Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[LordBrownTrout]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

Neither can priests and nuns. Can we save our species by outlawing the Catholic Church?

Is there a gene that codes for priests or nuns? Thats a new one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
HE does not say gay couples are less capable of child rearing. That is a misunderstanding.
Are you still sticking with your statement that the OP is a deflection?

Yes he does. That's his whole insane point.

"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?"

And it's mentally retarded to say that because childless people pay MORE in taxes than people with children.

The childless subsidize the breeders. They are forced to do so.

 

[Pop23]

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?

Without straight mating there is no government?

Hummmm

 

[bendog]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

Yes.

How so? Will homos eventually just die out?

Is that what has happened? Or do homosexuals come from straights?

God dammit, don't try bringing in science to Kaz's thread!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Child tax credits are wasteful spending. A gratuitous government gift.

The idea that we need child tax credits to support procreation carries with it the implicit premise that people have children for the government gifts.

The child tax credit is one of if not the number one policy that causes the 47% to not be paying income taxes.

 

[g5000]

Marriage government gifts are separate from government gifts you get for having kids. So it is not a given that marriage government gifts are there to encourage procreation.

They are bread and circuses to please the crowd's demand. Nothing more. It is what the crowd demanded. Everything else is the bogus rationalization of an entitlement-minded welfare dependent.

 

[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:

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

Without straight mating there is no government?

Hummmm

Did it take tax breaks to get the human race to procreate? How much did the average caveman family get?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Marriage government gifts are separate from government gifts you get for having kids. So it is not a given that marriage government gifts are there to encourage procreation.

They are bread and circuses to please the crowd's demand. Nothing more. It is what the crowd demanded. Everything else is the bogus rationalization of an entitlement-minded welfare dependent.

Tax benefits for people with children are one of those things that normally conservatives would rant about, i.e.,

people voting themselves money from the government.

 

[g5000]

Child tax credits are wasteful spending. A gratuitous government gift.

The idea that we need child tax credits to support procreation carries with it the implicit premise that people have children for the government gifts.

The child tax credit is one of if not the number one policy that causes the 47% to not be paying income taxes.

The biggest individual government giveaway is the employer-sponsored health insurance exemption. The second biggest is the mortgage interest tax deduction. Third, the lower tax rate for capital gains and dividends.

The EIC comes in at number five.

The child tax credit doesn't even make the top ten.

 

[The Rabbi]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

Non sequitur.

Does monogamous marriage reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Do child tax credits reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Do Social Security survivor's benefits reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Non sequitor

Marriage, child tax credits, or SS have nothing to do with evolution. Not following your line of thought.

That is exactly my point.

Gay marriage is a GOVERNMENT recognition and has nothing to do with evolution. All this bogus talk about evolution is a red herring. A non sequitur. All gays are asking for is the same government cash and prizes the rest of us get for being married, and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. If a gay couple gets Social Security survivor benefits, it affects evolution not at all.

So stop throwing out red herrings and stick to the issue.

So what do the rest of us get out of gays getting those things?

 

[JakeStarkey]

LBT: That's what I was referring to earlier about evolution and how it doesn't reconcile. The Court does not care.

The Rabbi: Instead of reasoned answers he gets the usual spin, deflection, fallacies, and irrelevant responses I've come to expect from the same morons on this site. The OP, being silly, receives what it deserves. This OP, sure as heavens, should have been moved to the badlands long ago.

 

[g5000]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

Non sequitur.

Does monogamous marriage reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Do child tax credits reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Do Social Security survivor's benefits reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Non sequitor

Marriage, child tax credits, or SS have nothing to do with evolution. Not following your line of thought.

That is exactly my point.

Gay marriage is a GOVERNMENT recognition and has nothing to do with evolution. All this bogus talk about evolution is a red herring. A non sequitur. All gays are asking for is the same government cash and prizes the rest of us get for being married, and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. If a gay couple gets Social Security survivor benefits, it affects evolution not at all.

So stop throwing out red herrings and stick to the issue.

So what do the rest of us get out of gays getting those things?

You neither gain nor lose a thing that you don't already gain or lose for married people getting those cash and prizes.

 

[G.T.]

Evolution did or did not provide us with the brains we use to overcome these reproductive issues, shall they arise?

 

[The Rabbi]

Homosexuals can't perpetuate the species. Does this reconcile with evolution?

Non sequitur.

Does monogamous marriage reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Do child tax credits reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Do Social Security survivor's benefits reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Non sequitor

Marriage, child tax credits, or SS have nothing to do with evolution. Not following your line of thought.

That is exactly my point.

Gay marriage is a GOVERNMENT recognition and has nothing to do with evolution. All this bogus talk about evolution is a red herring. A non sequitur. All gays are asking for is the same government cash and prizes the rest of us get for being married, and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. If a gay couple gets Social Security survivor benefits, it affects evolution not at all.

So stop throwing out red herrings and stick to the issue.

So what do the rest of us get out of gays getting those things?

You neither gain nor lose a thing that you don't already gain or lose for married people getting those cash and prizes.

That's impossible. If there is a cost then we all pay that cost. So what do we get in return for paying that cost?

 

[G.T.]

Non sequitur.

Does monogamous marriage reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Do child tax credits reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Do Social Security survivor's benefits reconcile with evolution?

Nope.

Non sequitor

Marriage, child tax credits, or SS have nothing to do with evolution. Not following your line of thought.

That is exactly my point.

Gay marriage is a GOVERNMENT recognition and has nothing to do with evolution. All this bogus talk about evolution is a red herring. A non sequitur. All gays are asking for is the same government cash and prizes the rest of us get for being married, and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. If a gay couple gets Social Security survivor benefits, it affects evolution not at all.

So stop throwing out red herrings and stick to the issue.

So what do the rest of us get out of gays getting those things?

You neither gain nor lose a thing that you don't already gain or lose for married people getting those cash and prizes.

That's impossible. If there is a cost then we all pay that cost. So what do we get in return for paying that cost?

He quite clearly answered that question.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Evolution did or did not provide us with the brains we use to overcome these reproductive issues, shall they arise?

I'm considering that but are we really overcoming reproductive issues if we're able to reproduce. Certain grasses and corns were able to do this when they were able to evolve to squeeze more CO2 out of a depleted atmosphere. I would say your example has more to do with emotion.

 

[The Rabbi]

Non sequitor

Marriage, child tax credits, or SS have nothing to do with evolution. Not following your line of thought.

That is exactly my point.

Gay marriage is a GOVERNMENT recognition and has nothing to do with evolution. All this bogus talk about evolution is a red herring. A non sequitur. All gays are asking for is the same government cash and prizes the rest of us get for being married, and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. If a gay couple gets Social Security survivor benefits, it affects evolution not at all.

So stop throwing out red herrings and stick to the issue.

So what do the rest of us get out of gays getting those things?

You neither gain nor lose a thing that you don't already gain or lose for married people getting those cash and prizes.

That's impossible. If there is a cost then we all pay that cost. So what do we get in return for paying that cost?

He quite clearly answered that question.

Wrong.

 

[G.T.]

Evolution did or did not provide us with the brains we use to overcome these reproductive issues, shall they arise?

I'm considering that but are we really overcoming reproductive issues if we're able to reproduce. Certain grasses and corns were able to do this when they were able to evolve to squeeze more CO2 out of a depleted atmosphere. I would say your example has more to do with emotion.

Umm, yes as a matter of fact - in terms of "perpetuating the species," which is the context in which reproduction was brought up - we have most certainly evolved to having the ability to perpetuate the species in spite of being gay or straight.

The knowledge will not now magically disappear. Its here, and we know it. End of "gays cant perpetuate the species" discussion. They can. Moot point.

 

[G.T.]

That is exactly my point.

Gay marriage is a GOVERNMENT recognition and has nothing to do with evolution. All this bogus talk about evolution is a red herring. A non sequitur. All gays are asking for is the same government cash and prizes the rest of us get for being married, and has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. If a gay couple gets Social Security survivor benefits, it affects evolution not at all.

So stop throwing out red herrings and stick to the issue.

So what do the rest of us get out of gays getting those things?

You neither gain nor lose a thing that you don't already gain or lose for married people getting those cash and prizes.

That's impossible. If there is a cost then we all pay that cost. So what do we get in return for paying that cost?

He quite clearly answered that question.

Wrong.

Its only wrong by virtue of the fact that the rabbi does not even KNOW what he gains or loses by subsidizing straight marriage.

 

[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:

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

Without straight mating there is no government?

Hummmm

Ever hear of immigration? Without immigration, there'd be no government. Don't believe me? Ask the Native Americans.