Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

No Kaz, you didn't do shite. Now IF you'd said we should stop subsidizing having kids, regardless of the parents' sexual orientation, then you wouldn't be a hypocrite.

The post didn't take a position on that, I asked for the financial benefit. Government schools have failed you, you can't read at an adult level.

BTW, shit for brains, you know that is my position. If you were literate, you would realize my post didn't contradict that

 

[kaz]

have gay sex.....

I pared Kaz's OP down to his essential point.

Hey, if you want to think you're doing it because I told you to, more power to you

 

[kaz]

Perpetuation of the species has nothing to do with marriage. One doesnt preclude the other.

So, the op to me is a non starter until he can show that people will cease to know how to procreate and would allow themselves to become extinct, while sentient and all, because straight marriage as sanctioned by govt doesnt exist.

Wow, great point. Instead of saying government marriage perpetuates the species, I should have said that's the concept of marriage. Oh, wait, I did. Thanks for being retarded, it makes merely stupid people feel smart.

Cuz....thats weird.

Poor ******* argument.

LOL, the guy who didn't grasp my first sentence says this, classic

The concept of marrage is to perpetuate the species?

Thats just ******* boiler plate idiocy for a zillion ******* reasons.

Wow

If you are saying you don't know most people think marriage is about perpetuating the species, then I am calling you a liar. You do know that

 

[kaz]

If there is a societal benefit to civil marriage, it applies to gays and straights. If there isn't a societal benefit, it ain't the gays fault.!

Nope, gay sex doesn't lead to children

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

I realize you're female and worse a liberal, so you grasp logic like a dolphin grasps forest fires.

But paying people to do things they would do anyway isn't a financial benefit...

And then we are back to....what have YOU been doing to eliminate the government (and the financial benefit) out of marriage? Besides NOT having a government marriage yourself, correct? Because if you did have a legal marriage that would be highly hypocritical, wouldn't it?

I've answered the question so many times, you dumb bimbo, I'm sick of answering it. I am trying to change minds. I've had many people tell me they never thought of that before, but I make sense, they are open to it. You want to grab a sign with a stick and go masturbate with a bunch of other liberals, that is ineffective.

you can not like my answer, but stop being such a dumb slut and process it. You keep saying I didn't answer it, I did, wench.

LOL....its sooo funny watching Kaz being reduced to a whiney *****- because he can't provide a coherent response.

Perpetuation of the species has nothing to do with marriage. One doesnt preclude the other.

So, the op to me is a non starter until he can show that people will cease to know how to procreate and would allow themselves to become extinct, while sentient and all, because straight marriage as sanctioned by govt doesnt exist.

Wow, great point. Instead of saying government marriage perpetuates the species, I should have said that's the concept of marriage. Oh, wait, I did. Thanks for being retarded, it makes merely stupid people feel smart.

Cuz....thats weird.

Poor ******* argument.

LOL, the guy who didn't grasp my first sentence says this, classic

The concept of marrage is to perpetuate the species?

Thats just ******* boiler plate idiocy for a zillion ******* reasons.

Wow

If you are saying you don't know most people think marriage is about perpetuating the species, then I am calling you a liar. You do know that

What big benefit do childless hetero married couples get that they don't deserve?

 

[G.T.]

Perpetuation of the species has nothing to do with marriage. One doesnt preclude the other.

So, the op to me is a non starter until he can show that people will cease to know how to procreate and would allow themselves to become extinct, while sentient and all, because straight marriage as sanctioned by govt doesnt exist.

Wow, great point. Instead of saying government marriage perpetuates the species, I should have said that's the concept of marriage. Oh, wait, I did. Thanks for being retarded, it makes merely stupid people feel smart.

Cuz....thats weird.

Poor ******* argument.

LOL, the guy who didn't grasp my first sentence says this, classic

The concept of marrage is to perpetuate the species?

Thats just ******* boiler plate idiocy for a zillion ******* reasons.

Wow

If you are saying you don't know most people think marriage is about perpetuating the species, then I am calling you a liar. You do know that

I am saying that marriage and procreation can coexist and also exist independent of one another, and that straight marriages happen for a plethora of ******* reasons.

Marriage does nothing to perpetuate existence itself - bringing up children was a retarded mistake.

 

[bodecea]

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

Sure you are.....you keep saying that....but won't answer my frequently asked question about what you are doing about it......except talking the talk.

I've answered the question so many times, you dumb bimbo, I'm sick of answering it. I am trying to change minds. I've had many people tell me they never thought of that before, but I make sense, they are open to it. You want to grab a sign with a stick and go masturbate with a bunch of other liberals, that is ineffective.

you can not like my answer, but stop being such a dumb slut and process it. You keep saying I didn't answer it, I did, wench.

Obviously I have struck a nerve with you. If you truly felt as strongly as you "claim" about government marriage, you would be BRAGGING about what you are actively doing to get rid of it.....instead of getting pissy about my asking you.

So...this pretty much sums up your REAL position on legal marriage:
You: I'm against gay marriage...oh, and I'm against government marriage.
Me: What are you actively doing to get rid of government marriage?
You: More blather about gay marriage...did I mention I'm against government marriage?
Me: What are you actively doing to get rid of government marriage?
You: Even more blather about gay marriage....oh, and I'm against government marriage.
Me: So you don't even have a government marriage yourself because you are against it, right?
You: Gays take our money, blah, blah, blah....I've always been against government marriage.
Me: Hello? What have you been doing to get rid of government marriage since you keep saying you are against it?
You: You %^*$#! I answered your *#^&$ question already, you #$&**@!

 

[NYcarbineer]

If there is a societal benefit to civil marriage, it applies to gays and straights. If there isn't a societal benefit, it ain't the gays fault.!

Nope, gay sex doesn't lead to children

So? What are childless married couples getting from marriage that they don't deserve to get?

 

[kaz]

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

You said that there is no financial benefit to society to fund gay marriage. I asked why there has to be a financial benefit to doing the right thing? A question you've yet to respond to

I stated in the op and in my answer this is a financial thread. You want to demand an answer to another question, here's what you do. Start another thread and mention me. I'll try to address it.

And yet you posted it in the politics forum. All I am asking is for you to support your claims.

You didn't know funding government is political?



Yeah

Secondly, you have made two unsupported claims in your post. The first, that there is no financial benefit to society, and the second, that society is funding gay "mating". You should support your claims, otherwise, people will think you are just making it up.

It's a question to you, shit for brains. I'm calling you a liar for your claims to write academic papers. There is no ******* way in hell anyone would publish a paper with your name on it. You can't follow simple logic. There are lots of ways to argue my post. You are just flat out not comprehending it

My papers get published because I provide verifiable support for my claims. You? Not so much. Oh, and who is "votto"? I posted those words. Not some fictional character from your own mind.[/QUOTE]

It has nothing to do with supporting your claims, it has to do with your consistent inability to follow simple logic. Jarod Diamond for example has all your liberal bigotries and biases, but he can clearly follow logic. You continually prove you can't

 

[RKMBrown]

Does ANYONE on this board know what kaz is talking about? Or should we write it off to simple garden variety incoherent ignorance and let it go at that?

Yes, Kaz want's to know what the federal filing tax status will be for married gay folk and if they will be able to enter their children as exemptions like the rest of the breeders. I think he does not understand that even single people file exemptions for their children. Marriage is only a requirement for selecting married filling joint return which is used to select the rate box for same when filing jointly.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The argument that you are against gay marriage because you are against all marriage is idiotic, because legal civil marriage isn't going anywhere.

The argument is just another angle of anti-gay bigotry.

 

[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

Sure you are.....you keep saying that....but won't answer my frequently asked question about what you are doing about it......except talking the talk.

I've answered the question so many times, you dumb bimbo, I'm sick of answering it. I am trying to change minds. I've had many people tell me they never thought of that before, but I make sense, they are open to it. You want to grab a sign with a stick and go masturbate with a bunch of other liberals, that is ineffective.

you can not like my answer, but stop being such a dumb slut and process it. You keep saying I didn't answer it, I did, wench.

Obviously I have struck a nerve with you. If you truly felt as strongly as you "claim" about government marriage, you would be BRAGGING about what you are actively doing to get rid of it.....instead of getting pissy about my asking you.

So...this pretty much sums up your REAL position on legal marriage:
You: I'm against gay marriage...oh, and I'm against government marriage.
Me: What are you actively doing to get rid of government marriage?
You: More blather about gay marriage...did I mention I'm against government marriage?
Me: What are you actively doing to get rid of government marriage?
You: Even more blather about gay marriage....oh, and I'm against government marriage.
Me: So you don't even have a government marriage yourself because you are against it, right?
You: Gays take our money, blah, blah, blah....I've always been against government marriage.
Me: Hello? What have you been doing to get rid of government marriage since you keep saying you are against it?
You: You %^*$#! I answered your *#^&$ question already, you #$&**@!

I'll take your advice on how I am supposed to react with all the weight it deserves

 

[Seawytch]

If there is a societal benefit to civil marriage, it applies to gays and straights. If there isn't a societal benefit, it ain't the gays fault.!

Nope, gay sex doesn't lead to children

So? My brother's straight sex doesn't either. My grandpa's straight sex didn't either. Nobody tried to deny them a marriage license.

My partner and I do have children. They are ours legally and emotionally. Your argument is destroyed by two simple facts:

1. A lot of gays do have children
2. A lot of married straights don't.

 

[kaz]

Does ANYONE on this board know what kaz is talking about? Or should we write it off to simple garden variety incoherent ignorance and let it go at that?

Yes, Kaz want's to know what the federal filing tax status will be for married gay folk and if they will be able to enter their children as exemptions like the rest of the breeders. I think he does not understand that even single people file exemptions for their children. Marriage is only a requirement for selecting married filling joint return which is used to select the rate box for same when filing jointly.

Strawman. How's the vagina? Enjoying having your own?

 

[RKMBrown]

If there is a societal benefit to civil marriage, it applies to gays and straights. If there isn't a societal benefit, it ain't the gays fault.!

Nope, gay sex doesn't lead to children

Do we have to teach you the birds and the bees? You don't have to be married to have children. You know that right?

 

[G.T.]

Does ANYONE on this board know what kaz is talking about? Or should we write it off to simple garden variety incoherent ignorance and let it go at that?

Yes, Kaz want's to know what the federal filing tax status will be for married gay folk and if they will be able to enter their children as exemptions like the rest of the breeders. I think he does not understand that even single people file exemptions for their children. Marriage is only a requirement for selecting married filling joint return which is used to select the rate box for same when filing jointly.

Ding ding ding.

Marriage tax benefits =/= anything to do with having children.

Thank you for articulating this.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does ANYONE on this board know what kaz is talking about? Or should we write it off to simple garden variety incoherent ignorance and let it go at that?

Yes, Kaz want's to know what the federal filing tax status will be for married gay folk and if they will be able to enter their children as exemptions like the rest of the breeders. I think he does not understand that even single people file exemptions for their children. Marriage is only a requirement for selecting married filling joint return which is used to select the rate box for same when filing jointly.

And the joint return is a benefit unrelated to gay or straight, child or childless.

There is no gay subsidy going on here.

 

[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

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.

^That.

God hates gays more than murderers, it's an abomination to humanity. At least murderers only kill one person. Gays not only do not procreate but they poison the rest of society

Ah...here it is...the "it's a abomination" argument. Bases completely on your interpretation of your religion......and not based in any shape or form on law.

 

[kaz]

If there is a societal benefit to civil marriage, it applies to gays and straights. If there isn't a societal benefit, it ain't the gays fault.!

Nope, gay sex doesn't lead to children

So? My brother's straight sex doesn't either. My grandpa's straight sex didn't either. Nobody tried to deny them a marriage license.

My partner and I do have children. They are ours legally and emotionally. Your argument is destroyed by two simple facts:

1. A lot of gays do have children
2. A lot of married straights don't.

That actually doesn't contradict anything I said

 

[PratchettFan]

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'm missing something here. What is it being paid for?