit to society for funding gay mating?

There is no funding. You're mental. Stop.

Corporate tax breaks are funding corporations!!!!

Income tax breaks are funding the rich!!!!!

So tax breaks to gays are funding gay mating? No, WTF? Tax breaks aren't funding.

LOL, you're a tool

Are you too stupid to comprehend that a childless gay person pays higher taxes than a person with a child?

 

[kaz]

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.

Thank you, the first leftist to clearly answer the question. There is no financial benefit to society to fund gay mating

Why does there need to be a financial benefit to dong the right thing?

That isn't the question, Sparky.

So you admit there is no financial benefit to society for funding gay mating?

I didn't say that, and you shouldn't put words in other people's mouths.

Read the post you quoted