Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[bodecea]

Gays have kids

Not gay couples, the concept of government marriage

Now you're railing against government marriage....not gay marriage?

Well that was easy.

Ask him what he's actively done to get rid of that government marriage he's so against.

He protested it by presumably getting a state issued marriage license.

NO WAY! I'm pretty sure he refused to get a government license...because if he did, that would make him a hypocrite since he keeps saying he doesn't believe government should be in marriage.

 

[kaz]

They just want you to stop telling them what to do, and stay away

Another liberal who can't read. That isn't what they want,my op post specifically addresses this. This is my libertarian ideology, I'll do what I want. If I'm not bothering anyone, stay the **** away from me.

My post, if you were literate, would point out they don't want me to stay away, they want me to send them $$$. That is what my post is about. No where did I say anywhere anyone should stop them from doing what they want. My question in my op post and in the thread title was why should I have to fund it?

Reading is fundamental, try reading the thread title and my first post and see if you can come up with something on topic. M'kay?

 

[kaz]

You're a moron. If your rights are denied by the government, you sue the government. You don't sit back and hope the legislature fights for your rights.

Exactly. Generally speaking rights aren't given. They're taken.

Wrong. You are born with all the rights you're ever going to have.

Then gays were born with the right to marry in 37 of 50 states.

Nope. The legislature doesn't have the power to create rights. It can only defend them or violate them.

The courts recognize the right to marry. And in 37 of 50 States, the courts recognize that gays have the right to same sex marriage.

You disagree. Um, so?

You're nobody. And define no rights for anyone.

The courts are full of shit. No one has a "right" to demand anything from others, including government. You only have the "right" to be left alone when you aren't infringing on other people's right to the same

 

[bodecea]

Exactly. Generally speaking rights aren't given. They're taken.

Wrong. You are born with all the rights you're ever going to have.

People often have to fight for their rights in our justice system.

According to you liberal turds, your rights are whatever the government tells you they are, so how can you "fight for them?"

Spouting more idiocy doesn't actually aid your position. Just thought you'd like to know.

Talk about idiocy, you aren't actually going to claim that liberal turds like you don't believe that, are you? I've had idiots in this forum tell me that at least 1000 times.

So tell us, numskull, where do rights come from?

We are born with them.

 

[bodecea]

Exactly. Generally speaking rights aren't given. They're taken.

Wrong. You are born with all the rights you're ever going to have.

Then gays were born with the right to marry in 37 of 50 states.

Nope. The legislature doesn't have the power to create rights. It can only defend them or violate them.

The courts recognize the right to marry. And in 37 of 50 States, the courts recognize that gays have the right to same sex marriage.

You disagree. Um, so?

You're nobody. And define no rights for anyone.

The courts are full of shit. No one has a "right" to demand anything from others, including government. You only have the "right" to be left alone when you aren't infringing on other people's right to the same

Gee, I guess you picked the wrong country to live in then. Bummer for you.

 

[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

You're not supposed to get anything out of a gay couple raising a family.

They just want you to stop telling them what to do, and stay away

Tell that to the baker who was fined $135,000.

The Baker didn't get fined because of gay marriage. He got fined because he violated PA laws.

If it was merely gay marriage.....why didn't all bakers in the state get the same fine?

The quote said gays "want you to stop telling them what to do, and stay away." That covers more than gay marriage, and bripat clearly showed another example that isn't what they want.

The baker wants the butt fuckers to "stop telling (him) what to do and stay away." Government took that right away, and that one was actually a right

 

[kaz]

Then your wife is not staying at home, which is the "concept of marriage," making it more affordable for kids to have stay at home mothers. Government isn't paying in your case for what it isn't getting, nothing wrong with her working or with government not paying for her to not work when she does work

Still waiting to hear how you ended being called 'husband' in your marriage- was it a popular election, did you just go by what your Daddy told you, or do you swap out titles with your wife?

I pay the bills

If you're the husband because you pay the bills; does that mean you become the wife if you lose your job and your wife starts paying the bills?

Yes, then I would be a little ***** like you

Nah, I'm the man in my house. Always and under any circumstances. You? You just admitted you can be the wife.

I'm a man by action, you claim manhood because you have a penis. And you think that's you looking good in this?

 

[kaz]

Gays have kids

Not gay couples, the concept of government marriage

Now you're railing against government marriage....not gay marriage?

Well that was easy.

Ask him what he's actively done to get rid of that government marriage he's so against.

Asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered

You want me to use your useless method instead of my effective one. When I give a shit what you think I should do, I'll inform you

 

[bodecea]

Still waiting to hear how you ended being called 'husband' in your marriage- was it a popular election, did you just go by what your Daddy told you, or do you swap out titles with your wife?

I pay the bills

If you're the husband because you pay the bills; does that mean you become the wife if you lose your job and your wife starts paying the bills?

Yes, then I would be a little ***** like you

Nah, I'm the man in my house. Always and under any circumstances. You? You just admitted you can be the wife.

I'm a man by action, you claim manhood because you have a penis. And you think that's you looking good in this?

Is that why you cry like a little girl? (No insult intended to little girls)

 

[bodecea]

Gays have kids

Not gay couples, the concept of government marriage

Now you're railing against government marriage....not gay marriage?

Well that was easy.

Ask him what he's actively done to get rid of that government marriage he's so against.

Asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered and asked and answered

You want me to use your useless method instead of my effective one. When I give a shit what you think I should do, I'll inform you

I would sure like the post number on this thread where you actually answered what you have ACTIVELY done to get rid of Government marriage. Perhaps someone else can point out where our Kaz answered that?

 

[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

Can you please explain how this gay couple is being subsidized by the tax payers by their marriage?

I don't know what subsidies you are speaking about? What tax benefit are they getting that anyone else is not getting?

Two big ones are they pay lower filing jointly tax rates and they are exempt from the death tax. Note it's liberals who demand we have a death tax.

You didn't know married people get those? Seriously?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:

1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.

2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended

So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.

If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?

The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question

I'd rather not have to pay for an offensive military or certain/most farm subsidies but I do.

SUAEI.

 

[kaz]

Even by your 'procreation' standard, SeaWitch meets every criteria

Nope, she had a test tube baby, she's the parent and the only parent in the government marriage. Read my original post

Now you are telling us about what kind of babies we had.

I assumed when you said the father was a gay man he didn't bang you, are you saying that's not the case? I admit that was an assumption on my part, you saying it was wrong?

 

[Faun]

Exactly. Generally speaking rights aren't given. They're taken.

Wrong. You are born with all the rights you're ever going to have.

Then gays were born with the right to marry in 37 of 50 states.

Nope. The legislature doesn't have the power to create rights. It can only defend them or violate them.

The courts recognize the right to marry. And in 37 of 50 States, the courts recognize that gays have the right to same sex marriage.

You disagree. Um, so?

You're nobody. And define no rights for anyone.

The courts are full of shit. No one has a "right" to demand anything from others, including government. You only have the "right" to be left alone when you aren't infringing on other people's right to the same

You are so ******* stupid, it's scary. Is this what Libertarianism is about? An ideology for the stupid to aggregate?

A primary role of the government is to protect our rights. If someone's rights are being denied, the court system you so disdain is a proper avenue for redress. You learned absolutely nothing from the founding of this nation. What a pity.

 

[kaz]

So you support a man marrying his dad? Gross!

If it makes you feel any better, I find that disgusting as well. But I do support choice. It's not my place to determine who can marry who as long as it's between consenting adults.

The question, if you ever decide to read my original post, is why we should be paying for that

Because they should be treated equal under the law.

Progress, finally. So when Republicans didn't want to cave to our Imperial Ruler and give him the budget he wanted, they had the right to say no? It's not just about money after all? You came 9 yards, can you go the last one for the first down and be the first liberal to grasp the thread?

 

[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:

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

Can you please explain how this gay couple is being subsidized by the tax payers by their marriage?

I don't know what subsidies you are speaking about? What tax benefit are they getting that anyone else is not getting?

Two big ones are they pay lower filing jointly tax rates and they are exempt from the death tax. Note it's liberals who demand we have a death tax.

You didn't know married people get those? Seriously?

Why shouldn't they get those?

 

[kaz]

You said I called the British PM and British Intelligence liars

Exactly, you worship Miriam, but you call the British Intelligence liars when they did the same thing. You can't deny it, and you don't

The obvious problem with your reasoning being......you lied about me calling the British PM and British Intelligence liars. You made it up.

And I absolutely deny calling the British PM and British Intelligence liars. I've never even debated the topic. You made up the debate, you made up my participation in it, you made up my dialogue. All pulled sideways out of your ass.

You lied, you were caught lying....and you're still desperately scrambling to keep perpetrating the lie.

Which is exactly my point.

So you admit the Democrats lied and W told the truth? He said, " “the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

You believe him and the Democrats lied when they said W lied? They played politics with the truth and lied their asses off when they said W lied?

Who said the British had to lie? They determined their intel was seriously flawed.

Flawed or not, they were W's source and he said so and Tony Blair stood behind that. So you admit W spoke the truth (as he believed it) and that means the Democrats lied their fricking asses off when they said he lied?

 

[Seawytch]

It's really gonna suck for them when the Supreme Court rules that same-sex marriage is Constitutional.

It will suck for everyone but the queers

Since it won't affect anyone but homosexuals, other than your teeny tiny 'ego' being offended, it won't suck for anyone.

Just ask the baker who had to pay a $135,000 fine whether it sucks.

That had nothing to do with legal marriage- Bakers need to follow the law like everyone else- yeah it does suck to be those who dont' want to follow the law.

It had everything to do with legal marriage. Do you think the queers would have sued the baker for not baking them a wedding cake if gay marriage was illegal in the state? First the gays got a liberal judge to overturn the law. Then they sued anyone who dared to decline catering to their fetish. The later was an immediate consequence of the former.

It had nothing to do with Civil Marriage. Gays can marry in a church or have a ceremony without the marriage license. We've been doing it for decades. Most of the Public Accommodation law cases were in states with no marriage equality. The case in question was in Oregon in 2013. Civil marriage didn't come to Oregon until 2014.

 

[bodecea]

Even by your 'procreation' standard, SeaWitch meets every criteria

Nope, she had a test tube baby, she's the parent and the only parent in the government marriage. Read my original post

Now you are telling us about what kind of babies we had.

I assumed when you said the father was a gay man he didn't bang you, are you saying that's not the case? I admit that was an assumption on my part, you saying it was wrong?

What are you saying here? Clarify your statement.

 

[Faun]

Still waiting to hear how you ended being called 'husband' in your marriage- was it a popular election, did you just go by what your Daddy told you, or do you swap out titles with your wife?

I pay the bills

If you're the husband because you pay the bills; does that mean you become the wife if you lose your job and your wife starts paying the bills?

Yes, then I would be a little ***** like you

Nah, I'm the man in my house. Always and under any circumstances. You? You just admitted you can be the wife.

I'm a man by action, you claim manhood because you have a penis. And you think that's you looking good in this?

You look like a little girl in this. I too pay the bills in my house. So what? But should some series unfortunate events occur and my wife starts covering the bills, the difference between you and I is that I am still the husband. You said that makes you the wife. You should get on your knees and beg your wife for your cock back. Maybe she'll give it to you.