Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Seawytch]

No one has a right to be subsidized by another.

People have legally protected rights, and some of those rights function as subsidies, however indirect. Whether the people who enjoy those rights have a right to those rights (granted by God or some other transcendent entity) is anyone's guess.

Hmmmm. . . . wrong. No one has a right to be subsidized by another person, period. The subsidies you refer to are a violation of your rights. No one is entitled to them.

Your phrase "a right to those rights" besides being supremely stupid, contradicts the definition of the term "right." You can't have rights that you don't have a right to.

Nobody is stopping ya'll from trying to end the cash and prizes you've given yourselves for being married. Go for it.

 

[bripat9643]

No one has a right to be subsidized by another.

People have legally protected rights, and some of those rights function as subsidies, however indirect. Whether the people who enjoy those rights have a right to those rights (granted by God or some other transcendent entity) is anyone's guess.

Hmmmm. . . . wrong. No one has a right to be subsidized by another person, period. The subsidies you refer to are a violation of your rights. No one is entitled to them.

Your phrase "a right to those rights" besides being supremely stupid, contradicts the definition of the term "right." You can't have rights that you don't have a right to.

Nobody is stopping ya'll from trying to end the cash and prizes you've given yourselves for being married. Go for it.

I have been trying to end them.

 

[Seawytch]

No one has a right to be subsidized by another.

People have legally protected rights, and some of those rights function as subsidies, however indirect. Whether the people who enjoy those rights have a right to those rights (granted by God or some other transcendent entity) is anyone's guess.

Hmmmm. . . . wrong. No one has a right to be subsidized by another person, period. The subsidies you refer to are a violation of your rights. No one is entitled to them.

Your phrase "a right to those rights" besides being supremely stupid, contradicts the definition of the term "right." You can't have rights that you don't have a right to.

Nobody is stopping ya'll from trying to end the cash and prizes you've given yourselves for being married. Go for it.

I have been trying to end them.

You're not being very successful.

 

[Syriusly]

I'm glad this post surfaced again.

The Constitution says nothing about how legal rights should benefit everyone. I don't benefit from handicap rights.

If the OP wants a bumper sticker.

Freedom wins when the maximum number of law abiding adults benefit from any given legal right. To exclude people arbitrarily from the purview of a particular right is contrary to the spirit of freedom upon which are country was founded.

We give handicapped citizens access ramps not because we all benefit from access ramps but because we value the maximum amount of freedom for the maximum number of people. To exclude someone from participation because they were born crippled or gay runs contrary to the spirit of a free society.

The state doesn't exist to impose religion on gay people. It exists to hand out contracts to free adults. The OP should favor a state where Big Government IS NOT in the bedroom of consenting adults, unless there is a clear interest at stake.

No one has a right to be subsidized by another.

Absolutely.

However, for example Kaz and his wife are getting special government 'perks' for being married- which have nothing to do with children- the government doesn't give a damn whether they have children or not.

Kaz has his perks- and damn well doesn't want to share them with gay couples- he doesn't want to have to pay gay couples for the perks gay couples have to pay for his marriage.

Marriage has to happen before children are born for it to work effectively. u.

Really?

So you think that the hetero couples who have children before getting married- should not be allowed to marry?

Or just that you support Kaz's position that he has his perks, and is happy to have gay couples pay for his perks, while denying those couples the same perks that he enjoys.

 

[Syriusly]

No one has a right to be subsidized by another.

People have legally protected rights, and some of those rights function as subsidies, however indirect. Whether the people who enjoy those rights have a right to those rights (granted by God or some other transcendent entity) is anyone's guess.

Hmmmm. . . . wrong. No one has a right to be subsidized by another person, period. The subsidies you refer to are a violation of your rights. No one is entitled to them.

Your phrase "a right to those rights" besides being supremely stupid, contradicts the definition of the term "right." You can't have rights that you don't have a right to.

Nobody is stopping ya'll from trying to end the cash and prizes you've given yourselves for being married. Go for it.

I have been trying to end them.

Divorce would work very effectively for you.

 

[Syriusly]

No one has a right to be subsidized by another.

People have legally protected rights, and some of those rights function as subsidies, however indirect. Whether the people who enjoy those rights have a right to those rights (granted by God or some other transcendent entity) is anyone's guess.

Hmmmm. . . . wrong. No one has a right to be subsidized by another person, period. The subsidies you refer to are a violation of your rights. No one is entitled to them.o.

Nobody has a 'right' to any 'subsidy'- but subsidies exist in society. Every renter subsidizes home owners through the mortgage interest deduction. Every single person subsidizes every parent with children in public schools, and every parent who takes a deduction for a dependent. Every tax payer subsidizes every business that gets a special tax deduction. Every atheist subsidizes churches who are exempt for taxes- and every tax payer subsidizes every non-profit exempt from taxes.

Our society is rife with 'subsidies'- and people like Kaz are happy to have his- and happy to have gay couples pay for his subsidies- while denying them to gay couples.

And that is not equal treatment before the law.

But Kaz doesn't care- he has his- and is happy to have gay couples be paying to support his marriage.

 

[Syriusly]

Kaz: "100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime"

So you only have sex with the aim of procreation?
And gay couples don't have any children?

Kaz, your patriotic girly avatar says it all... a gift from those Froggy Liberals...

"Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

That's pretty scary stuff, non?

No, gay couples don't have children. It's physically impossible. I'm using the definition of "have" that means "conceive."

Then you should say 'gay couples do not reproduce with each other'

Like many- as a matter of fact- more straight couples do not reproduce with each other.

Yet- we call them- with their children(regardless of whether they are born through invitro or adopted after their hetero parents abandoned them)- family.

Nope. The claim that they do not reproduce is technically accurate. each of the members my reproduce, but the couple doesn't.

Gay couples have a 0% chance of reproducing. The odds are more like 80% with heterosexual couples.

Then you should say 'gay couples do not reproduce with each other'

Like many- as a matter of fact- more straight couples do not reproduce with each other- there are more heterosexual couples who start families using invitro with sperm donations, and adopting- than there are gay couples who start families that way.

Yet- we call them- with their children(regardless of whether they are born through invitro or adopted after their hetero parents abandoned them)- family.

And parents are the people who make the effort to raise the children- not the people who birth them and then abandon them to the state to find some couple to do what they weren't willing or able to do themselves.

 

[bripat9643]

No one has a right to be subsidized by another.

People have legally protected rights, and some of those rights function as subsidies, however indirect. Whether the people who enjoy those rights have a right to those rights (granted by God or some other transcendent entity) is anyone's guess.

Hmmmm. . . . wrong. No one has a right to be subsidized by another person, period. The subsidies you refer to are a violation of your rights. No one is entitled to them.o.

Nobody has a 'right' to any 'subsidy'- but subsidies exist in society. Every renter subsidizes home owners through the mortgage interest deduction. Every single person subsidizes every parent with children in public schools, and every parent who takes a deduction for a dependent. Every tax payer subsidizes every business that gets a special tax deduction. Every atheist subsidizes churches who are exempt for taxes- and every tax payer subsidizes every non-profit exempt from taxes.

Our society is rife with 'subsidies'- and people like Kaz are happy to have his- and happy to have gay couples pay for his subsidies- while denying them to gay couples.

And that is not equal treatment before the law.

But Kaz doesn't care- he has his- and is happy to have gay couples be paying to support his marriage.

You just admitted that we don't all receive equal subsidies, so why should the marriage subsidy be an exception? Why is that unconstitutionality while the other unequal subsidies are not?

Your argument just fell on its face.

 

[Syriusly]

No one has a right to be subsidized by another.

People have legally protected rights, and some of those rights function as subsidies, however indirect. Whether the people who enjoy those rights have a right to those rights (granted by God or some other transcendent entity) is anyone's guess.

Hmmmm. . . . wrong. No one has a right to be subsidized by another person, period. The subsidies you refer to are a violation of your rights. No one is entitled to them.o.

Nobody has a 'right' to any 'subsidy'- but subsidies exist in society. Every renter subsidizes home owners through the mortgage interest deduction. Every single person subsidizes every parent with children in public schools, and every parent who takes a deduction for a dependent. Every tax payer subsidizes every business that gets a special tax deduction. Every atheist subsidizes churches who are exempt for taxes- and every tax payer subsidizes every non-profit exempt from taxes.

Our society is rife with 'subsidies'- and people like Kaz are happy to have his- and happy to have gay couples pay for his subsidies- while denying them to gay couples.

And that is not equal treatment before the law.

But Kaz doesn't care- he has his- and is happy to have gay couples be paying to support his marriage.

You just admitted that we don't all receive equal subsidies, so why should the marriage subsidy be an exception? Why is that unconstitutionality while the other unequal subsidies are not?

Your argument just fell on its face.

LOL.....I am just enjoying pointing out what a hypocrite Kaz is.

My argument is just fine- since all married couples get the same benefits.

 

[bripat9643]

No one has a right to be subsidized by another.

People have legally protected rights, and some of those rights function as subsidies, however indirect. Whether the people who enjoy those rights have a right to those rights (granted by God or some other transcendent entity) is anyone's guess.

Hmmmm. . . . wrong. No one has a right to be subsidized by another person, period. The subsidies you refer to are a violation of your rights. No one is entitled to them.o.

Nobody has a 'right' to any 'subsidy'- but subsidies exist in society. Every renter subsidizes home owners through the mortgage interest deduction. Every single person subsidizes every parent with children in public schools, and every parent who takes a deduction for a dependent. Every tax payer subsidizes every business that gets a special tax deduction. Every atheist subsidizes churches who are exempt for taxes- and every tax payer subsidizes every non-profit exempt from taxes.

Our society is rife with 'subsidies'- and people like Kaz are happy to have his- and happy to have gay couples pay for his subsidies- while denying them to gay couples.

And that is not equal treatment before the law.

But Kaz doesn't care- he has his- and is happy to have gay couples be paying to support his marriage.

You just admitted that we don't all receive equal subsidies, so why should the marriage subsidy be an exception? Why is that unconstitutionality while the other unequal subsidies are not?

Your argument just fell on its face.

LOL.....I am just enjoying pointing out what a hypocrite Kaz is.

My argument is just fine- since all married couples get the same benefits.

Your argument is bogus since you claim the Constitution requires everyone to get equal benefits and you yourself pointed out many examples where not everyone gets equal benefits.

I don't see you crying that single people pay higher taxes than married people or that renters pay more than homeowners.

 

[bripat9643]

Kaz: "100% of gay couples can't procreate. There is no point to funding it. You should have gay sex on your own dime"

So you only have sex with the aim of procreation?
And gay couples don't have any children?

Kaz, your patriotic girly avatar says it all... a gift from those Froggy Liberals...

"Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

That's pretty scary stuff, non?

No, gay couples don't have children. It's physically impossible. I'm using the definition of "have" that means "conceive."

Then you should say 'gay couples do not reproduce with each other'

Like many- as a matter of fact- more straight couples do not reproduce with each other.

Yet- we call them- with their children(regardless of whether they are born through invitro or adopted after their hetero parents abandoned them)- family.

Nope. The claim that they do not reproduce is technically accurate. each of the members my reproduce, but the couple doesn't.

Gay couples have a 0% chance of reproducing. The odds are more like 80% with heterosexual couples.

Then you should say 'gay couples do not reproduce with each other'

Like many- as a matter of fact- more straight couples do not reproduce with each other- there are more heterosexual couples who start families using invitro with sperm donations, and adopting- than there are gay couples who start families that way.

Yet- we call them- with their children(regardless of whether they are born through invitro or adopted after their hetero parents abandoned them)- family.

And parents are the people who make the effort to raise the children- not the people who birth them and then abandon them to the state to find some couple to do what they weren't willing or able to do themselves.

"Gay couples can't reproduce" is grammatically correct

The fact that some married couples use the extraordinary means that gay couples use is beside the point. The bottom line is that a gay couple cannot conceive. Married couples are highly likely to conceive.

 

[kaz]

No one has a right to be subsidized by another.

People have legally protected rights, and some of those rights function as subsidies, however indirect. Whether the people who enjoy those rights have a right to those rights (granted by God or some other transcendent entity) is anyone's guess.

Hmmmm. . . . wrong. No one has a right to be subsidized by another person, period. The subsidies you refer to are a violation of your rights. No one is entitled to them.

Your phrase "a right to those rights" besides being supremely stupid, contradicts the definition of the term "right." You can't have rights that you don't have a right to.

Nobody is stopping ya'll from trying to end the cash and prizes you've given yourselves for being married. Go for it.

I have been trying to end them.

You're not being very successful.

I don't thing bripat's goal was to change the mind of you kool-aid chuggers, his goal was to show you to be the kook-aid chuggers that you are, and he has been nailing your asses to the wall on that point

 

[Seawytch]

People have legally protected rights, and some of those rights function as subsidies, however indirect. Whether the people who enjoy those rights have a right to those rights (granted by God or some other transcendent entity) is anyone's guess.

Hmmmm. . . . wrong. No one has a right to be subsidized by another person, period. The subsidies you refer to are a violation of your rights. No one is entitled to them.

Your phrase "a right to those rights" besides being supremely stupid, contradicts the definition of the term "right." You can't have rights that you don't have a right to.

Nobody is stopping ya'll from trying to end the cash and prizes you've given yourselves for being married. Go for it.

I have been trying to end them.

You're not being very successful.

I don't thing bripat's goal was to change the mind of you kool-aid chuggers, his goal was to show you to be the kook-aid chuggers that you are, and he has been nailing your asses to the wall on that point

He said he's being trying to end the cash and prizes that married folks get. Epic fail.

 

[bripat9643]

Hmmmm. . . . wrong. No one has a right to be subsidized by another person, period. The subsidies you refer to are a violation of your rights. No one is entitled to them.

Your phrase "a right to those rights" besides being supremely stupid, contradicts the definition of the term "right." You can't have rights that you don't have a right to.

Nobody is stopping ya'll from trying to end the cash and prizes you've given yourselves for being married. Go for it.

I have been trying to end them.

You're not being very successful.

I don't thing bripat's goal was to change the mind of you kool-aid chuggers, his goal was to show you to be the kook-aid chuggers that you are, and he has been nailing your asses to the wall on that point

He said he's being trying to end the cash and prizes that married folks get. Epic fail.

How does that contradict what Kaz said?

 

[kaz]

Hmmmm. . . . wrong. No one has a right to be subsidized by another person, period. The subsidies you refer to are a violation of your rights. No one is entitled to them.

Your phrase "a right to those rights" besides being supremely stupid, contradicts the definition of the term "right." You can't have rights that you don't have a right to.

Nobody is stopping ya'll from trying to end the cash and prizes you've given yourselves for being married. Go for it.

I have been trying to end them.

You're not being very successful.

I don't thing bripat's goal was to change the mind of you kool-aid chuggers, his goal was to show you to be the kook-aid chuggers that you are, and he has been nailing your asses to the wall on that point

He said he's being trying to end the cash and prizes that married folks get. Epic fail.

Actually, we need to end your bigoted discrimination and extend marriage privileges to everyone

 

[kaz]

Nobody is stopping ya'll from trying to end the cash and prizes you've given yourselves for being married. Go for it.

I have been trying to end them.

You're not being very successful.

I don't thing bripat's goal was to change the mind of you kool-aid chuggers, his goal was to show you to be the kook-aid chuggers that you are, and he has been nailing your asses to the wall on that point

He said he's being trying to end the cash and prizes that married folks get. Epic fail.

How does that contradict what Kaz said?

She just likes to say it, it doesn't have to make sense

 

[Seawytch]

Nobody is stopping ya'll from trying to end the cash and prizes you've given yourselves for being married. Go for it.

I have been trying to end them.

You're not being very successful.

I don't thing bripat's goal was to change the mind of you kool-aid chuggers, his goal was to show you to be the kook-aid chuggers that you are, and he has been nailing your asses to the wall on that point

He said he's being trying to end the cash and prizes that married folks get. Epic fail.

How does that contradict what Kaz said?

It wasn't meant to. What Kaz said was a non sequitur that had nothing to do with what I said. Nobody ever said that you were trying to change hearts and minds. You claimed you'd been trying to end the cash and prizes you straight folks gave yourselves. I said you're a failure at it.

And since you've never nailed anyone's ass to a wall on this forum, I think he just wanted to use those words in a sentence in a gay thread.

 

[Seawytch]

Nobody is stopping ya'll from trying to end the cash and prizes you've given yourselves for being married. Go for it.

I have been trying to end them.

You're not being very successful.

I don't thing bripat's goal was to change the mind of you kool-aid chuggers, his goal was to show you to be the kook-aid chuggers that you are, and he has been nailing your asses to the wall on that point

He said he's being trying to end the cash and prizes that married folks get. Epic fail.

Actually, we need to end your bigoted discrimination and extend marriage privileges to everyone

Go for it. Good luck. Call your Congressman.

 

[kaz]

I have been trying to end them.

You're not being very successful.

I don't thing bripat's goal was to change the mind of you kool-aid chuggers, his goal was to show you to be the kook-aid chuggers that you are, and he has been nailing your asses to the wall on that point

He said he's being trying to end the cash and prizes that married folks get. Epic fail.

How does that contradict what Kaz said?

It wasn't meant to. What Kaz said was a non sequitur that had nothing to do with what I said. Nobody ever said that you were trying to change hearts and minds. You claimed you'd been trying to end the cash and prizes you straight folks gave yourselves. I said you're a failure at it.

And since you've never nailed anyone's ass to a wall on this forum, I think he just wanted to use those words in a sentence in a gay thread.

Your ability to follow a thread much less coherently respond to the points is so dreadful, you aren't in any position to make a determination of who's sticking it to who

 

[kaz]

I have been trying to end them.

You're not being very successful.

I don't thing bripat's goal was to change the mind of you kool-aid chuggers, his goal was to show you to be the kook-aid chuggers that you are, and he has been nailing your asses to the wall on that point

He said he's being trying to end the cash and prizes that married folks get. Epic fail.

Actually, we need to end your bigoted discrimination and extend marriage privileges to everyone

Go for it. Good luck. Call your Congressman.

Why would I waste my time doing that?