Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[NoNukes]

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

There is no proof that having two of the same sex parents is different than having different sex parents.

ROFL! There is abundant evidence for it, including the testimony of those who were raised under such scenarios.

In the Irish referendum on gay marriage the No side was trying these scare tactics and the psychologists and other experts came out and disputed what they had to say. Children are better off and more well adjusted with two parents, does not matter the sex. There is no evidence to prove otherwise. You are just making things up to support your argument, there is nothing to back it up. You are a failure.

So your relationship with your mother and father was exactly the same, they were genderless automatons to you. Liar, you don't believe that, you know what you are saying is ridiculous

There is no educated proof of what you are claiming, it is your opinion.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

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

There is so much wrong and idiotic about your thread that I don't know exactly where to begin, so I'm going to start with one simple question: Exactly how does same sex marriage cost the taxpayers anything? No general or vague answer please. Itemize the costs of gay marriage to the tax payers.

There is so much wrong with my post, yet you weren't able to actually provide any content. There you go, typical progressive.

Tax breaks means other people have to pay more to make up for it, Holmes.

I asked you to list the expenses to tax payers and this is your answer!?? Obviously you don't have an answer but I do:

Being married does not automatically mean that you will pay less taxes. What you pay is determined by filing status, total income and income relative to each other. You should do some research before you post stuff that you heard from someone who is just trying to justify discrimination. And of course that you know that gays work and pay taxes just like everyone else, so even if some do pay less in taxes because they are married, so do some heterosexuals, so you can also say that gays are subsidizing straight people. You might want to see this:

Sadly, spouses who earn similar amounts of money – especially those who are considered high earners – are often subject to a marriage tax penalty.

What is the marriage tax penalty?

When you marry, you have the option of filing your tax return jointly, or filing separate tax returns. The marriage penalty takes effect when the taxes you pay jointly exceed what you would have paid if each of you had remained single and filed as single filers.

The marriage penalty is the opposite of what many call the marriage bonus. In a marriage bonus situation, you pay less in taxes as a result of your married status. The marriage bonus is most likely seen in partnerships where one spouse earns significantly less than the other. Situations in which one spouse stays at home or has a part-time job rather than a full-time job are most likely to result in a marriage bonus. http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/my-money/2014/03/11/how-much-the-marriage-tax-penalty-will-cost-

you

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, rights are not a commodity. Where the hell is it written that we-in the United States of America- get to decide what rights others have based on a cost benefit analysis? That notion is too absurd for words.

I guarantee you that gays will have full marriage rights and the idea of doing away with marriage benefits to all is as stupid as stupid gets. The same people who are whining about preserving traditional marriage are ready to sink the ship to drown the rats

You might want to consider this as well

Same-sex weddings could create hundreds of new jobs and pump hundreds of millions of dollars into California's economy, according to a new study released Monday.

Gay couples are projected to spend $684 million on flowers, cakes, hotels, photographers and other wedding services over the next three years - so long as voters don't put a halt to the same-sex marriage spree, according to a study by the Williams Institute at University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-gay-marriage-good-for-economy/

And this......

Alabama Lawmaker: Same-Sex Couples Don’t Deserve Same Financial Benefits As Other Families


Contrary to Marsh’s claim that the financial impact of marriage equality would be devastating, studies have shown that it would be a boon for the economy. Indeed, in 2004 the Congressional Budget Office weighed the potential increased spending on Social Security and other benefits against the increased savings from other programs like Medicare and Medicaid. They found that if all states were to legalize marriage equality, it would boost the federal budget by $10 billion over 10 years. Other reports have found that legalizing marriage equality would improve state budgets as well. The Williams Institute estimates that marriage equality would add $21.7 million to Alabama’s economy over the first three years. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/02/02/3617868/del-marsh-alabama-marriage-equality/

Want more??....

8 Ways Legalizing Same Sex Marriage Is Good For The Economy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/15/same-sex-marriage-economy_n_3267725.html

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

They'll argue things like "fairness" and "equal protection." But your point is well taken. There is no benefit to society from gay marriage.

Much of the debate over same sex marriage centers on abstract concepts such as the nature, meaning, tradition and purpose of marriage while ignoring the simple truth that it comes down to equal protection under the law. Those same questions keep being asked and answered as a means of obfuscating a avoiding the real issue. Other questions include “what do gays contribute to society, what justify given them rights? These questions clearly allude to the issue of parenting and sexual practices as though gay people do not have children and that straight people do not at times have sex the same way that gay people do. There is also much bloviating about the slippery slope to polygamy, pedophilia and every other alternative sexual/ relationship lifestyle imaginable and all are logical fallacies.

And what is the real issue? It is the fact that these are real people who you are moralizing about and passing judgment on. People who are contributing members of the community. People who have jobs and families and yes, children. They pay their bills and taxes, and like everyone else, sometimes struggle to do so. In short, they are people who are more like, than unlike heterosexuals. They are people who want nothing more than the same rights that those heterosexual people take for granted. They are people who should not have to justify the reason for having rights, and in fact, under our system of law and government do not have to do so. The burden of proof for denying those rights is on the government. Yet, those who oppose marriage equality continue to be so averse to the changing cultural landscape that they are unable to see these simple truth.

It comes down to this. There is no rational basis, no logical argument for denying gays full equality in all areas of life. The evidence is clear that to deny them marriage equality inflicts harm on gays, while allowing marriage harms no one. When a right that most people take for granted is denied to other, similarly situated people in an arbitrary fashion, those who will deny that right are burdened with the need to demonstrate why it is appropriate and necessary to do so. No one has been able to do that to my satisfaction, and the courts are rejecting the arguments against equality with increasing frequency.

What is your contribution to society?

 

[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

There is no proof that having two of the same sex parents is different than having different sex parents.

ROFL! There is abundant evidence for it, including the testimony of those who were raised under such scenarios.

In the Irish referendum on gay marriage the No side was trying these scare tactics and the psychologists and other experts came out and disputed what they had to say. Children are better off and more well adjusted with two parents, does not matter the sex. There is no evidence to prove otherwise. You are just making things up to support your argument, there is nothing to back it up. You are a failure.

So your relationship with your mother and father was exactly the same, they were genderless automatons to you. Liar, you don't believe that, you know what you are saying is ridiculous

There is no educated proof of what you are claiming, it is your opinion.

Then why are you hiding under the sofa?

So you got nothing different from your relationship with your mother and father. They were genderless automatons to you. Another mother doing what your father did would have been the same. Another father doing what your mother did would be the same. You actually believe that.

 

[kaz]

Sadly, spouses who earn similar amounts of money – especially those who are considered high earners – are often subject to a marriage tax penalty

And those are the same people who escape the death tax entirely. And the subject was procreation, women working aren't procreating and getting a break. Gays on the other hand can stay home and get a break with no possibility of procreation

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, rights are not a commodity. Where the hell is it written that we-in the United States of America- get to decide what rights others have based on a cost benefit analysis? That notion is too absurd for words.

Non-sequitur. Government marriage is a privilege, not a right. And damn straight, privileges should make sense for society

You might want to consider this as well

Same-sex weddings could create hundreds of new jobs and pump hundreds of millions of dollars into California's economy, according to a new study released Monday.

Gay couples are projected to spend $684 million on flowers, cakes, hotels, photographers and other wedding services over the next three years - so long as voters don't put a halt to the same-sex marriage spree, according to a study by the Williams Institute at University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-gay-marriage-good-for-economy/

Ridiculous point. The gay government marriage created no money, they would have done something with that money anyway.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sadly, spouses who earn similar amounts of money – especially those who are considered high earners – are often subject to a marriage tax penalty

And those are the same people who escape the death tax entirely. And the subject was procreation, women working aren't procreating and getting a break. Gays on the other hand can stay home and get a break with no possibility of procreation

This is just a lot of lame ass equine excrement. Yes some will escape the inheritance tax. That is what Windsor (DOMA) was . will be a NET NEGATIVE effect on tax revenues. I showed differently and you cannot refute that.


As far as procreation goes, that is a failed and stupid argument that has been destroyed in courts of law and in the court of common sense as well. Real quick…GAY DO HAVE AND RAISE CHILDREN. In addition, few spouses, gay or straight , with or without children do not work. ANNOUNCEMENT ! This is not 1950

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, rights are not a commodity. Where the hell is it written that we-in the United States of America- get to decide what rights others have based on a cost benefit analysis? That notion is too absurd for words.

Non-sequitur. Government marriage is a privilege, not a right. And damn straight, privileges should make sense for society

Non-sequitur?? Seriously dude? How is what I said a Non-sequitur? Do you even know what that is You’re is the Non-sequitur because your premise ….that gay marriage cost taxpayers money which is false, is a reason –also false -to deny them the right to marry. It is a double Non-sequitur and just plain stupid.

In addition, the Supreme Court (do you know what that is) has said on numerous occasions and most recently a week ago Friday that marriage is indeed a right and now same sex marriage is a right whether you like it or not.

You might want to consider this as well

Same-sex weddings could create hundreds of new jobs and pump hundreds of millions of dollars into California's economy, according to a new study released Monday.

Gay couples are projected to spend $684 million on flowers, cakes, hotels, photographers and other wedding services over the next three years - so long as voters don't put a halt to the same-sex marriage spree, according to a study by the Williams Institute at University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-gay-marriage-good-for-economy/

Ridiculous point. The gay government marriage created no money, they would have done something with that money anyway.

I don’t know what the hell this is supposed to mean. I made my case you failed miserably. You are obviously not very well informed and not good at debating. Not at all. This is just an idiotic thread started by a bigot. My work is done here.

Sadly, spouses who earn similar amounts of money – especially those who are considered high earners – are often subject to a marriage tax penalty

And those are the same people who escape the death tax entirely. And the subject was procreation, women working aren't procreating and getting a break. Gays on the other hand can stay home and get a break with no possibility of procreation

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, rights are not a commodity. Where the hell is it written that we-in the United States of America- get to decide what rights others have based on a cost benefit analysis? That notion is too absurd for words.

Non-sequitur. Government marriage is a privilege, not a right. And damn straight, privileges should make sense for society

You might want to consider this as well

Same-sex weddings could create hundreds of new jobs and pump hundreds of millions of dollars into California's economy, according to a new study released Monday.

Gay couples are projected to spend $684 million on flowers, cakes, hotels, photographers and other wedding services over the next three years - so long as voters don't put a halt to the same-sex marriage spree, according to a study by the Williams Institute at University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-gay-marriage-good-for-economy/

Ridiculous point. The gay government marriage created no money, they would have done something with that money anyway.

 

[kaz]

Sadly, spouses who earn similar amounts of money – especially those who are considered high earners – are often subject to a marriage tax penalty

And those are the same people who escape the death tax entirely. And the subject was procreation, women working aren't procreating and getting a break. Gays on the other hand can stay home and get a break with no possibility of procreation

This is just a lot of lame ass equine excrement. Yes some will escape the inheritance tax. That is what Windsor (DOMA) was . will be a NET NEGATIVE effect on tax revenues. I showed differently and you cannot refute that.


As far as procreation goes, that is a failed and stupid argument that has been destroyed in courts of law and in the court of common sense as well. Real quick…GAY DO HAVE AND RAISE CHILDREN. In addition, few spouses, gay or straight , with or without children do not work. ANNOUNCEMENT ! This is not 1950

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, rights are not a commodity. Where the hell is it written that we-in the United States of America- get to decide what rights others have based on a cost benefit analysis? That notion is too absurd for words.

Non-sequitur. Government marriage is a privilege, not a right. And damn straight, privileges should make sense for society

Non-sequitur?? Seriously dude? How is what I said a Non-sequitur? Do you even know what that is You’re is the Non-sequitur because your premise ….that gay marriage cost taxpayers money which is false, is a reason –also false -to deny them the right to marry. It is a double Non-sequitur and just plain stupid.

In addition, the Supreme Court (do you know what that is) has said on numerous occasions and most recently a week ago Friday that marriage is indeed a right and now same sex marriage is a right whether you like it or not.

You might want to consider this as well

Same-sex weddings could create hundreds of new jobs and pump hundreds of millions of dollars into California's economy, according to a new study released Monday.

Gay couples are projected to spend $684 million on flowers, cakes, hotels, photographers and other wedding services over the next three years - so long as voters don't put a halt to the same-sex marriage spree, according to a study by the Williams Institute at University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-gay-marriage-good-for-economy/

Ridiculous point. The gay government marriage created no money, they would have done something with that money anyway.

I don’t know what the hell this is supposed to mean. I made my case you failed miserably. You are obviously not very well informed and not good at debating. Not at all. This is just an idiotic thread started by a bigot. My work is done here.

Sadly, spouses who earn similar amounts of money – especially those who are considered high earners – are often subject to a marriage tax penalty

And those are the same people who escape the death tax entirely. And the subject was procreation, women working aren't procreating and getting a break. Gays on the other hand can stay home and get a break with no possibility of procreation

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, rights are not a commodity. Where the hell is it written that we-in the United States of America- get to decide what rights others have based on a cost benefit analysis? That notion is too absurd for words.

Non-sequitur. Government marriage is a privilege, not a right. And damn straight, privileges should make sense for society

You might want to consider this as well

Same-sex weddings could create hundreds of new jobs and pump hundreds of millions of dollars into California's economy, according to a new study released Monday.

Gay couples are projected to spend $684 million on flowers, cakes, hotels, photographers and other wedding services over the next three years - so long as voters don't put a halt to the same-sex marriage spree, according to a study by the Williams Institute at University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-gay-marriage-good-for-economy/

Ridiculous point. The gay government marriage created no money, they would have done something with that money anyway.

Say what?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sadly, spouses who earn similar amounts of money – especially those who are considered high earners – are often subject to a marriage tax penalty

And those are the same people who escape the death tax entirely. And the subject was procreation, women working aren't procreating and getting a break. Gays on the other hand can stay home and get a break with no possibility of procreation

This is just a lot of lame ass equine excrement. Yes some will escape the inheritance tax. That is what Windsor (DOMA) was . will be a NET NEGATIVE effect on tax revenues. I showed differently and you cannot refute that.


As far as procreation goes, that is a failed and stupid argument that has been destroyed in courts of law and in the court of common sense as well. Real quick…GAY DO HAVE AND RAISE CHILDREN. In addition, few spouses, gay or straight , with or without children do not work. ANNOUNCEMENT ! This is not 1950

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, rights are not a commodity. Where the hell is it written that we-in the United States of America- get to decide what rights others have based on a cost benefit analysis? That notion is too absurd for words.

Non-sequitur. Government marriage is a privilege, not a right. And damn straight, privileges should make sense for society

Non-sequitur?? Seriously dude? How is what I said a Non-sequitur? Do you even know what that is You’re is the Non-sequitur because your premise ….that gay marriage cost taxpayers money which is false, is a reason –also false -to deny them the right to marry. It is a double Non-sequitur and just plain stupid.

In addition, the Supreme Court (do you know what that is) has said on numerous occasions and most recently a week ago Friday that marriage is indeed a right and now same sex marriage is a right whether you like it or not.

You might want to consider this as well

Same-sex weddings could create hundreds of new jobs and pump hundreds of millions of dollars into California's economy, according to a new study released Monday.

Gay couples are projected to spend $684 million on flowers, cakes, hotels, photographers and other wedding services over the next three years - so long as voters don't put a halt to the same-sex marriage spree, according to a study by the Williams Institute at University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-gay-marriage-good-for-economy/

Ridiculous point. The gay government marriage created no money, they would have done something with that money anyway.

I don’t know what the hell this is supposed to mean. I made my case you failed miserably. You are obviously not very well informed and not good at debating. Not at all. This is just an idiotic thread started by a bigot. My work is done here.

Sadly, spouses who earn similar amounts of money – especially those who are considered high earners – are often subject to a marriage tax penalty

And those are the same people who escape the death tax entirely. And the subject was procreation, women working aren't procreating and getting a break. Gays on the other hand can stay home and get a break with no possibility of procreation

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, rights are not a commodity. Where the hell is it written that we-in the United States of America- get to decide what rights others have based on a cost benefit analysis? That notion is too absurd for words.

Non-sequitur. Government marriage is a privilege, not a right. And damn straight, privileges should make sense for society

You might want to consider this as well

Same-sex weddings could create hundreds of new jobs and pump hundreds of millions of dollars into California's economy, according to a new study released Monday.

Gay couples are projected to spend $684 million on flowers, cakes, hotels, photographers and other wedding services over the next three years - so long as voters don't put a halt to the same-sex marriage spree, according to a study by the Williams Institute at University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-gay-marriage-good-for-economy/

Ridiculous point. The gay government marriage created no money, they would have done something with that money anyway.

Say what?

I'll say it again......


This is just a lot of lamb ass equine excrement. Yes some will escape the inheritance tax. That is what Windsor (DOMA) was about . You contention was that there will be a NET NEGATIVE effect on tax revenues. I showed differently and you cannot refute that.


As far as procreation goes, that is a failed and stupid argument that has been destroyed in courts of law and in the court of common sense as well. Real quick…GAY DO HAVE AND RAISE CHILDREN. In addition, few spouses, gay or straight , with or without children do not work. ANNOUNCEMENT ! This is not 1950


Non-sequitur?? Seriously dude? How is what I said a Non-sequitur? Do you even know what that is You’re is the Non-sequitur because your premise ….that gay marriage cost taxpayers money which is false, is a reason –also false -to deny them the right to marry. It is a double Non-sequitur and just plain stupid.

In addition, the Supreme Court (do you know what that is) has said on numerous occasions and most recently a week ago Friday that marriage is indeed a right and now same sex marriage is a right whether you like it or not.

I made my case you failed miserably. You are obviously not very well informed and not good at debating. Not at all. This is just an idiotic thread started by a bigot. It is also interesting that you cherry picked a few points that I made that you thought that you could counter, while ignoring the ones that you knew that you could not deal with


My work is done here.

 

[kaz]

Sadly, spouses who earn similar amounts of money – especially those who are considered high earners – are often subject to a marriage tax penalty

And those are the same people who escape the death tax entirely. And the subject was procreation, women working aren't procreating and getting a break. Gays on the other hand can stay home and get a break with no possibility of procreation

This is just a lot of lame ass equine excrement. Yes some will escape the inheritance tax. That is what Windsor (DOMA) was . will be a NET NEGATIVE effect on tax revenues. I showed differently and you cannot refute that.


As far as procreation goes, that is a failed and stupid argument that has been destroyed in courts of law and in the court of common sense as well. Real quick…GAY DO HAVE AND RAISE CHILDREN. In addition, few spouses, gay or straight , with or without children do not work. ANNOUNCEMENT ! This is not 1950

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, rights are not a commodity. Where the hell is it written that we-in the United States of America- get to decide what rights others have based on a cost benefit analysis? That notion is too absurd for words.

Non-sequitur. Government marriage is a privilege, not a right. And damn straight, privileges should make sense for society

Non-sequitur?? Seriously dude? How is what I said a Non-sequitur? Do you even know what that is You’re is the Non-sequitur because your premise ….that gay marriage cost taxpayers money which is false, is a reason –also false -to deny them the right to marry. It is a double Non-sequitur and just plain stupid.

In addition, the Supreme Court (do you know what that is) has said on numerous occasions and most recently a week ago Friday that marriage is indeed a right and now same sex marriage is a right whether you like it or not.

You might want to consider this as well

Same-sex weddings could create hundreds of new jobs and pump hundreds of millions of dollars into California's economy, according to a new study released Monday.

Gay couples are projected to spend $684 million on flowers, cakes, hotels, photographers and other wedding services over the next three years - so long as voters don't put a halt to the same-sex marriage spree, according to a study by the Williams Institute at University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-gay-marriage-good-for-economy/

Ridiculous point. The gay government marriage created no money, they would have done something with that money anyway.

I don’t know what the hell this is supposed to mean. I made my case you failed miserably. You are obviously not very well informed and not good at debating. Not at all. This is just an idiotic thread started by a bigot. My work is done here.

Sadly, spouses who earn similar amounts of money – especially those who are considered high earners – are often subject to a marriage tax penalty

And those are the same people who escape the death tax entirely. And the subject was procreation, women working aren't procreating and getting a break. Gays on the other hand can stay home and get a break with no possibility of procreation

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, rights are not a commodity. Where the hell is it written that we-in the United States of America- get to decide what rights others have based on a cost benefit analysis? That notion is too absurd for words.

Non-sequitur. Government marriage is a privilege, not a right. And damn straight, privileges should make sense for society

You might want to consider this as well

Ridiculous point. The gay government marriage created no money, they would have done something with that money anyway.

Say what?

I'll say it again......


This is just a lot of lamb ass equine excrement. Yes some will escape the inheritance tax. That is what Windsor (DOMA) was about . You contention was that there will be a NET NEGATIVE effect on tax revenues. I showed differently and you cannot refute that.


As far as procreation goes, that is a failed and stupid argument that has been destroyed in courts of law and in the court of common sense as well. Real quick…GAY DO HAVE AND RAISE CHILDREN. In addition, few spouses, gay or straight , with or without children do not work. ANNOUNCEMENT ! This is not 1950


Non-sequitur?? Seriously dude? How is what I said a Non-sequitur? Do you even know what that is You’re is the Non-sequitur because your premise ….that gay marriage cost taxpayers money which is false, is a reason –also false -to deny them the right to marry. It is a double Non-sequitur and just plain stupid.

In addition, the Supreme Court (do you know what that is) has said on numerous occasions and most recently a week ago Friday that marriage is indeed a right and now same sex marriage is a right whether you like it or not.

I made my case you failed miserably. You are obviously not very well informed and not good at debating. Not at all. This is just an idiotic thread started by a bigot. It is also interesting that you cherry picked a few points that I made that you thought that you could counter, while ignoring the ones that you knew that you could not deal with


My work is done here.

So tell me that since your argument is that the courts agree with you, therefore you're right, that if the courts went for state rights against mandatory recognition of gay marriage that you would then be against mandatory recognition of gay marriage. If you can't say that, you have zero argument since your whole argument is that you turned your manhood over to government

 

[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

There is no proof that having two of the same sex parents is different than having different sex parents.

Not other than being a human being there isn't, no. Clearly when you grew up you saw that children have different relationships with male and female parents. That is how we evolved. You saw it constantly through your life. I never said to not have a male and female parent is to be a failure. I grew up in a single parent home. My brother, sister and I each have multiple graduate degrees. But we clearly missed having a father. You can deny it all you want, but based on your own experience if you are honest, you will agree a parent of each sex is ideal

I actually think having a parent of each gender would be one of the ideals

Along with quite a few others- having parents with sufficient income/wealth to support the household, having parents who demonstrate to their children how to love, having parents who give their children a secure home- and having 2 parents at all.

But in America we do not mandate that 'parents' provide the ideal. We don't insist that the mother and father stay together and raise their children, we do not require that parents show that they have enough wealth to raise children, or that they show their children how to love one another.

We do know that having 2 parents is also ideal.

 

[Syriusly]

Why on Earth would the term, kazzing, bother me?

You fags can circle jerk all you want, but if you won't get a room at least stay away from me so you don't keep splattering cum on my shoes, it's disgusting to see

Kaz seems to be having his homosexual fantasies again.

 

[Faun]

Why on Earth would the term, kazzing, bother me?

You tell me, you're the one who keeps getting upset about it and having to justify it. What about I agree with you don't you understand? You think liberalism is defined simply as truth. Everyone knows it's truth, so those of us who deny it are lying. Just like Christians think everyone knows Jesus is truth, we simply have to accept the truth. I am always kazzing, I reject your crap. Liberalism is group think greed, hate and bigotry. You are the liars, you're not honest about your true intentions. You're in it for yourself. Just read Paint's posts, he's more honest than the rest of you combined. He thinks humans are a disease, he doesn't give a shit about them. Of course he's a liberal.

It wouldn't, of course. You, however, are clearly bothered by it. Evidence of such is you ignoring other posters who began to use it.

You fags can circle jerk all you want, but if you won't get a room at least stay away from me so you don't keep splattering cum on my shoes, it's disgusting to see

And you didn't answer the question ... what is it you think I believe Liberals are right about?

You're right that the Republicans suck, but what does that have to do with anything?

A better question is to you, what are they wrong about? You claim not to blindly believe them

Thanks for reminding me how delusional you are.

I don't believe liberalism is defined as truth. That would be you listening to your hallucinations again. Kazzing is lying. Always has been since I started using the term as a verb. You ignore posts from others who used it and you've been trying desperately to redefine the term with me. I need no other indication I've gotten under your skin by using it. Nor am I shocked to see you're stupid enough to reveal how much it bothers you. As far as what liberals are wrong about, for one, they blindly give away money in programs like welfare and disability to far too many people who are gaming the system and don't deserve it.

OK, gay boy, when you want to talk about feelings again, I get bored as shit. What is your incessant need to explore my feelings based on? Do you stalk people in real life too? Any chance we can stick to the discussion rather than your constantly exploring your feminine side?

Aww, poor, pathological kazzer ... you're sooo lost ...

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Do you want to discuss anything but feelings? Are there any guy parts under your dress anywhere?

What's to discuss? This thread was a fail even before the Supreme Court decision since it was based on the false premise that gay marriage doesn't deserve tax breaks because they don't have kids. Everything since then was just making fun of you for being so retarded. And now, with the Supreme Court decision not going the way you want, I get to rub it in your face too.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sadly, spouses who earn similar amounts of money – especially those who are considered high earners – are often subject to a marriage tax penalty

And those are the same people who escape the death tax entirely. And the subject was procreation, women working aren't procreating and getting a break. Gays on the other hand can stay home and get a break with no possibility of procreation

This is just a lot of lame ass equine excrement. Yes some will escape the inheritance tax. That is what Windsor (DOMA) was . will be a NET NEGATIVE effect on tax revenues. I showed differently and you cannot refute that.


As far as procreation goes, that is a failed and stupid argument that has been destroyed in courts of law and in the court of common sense as well. Real quick…GAY DO HAVE AND RAISE CHILDREN. In addition, few spouses, gay or straight , with or without children do not work. ANNOUNCEMENT ! This is not 1950

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, rights are not a commodity. Where the hell is it written that we-in the United States of America- get to decide what rights others have based on a cost benefit analysis? That notion is too absurd for words.

Non-sequitur. Government marriage is a privilege, not a right. And damn straight, privileges should make sense for society

Non-sequitur?? Seriously dude? How is what I said a Non-sequitur? Do you even know what that is You’re is the Non-sequitur because your premise ….that gay marriage cost taxpayers money which is false, is a reason –also false -to deny them the right to marry. It is a double Non-sequitur and just plain stupid.

In addition, the Supreme Court (do you know what that is) has said on numerous occasions and most recently a week ago Friday that marriage is indeed a right and now same sex marriage is a right whether you like it or not.

You might want to consider this as well

Ridiculous point. The gay government marriage created no money, they would have done something with that money anyway.

I don’t know what the hell this is supposed to mean. I made my case you failed miserably. You are obviously not very well informed and not good at debating. Not at all. This is just an idiotic thread started by a bigot. My work is done here.

And those are the same people who escape the death tax entirely. And the subject was procreation, women working aren't procreating and getting a break. Gays on the other hand can stay home and get a break with no possibility of procreation

Non-sequitur. Government marriage is a privilege, not a right. And damn straight, privileges should make sense for society

Ridiculous point. The gay government marriage created no money, they would have done something with that money anyway.

Say what?

I'll say it again......


This is just a lot of lamb ass equine excrement. Yes some will escape the inheritance tax. That is what Windsor (DOMA) was about . You contention was that there will be a NET NEGATIVE effect on tax revenues. I showed differently and you cannot refute that.


As far as procreation goes, that is a failed and stupid argument that has been destroyed in courts of law and in the court of common sense as well. Real quick…GAY DO HAVE AND RAISE CHILDREN. In addition, few spouses, gay or straight , with or without children do not work. ANNOUNCEMENT ! This is not 1950


Non-sequitur?? Seriously dude? How is what I said a Non-sequitur? Do you even know what that is You’re is the Non-sequitur because your premise ….that gay marriage cost taxpayers money which is false, is a reason –also false -to deny them the right to marry. It is a double Non-sequitur and just plain stupid.

In addition, the Supreme Court (do you know what that is) has said on numerous occasions and most recently a week ago Friday that marriage is indeed a right and now same sex marriage is a right whether you like it or not.

I made my case you failed miserably. You are obviously not very well informed and not good at debating. Not at all. This is just an idiotic thread started by a bigot. It is also interesting that you cherry picked a few points that I made that you thought that you could counter, while ignoring the ones that you knew that you could not deal with


My work is done here.

So tell me that since your argument is that the courts agree with you, therefore you're right, that if the courts went for state rights against mandatory recognition of gay marriage that you would then be against mandatory recognition of gay marriage. If you can't say that, you have zero argument since your whole argument is that you turned your manhood over to government

First of all…For the record, let us recall that you started this thread on the premise that same sex marriage somehow costs taxpayers money. Putting aside the stupid notion that you can put a price tag on civil rights, I completely and unequivocally destroyed that theory. You have no defense and now you want to discuss anything and everything but that. OK, so be it.

As far as marriage being a right is concerned, the courts are not always right and had they ruled against same sex marriage I would not have agreed with them. However they did say that it is a right, not only this time , but numerous times before:

Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

14 Supreme Court Cases Marriage is a Fundamental Right American Foundation for Equal Rights

In addition, consider this:


….If it’s not a right, what is it? The only possible answer is “privilege” What is a privilege? It’s something that you have to earn. Driving is a privilege. You have to study the rules and take a road test. You do not have to study and take a test to qualify for a marriage license. While both rights and privileges can be forfeited under certain circumstances-commit a crime and lose right to freedom/drive badly and lose your driving privileges-they are by no means the same thing, because the bar, for taking away a right, is set much higher. In addition, as we established above, rights emanate from the fact of being born a human. Privileges do not. We can only conclude that marriage is not a privilege and therefore is a right. When a ten your old asks if she can get married someday, her parent can say “sure” ….unless she means her girlfriend, and then, if she lives in the wrong place she will have to be told “maybe” and it will hurt

Your argument, if you can call it that fails miserably. You are so pathetic that you are hardly worth another key stroke. You thread is a sick joke without a punch line. I feel like I’m drowning in a sea stupidity and monkeys dressed as lifeguards are throwing me anvils.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm sorry. Simple oversight. "Upset" was specified. I said annoyed....which you are.

I never for a second thought you'd be upset. Annoyed at the ruling, yes...which you are but I never assumed "upset" like Key, Bripat or Sil.

Spin, spin, spin, you have no integrity. You made a bet, now you're reneging on it. I don't care about your being banned for two weeks. You were just being a ***** and nagging me for something you remembered doing thinking it was going to be too hard to find in the search engine with thousands of posts. I tried to blow you off, but you kept being a ho. So I just wanted some consequence for that. I thought you'd Welsh, I told you that. You did. Just admit it for what it is. You lost, you aren't honoring the bet

I merely called you on your mistaken statement...which remains a mistaken statement. I never assumed you'd be upset over the ruling, only annoyed.

Don't compound your mistake by trying to claim you aren't exactly what I'd said you'd be, annoyed.

Before the bet, you went on to say you didn't tell me how I feel at all. Then after the bet, suddenly it was shades of gray. Don't justify Welshing on the bet, just say you aren't going to do it. There is no enforcement other than your honor, which means there is no enforcement as you have none. I did accurately predict that before the bet as well if you recall

Nope, but nice try.

Kaz: You repeatedly informed me I was going to be upset when the Supreme Court ruled what they did. I responded repeatedly I thought they would rule this way and you are wrong, it wouldn't affect my view at all.

That is what I called you on..me repeatedly telling you were "going to be upset". This was an untrue statement on your part. I said, once, that the ruling would annoy you. Annoy is not upset. Upset is what WheresmyKeys and Silhouette are. I never thought the ruling would upset you.

I was correct and the ruling did annoy you.

You made a bet, you lost, you reneged. Life goes on. I said you would. You did. That's all there is to it

Now, if you are such the ***** that you can't debate me and want me to leave the board, simply put me ignore or don't respond to my posts. Don't try to coward your way out of debating.

Damn, you're stupid as shit. I just directly addressed this. If you have no long term memory, that's your problem. If you want to ignore my answer because it makes you so upset then that's your problem too

Sorry counselor, you didn't make your case...kinda like with this thread.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

There is no proof that having two of the same sex parents is different than having different sex parents.

Not other than being a human being there isn't, no. Clearly when you grew up you saw that children have different relationships with male and female parents. That is how we evolved. You saw it constantly through your life. I never said to not have a male and female parent is to be a failure. I grew up in a single parent home. My brother, sister and I each have multiple graduate degrees. But we clearly missed having a father. You can deny it all you want, but based on your own experience if you are honest, you will agree a parent of each sex is ideal

I actually think having a parent of each gender would be one of the ideals

Along with quite a few others- having parents with sufficient income/wealth to support the household, having parents who demonstrate to their children how to love, having parents who give their children a secure home- and having 2 parents at all.

But in America we do not mandate that 'parents' provide the ideal. We don't insist that the mother and father stay together and raise their children, we do not require that parents show that they have enough wealth to raise children, or that they show their children how to love one another.

We do know that having 2 parents is also ideal.

How do we "know" that? By watching TV?

 

[NoNukes]

There is no proof that having two of the same sex parents is different than having different sex parents.

ROFL! There is abundant evidence for it, including the testimony of those who were raised under such scenarios.

In the Irish referendum on gay marriage the No side was trying these scare tactics and the psychologists and other experts came out and disputed what they had to say. Children are better off and more well adjusted with two parents, does not matter the sex. There is no evidence to prove otherwise. You are just making things up to support your argument, there is nothing to back it up. You are a failure.

So your relationship with your mother and father was exactly the same, they were genderless automatons to you. Liar, you don't believe that, you know what you are saying is ridiculous

There is no educated proof of what you are claiming, it is your opinion.

Then why are you hiding under the sofa?

So you got nothing different from your relationship with your mother and father. They were genderless automatons to you. Another mother doing what your father did would have been the same. Another father doing what your mother did would be the same. You actually believe that.

There is no proof that having two of the same sex parents is different than having different sex parents.

ROFL! There is abundant evidence for it, including the testimony of those who were raised under such scenarios.

In the Irish referendum on gay marriage the No side was trying these scare tactics and the psychologists and other experts came out and disputed what they had to say. Children are better off and more well adjusted with two parents, does not matter the sex. There is no evidence to prove otherwise. You are just making things up to support your argument, there is nothing to back it up. You are a failure.

So your relationship with your mother and father was exactly the same, they were genderless automatons to you. Liar, you don't believe that, you know what you are saying is ridiculous

There is no educated proof of what you are claiming, it is your opinion.

Then why are you hiding under the sofa?

So you got nothing different from your relationship with your mother and father. They were genderless automatons to you. Another mother doing what your father did would have been the same. Another father doing what your mother did would be the same. You actually believe that.

I am not hiding anywhere, I have a life.And I am waiting for you to show me some proof of what you are saying. Some kids get fucked up by their parents. Studies show that well adjusted kids come from happy, well adjusted families.

 

[kaz]

Spin, spin, spin, you have no integrity. You made a bet, now you're reneging on it. I don't care about your being banned for two weeks. You were just being a ***** and nagging me for something you remembered doing thinking it was going to be too hard to find in the search engine with thousands of posts. I tried to blow you off, but you kept being a ho. So I just wanted some consequence for that. I thought you'd Welsh, I told you that. You did. Just admit it for what it is. You lost, you aren't honoring the bet

I merely called you on your mistaken statement...which remains a mistaken statement. I never assumed you'd be upset over the ruling, only annoyed.

Don't compound your mistake by trying to claim you aren't exactly what I'd said you'd be, annoyed.

Before the bet, you went on to say you didn't tell me how I feel at all. Then after the bet, suddenly it was shades of gray. Don't justify Welshing on the bet, just say you aren't going to do it. There is no enforcement other than your honor, which means there is no enforcement as you have none. I did accurately predict that before the bet as well if you recall

Nope, but nice try.

Kaz: You repeatedly informed me I was going to be upset when the Supreme Court ruled what they did. I responded repeatedly I thought they would rule this way and you are wrong, it wouldn't affect my view at all.

That is what I called you on..me repeatedly telling you were "going to be upset". This was an untrue statement on your part. I said, once, that the ruling would annoy you. Annoy is not upset. Upset is what WheresmyKeys and Silhouette are. I never thought the ruling would upset you.

I was correct and the ruling did annoy you.

You made a bet, you lost, you reneged. Life goes on. I said you would. You did. That's all there is to it

Now, if you are such the ***** that you can't debate me and want me to leave the board, simply put me ignore or don't respond to my posts. Don't try to coward your way out of debating.

Damn, you're stupid as shit. I just directly addressed this. If you have no long term memory, that's your problem. If you want to ignore my answer because it makes you so upset then that's your problem too

Sorry counselor, you didn't make your case...kinda like with this thread.

OMG, an angry dyke with zero honor rejects my argument, that is so devastating to me

 

[kaz]

ROFL! There is abundant evidence for it, including the testimony of those who were raised under such scenarios.

In the Irish referendum on gay marriage the No side was trying these scare tactics and the psychologists and other experts came out and disputed what they had to say. Children are better off and more well adjusted with two parents, does not matter the sex. There is no evidence to prove otherwise. You are just making things up to support your argument, there is nothing to back it up. You are a failure.

So your relationship with your mother and father was exactly the same, they were genderless automatons to you. Liar, you don't believe that, you know what you are saying is ridiculous

There is no educated proof of what you are claiming, it is your opinion.

Then why are you hiding under the sofa?

So you got nothing different from your relationship with your mother and father. They were genderless automatons to you. Another mother doing what your father did would have been the same. Another father doing what your mother did would be the same. You actually believe that.

ROFL! There is abundant evidence for it, including the testimony of those who were raised under such scenarios.

In the Irish referendum on gay marriage the No side was trying these scare tactics and the psychologists and other experts came out and disputed what they had to say. Children are better off and more well adjusted with two parents, does not matter the sex. There is no evidence to prove otherwise. You are just making things up to support your argument, there is nothing to back it up. You are a failure.

So your relationship with your mother and father was exactly the same, they were genderless automatons to you. Liar, you don't believe that, you know what you are saying is ridiculous

There is no educated proof of what you are claiming, it is your opinion.

Then why are you hiding under the sofa?

So you got nothing different from your relationship with your mother and father. They were genderless automatons to you. Another mother doing what your father did would have been the same. Another father doing what your mother did would be the same. You actually believe that.

I am not hiding anywhere, I have a life.And I am waiting for you to show me some proof of what you are saying. Some kids get fucked up by their parents. Studies show that well adjusted kids come from happy, well adjusted families.

You are completely hiding, you keep ignoring the question. As a witness that you are wrong, I called you to the stand. So you say your parents were sexless automatons to you, all you needed was two people to blow your nose and potty train you. You had exactly the same relationship with each. You didn't do different things with your female mother and male father, you didn't talk to them about different things. You just need two. They were the same. That was your experience growing up. One apparently isn't enough to do the job, three isn't required. Two sexless automatons, that was your relationship with your parents. That is what you are arguing. Answer the question

 

[kaz]

Your argument, if you can call it that fails miserably. You are so pathetic that you are hardly worth another key stroke. You thread is a sick joke without a punch line. I feel like I’m drowning in a sea stupidity and monkeys dressed as lifeguards are throwing me anvils.

You feel that way a lot in life, don't you? That's why you need government to solve your problems for you, you aren't capable of doing it on your own. In your case, I bless your liberalness, it's the best shot you have at life. It takes a total and complete loser to be such a waste that government runs your life better than you do. And you are just that loser. However, your recognition of that does actually make your liberalness rational

 

[NoNukes]

In the Irish referendum on gay marriage the No side was trying these scare tactics and the psychologists and other experts came out and disputed what they had to say. Children are better off and more well adjusted with two parents, does not matter the sex. There is no evidence to prove otherwise. You are just making things up to support your argument, there is nothing to back it up. You are a failure.

So your relationship with your mother and father was exactly the same, they were genderless automatons to you. Liar, you don't believe that, you know what you are saying is ridiculous

There is no educated proof of what you are claiming, it is your opinion.

Then why are you hiding under the sofa?

So you got nothing different from your relationship with your mother and father. They were genderless automatons to you. Another mother doing what your father did would have been the same. Another father doing what your mother did would be the same. You actually believe that.

In the Irish referendum on gay marriage the No side was trying these scare tactics and the psychologists and other experts came out and disputed what they had to say. Children are better off and more well adjusted with two parents, does not matter the sex. There is no evidence to prove otherwise. You are just making things up to support your argument, there is nothing to back it up. You are a failure.

So your relationship with your mother and father was exactly the same, they were genderless automatons to you. Liar, you don't believe that, you know what you are saying is ridiculous

There is no educated proof of what you are claiming, it is your opinion.

Then why are you hiding under the sofa?

So you got nothing different from your relationship with your mother and father. They were genderless automatons to you. Another mother doing what your father did would have been the same. Another father doing what your mother did would be the same. You actually believe that.

I am not hiding anywhere, I have a life.And I am waiting for you to show me some proof of what you are saying. Some kids get fucked up by their parents. Studies show that well adjusted kids come from happy, well adjusted families.

You are completely hiding, you keep ignoring the question. As a witness that you are wrong, I called you to the stand. So you say your parents were sexless automatons to you, all you needed was two people to blow your nose and potty train you. You had exactly the same relationship with each. You didn't do different things with your female mother and male father, you didn't talk to them about different things. You just need two. They were the same. That was your experience growing up. One apparently isn't enough to do the job, three isn't required. Two sexless automatons, that was your relationship with your parents. That is what you are arguing. Answer the question

Your reading comprehension is horrible.