Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Syriusly]

• Does the Constitution require all states to offer marriage licenses to same-sex couples

• If not, does the Constitution require states to recognize the marriage rights of same-sex couples who are already married?

• Those are the questions before court- nothing about 'gay marriage'

 

[Seawytch]

Irrelevant to the discussion since gays can marry exactly who straights can. Wanting something different is a matter for the legislature

Thats a villainous cop out.

You gonna cry, Nancy? Oh, those poor gays, you feel so bad for them.

It comes down to what you think is the role of the courts. Is the role of the courts to follow the law? That is a literal process. Are gays literally treated different than straights. No, they are not. Being gay didn't change who they could marry. Did being black changed who you could marry? Damned straight it did, it changed everyone you could marry.

The only way you get there with gays is to put in variables, like "who they want." Gays can marry the same people as straights, but they want something different, that is a job for the legislature, not the courts.

What should scare the ever loving **** out of you is the idea that judgess can change laws because they think they are not fair. Suppose judges says it's not fair to murder a baby in womb, so abortion is banned for everyone everywhere.

See, you want judges to decree what you want. I want them to decree nothing. That I may get my way on some issue isn't worth it, what's far too scary to me is the power they seize when they change laws because they deem them to not be fair

The intent of the laws matter. Just so you know.

So you're OK with Federal judges banning all abortions if they point out that legal abortion violates the "intent" of murder laws and is therefore a violation of our right to not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law?

DOMA violates the US Constitution...which is why gay couples have been able to redress their grievances to the SCOTUS (and will win).

 

[G.T.]

Irrelevant to the discussion since gays can marry exactly who straights can. Wanting something different is a matter for the legislature

Thats a villainous cop out.

You gonna cry, Nancy? Oh, those poor gays, you feel so bad for them.

It comes down to what you think is the role of the courts. Is the role of the courts to follow the law? That is a literal process. Are gays literally treated different than straights. No, they are not. Being gay didn't change who they could marry. Did being black changed who you could marry? Damned straight it did, it changed everyone you could marry.

The only way you get there with gays is to put in variables, like "who they want." Gays can marry the same people as straights, but they want something different, that is a job for the legislature, not the courts.

What should scare the ever loving **** out of you is the idea that judgess can change laws because they think they are not fair. Suppose judges says it's not fair to murder a baby in womb, so abortion is banned for everyone everywhere.

See, you want judges to decree what you want. I want them to decree nothing. That I may get my way on some issue isn't worth it, what's far too scary to me is the power they seize when they change laws because they deem them to not be fair

The intent of the laws matter. Just so you know.

So you're OK with Federal judges banning all abortions if they point out that legal abortion violates the "intent" of murder laws and is therefore a violation of our right to not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law?

Thats a drool cup.of an analogy there, dingus. Holy shit.

 

[bodecea]

I wonder if Kaz would like to join my SCOTUS SSM bet line.

 

[Seawytch]

I wonder if Kaz would like to join my SCOTUS SSM bet line.

Nope...he knows those "activist judges" aren't going to rule the way he wants...hence the whining thread about "subsidizing" gays who are civilly married.

 

[G.T.]

Its sad to see someone attempt to intellectual convince themselves that theres solid reasoning for their bigotry.

How insecure that you dont even trust your own thoughts.

 

[Faun]

I didn't evade you being rightwing now -- I echoed your claim that you were a rightie but now you're not. Capiche?

Thanks for proving me correct though. I appreciate it, rightie.

Yep, you are a clown. Why'd you vote for Romney, anyway, Republican?

Why on Earth do you think I voted for Romney?? You really can't tell I didn't since I'm poking fun at him? But lemme guess ... you voted for that clown, didn'tcha?

 

[Faun]

How are they exempt from the Estate tax?

Seriously? OK, government marriage exempts you from the estate tax, there is no limit to how much money you can get from your partner and not pay tax on it. You didn't know that?

And, I am certain this has been mentioned...but....

Are you actually saying, those who are married and getting this subsidy (as you call it) are part of the "47"% sucking off the gvt teat?

The 47% are taxpayers who don't pay any taxes. Gays would be at all income levels. Some would be in the 47% anyway some not either way, some would go from the 53% to the 47%. I'm not clear how you get that gays as a whole would or wouldn't be tax payers from anything I said

I thought you all believed that tax breaks are not truly tax breaks because the money is really the person's who earned the money...?

It's not that simple. I'll answer it two ways.

In the spirit of the thread

1) This thread isn't about my view, it's about holding liberals accountable to your own standard. The "hypocrisy" you claim ironically is on you, that's the point of the thread, your leftists standards are endless hypocrisies.
2) Leftists, the ones who want gay government marriage, are the same ones who want the death tax and high progressive taxes, then OMG, not for gays though. So again, you struck hypocrisy. And it is you. LOL

My actual view

I support evading and avoiding taxes in any possible way. I only don't cheat on my taxes because I keep my eye on the sparrow. However, that doesn't mean I can't point out your hypocrisy. Ironically, you noticed your hypocrisy as well...

You all need to make up your minds on this crud and stop being so hypocritical....imho.

Leftists make up an endlessly convoluted and contractory bull shit system and to counter anything you want we are supposed to take your ball of yarn and untangle it perfectly or we are "so hypocritical." What a load of bull

Are you exempt from the estate tax?

Yes. I did my duty as a red blooded American and screwed until I had a brood. Though granted I didn't stop then...

You realize this doesn't contradict my post. I did the concept of marriage, gays can't. They can adopt or have test tube children, but what are we getting out of that?

What we are getting out of that, at least in the case of adoption, is a home welcoming children who were abandoned by their natural parents.

That's what the gays get, the question is what do taxpayers get? Gays aren't going to make babies, and they aren't going to adopt because they get a tax break. In hetero relationships, there is way more too it

Asked an answered. I can't help you are really so ******* stupid that you don't understand how placing abandoned children in homes is a benefit to society; not just to the parents adopting the children.

You really are fucked in the head, kaz. How do you not understand something as basic as that?

 

[Faun]

Irrelevant to the discussion since gays can marry exactly who straights can. Wanting something different is a matter for the legislature

Thats a villainous cop out.

You gonna cry, Nancy? Oh, those poor gays, you feel so bad for them.

It comes down to what you think is the role of the courts. Is the role of the courts to follow the law? That is a literal process. Are gays literally treated different than straights. No, they are not. Being gay didn't change who they could marry. Did being black changed who you could marry? Damned straight it did, it changed everyone you could marry.

The only way you get there with gays is to put in variables, like "who they want." Gays can marry the same people as straights, but they want something different, that is a job for the legislature, not the courts.

What should scare the ever loving **** out of you is the idea that judgess can change laws because they think they are not fair. Suppose judges says it's not fair to murder a baby in womb, so abortion is banned for everyone everywhere.

See, you want judges to decree what you want. I want them to decree nothing. That I may get my way on some issue isn't worth it, what's far too scary to me is the power they seize when they change laws because they deem them to not be fair

You dumbfuck, marrying "who you want" is possibly the most important criteria. Who marries someone they don't want?? Marrying "who you want" is fundamental towards the inalienable right to pursue happiness. Why on Earth should gays be denied that equal protection?

 

[toxicmedia]

you'll have to explain all that to God someday, and he'll know the truth

Gyod, another right wing, religious whack job. Go peddle your damnation somewhere else to someone who gives a shit about your intolerant religious beliefs. Still missing Jerry Fallwell and The People That Loathe Club, aren't you??

Ummmmmm........yeah............

Because my being a right winger has been a problem around here

 

[kaz]

Irrelevant to the discussion since gays can marry exactly who straights can. Wanting something different is a matter for the legislature

Thats a villainous cop out.

You gonna cry, Nancy? Oh, those poor gays, you feel so bad for them.

It comes down to what you think is the role of the courts. Is the role of the courts to follow the law? That is a literal process. Are gays literally treated different than straights. No, they are not. Being gay didn't change who they could marry. Did being black changed who you could marry? Damned straight it did, it changed everyone you could marry.

The only way you get there with gays is to put in variables, like "who they want." Gays can marry the same people as straights, but they want something different, that is a job for the legislature, not the courts.

What should scare the ever loving **** out of you is the idea that judgess can change laws because they think they are not fair. Suppose judges says it's not fair to murder a baby in womb, so abortion is banned for everyone everywhere.

See, you want judges to decree what you want. I want them to decree nothing. That I may get my way on some issue isn't worth it, what's far too scary to me is the power they seize when they change laws because they deem them to not be fair

The intent of the laws matter. Just so you know.

So you're OK with Federal judges banning all abortions if they point out that legal abortion violates the "intent" of murder laws and is therefore a violation of our right to not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law?

Thats a drool cup.of an analogy there, dingus. Holy shit.

Exactly my point, judges should just give you what you want. Skip the legislature. Should they just give other people what they want and skip the legislature? What? That's a "drool cup" to you, unimaginable, only you get your way by decree

 

[kaz]

Irrelevant to the discussion since gays can marry exactly who straights can. Wanting something different is a matter for the legislature

Thats a villainous cop out.

You gonna cry, Nancy? Oh, those poor gays, you feel so bad for them.

It comes down to what you think is the role of the courts. Is the role of the courts to follow the law? That is a literal process. Are gays literally treated different than straights. No, they are not. Being gay didn't change who they could marry. Did being black changed who you could marry? Damned straight it did, it changed everyone you could marry.

The only way you get there with gays is to put in variables, like "who they want." Gays can marry the same people as straights, but they want something different, that is a job for the legislature, not the courts.

What should scare the ever loving **** out of you is the idea that judgess can change laws because they think they are not fair. Suppose judges says it's not fair to murder a baby in womb, so abortion is banned for everyone everywhere.

See, you want judges to decree what you want. I want them to decree nothing. That I may get my way on some issue isn't worth it, what's far too scary to me is the power they seize when they change laws because they deem them to not be fair

The intent of the laws matter. Just so you know.

So you're OK with Federal judges banning all abortions if they point out that legal abortion violates the "intent" of murder laws and is therefore a violation of our right to not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law?

If it happens, it happens. Now.......when is it likely to happen? Let us know, eh?

Once again showing your standard isn't your standard, it's just a transactional justification for what you want

 

[kaz]

you'll have to explain all that to God someday, and he'll know the truth

Gyod, another right wing, religious whack job. Go peddle your damnation somewhere else to someone who gives a shit about your intolerant religious beliefs. Still missing Jerry Fallwell and The People That Loathe Club, aren't you??

Ummmmmm........yeah............

Because my being a right winger has been a problem around here

Whatever, you started ranting about God and judging people and it sounded like any other right wing Christian bigot to me

 

[kaz]

I didn't evade you being rightwing now -- I echoed your claim that you were a rightie but now you're not. Capiche?

Thanks for proving me correct though. I appreciate it, rightie.

Yep, you are a clown. Why'd you vote for Romney, anyway, Republican?

Why on Earth do you think I voted for Romney?? You really can't tell I didn't since I'm poking fun at him? But lemme guess ... you voted for that clown, didn'tcha?

You are the one insisting we have a right winger in the conversation, so you get to be it

 

[kaz]

Seriously? OK, government marriage exempts you from the estate tax, there is no limit to how much money you can get from your partner and not pay tax on it. You didn't know that?

The 47% are taxpayers who don't pay any taxes. Gays would be at all income levels. Some would be in the 47% anyway some not either way, some would go from the 53% to the 47%. I'm not clear how you get that gays as a whole would or wouldn't be tax payers from anything I said

It's not that simple. I'll answer it two ways.

In the spirit of the thread

1) This thread isn't about my view, it's about holding liberals accountable to your own standard. The "hypocrisy" you claim ironically is on you, that's the point of the thread, your leftists standards are endless hypocrisies.
2) Leftists, the ones who want gay government marriage, are the same ones who want the death tax and high progressive taxes, then OMG, not for gays though. So again, you struck hypocrisy. And it is you. LOL

My actual view

I support evading and avoiding taxes in any possible way. I only don't cheat on my taxes because I keep my eye on the sparrow. However, that doesn't mean I can't point out your hypocrisy. Ironically, you noticed your hypocrisy as well...

Leftists make up an endlessly convoluted and contractory bull shit system and to counter anything you want we are supposed to take your ball of yarn and untangle it perfectly or we are "so hypocritical." What a load of bull

Are you exempt from the estate tax?

Yes. I did my duty as a red blooded American and screwed until I had a brood. Though granted I didn't stop then...

You realize this doesn't contradict my post. I did the concept of marriage, gays can't. They can adopt or have test tube children, but what are we getting out of that?

What we are getting out of that, at least in the case of adoption, is a home welcoming children who were abandoned by their natural parents.

That's what the gays get, the question is what do taxpayers get? Gays aren't going to make babies, and they aren't going to adopt because they get a tax break. In hetero relationships, there is way more too it

Asked an answered. I can't help you are really so ******* stupid that you don't understand how placing abandoned children in homes is a benefit to society; not just to the parents adopting the children.

You really are fucked in the head, kaz. How do you not understand something as basic as that?

So gays only take "abandoned babies" if they make a buck off it? Other than that, they won't do it?

And we're supposed to pay off all gays and just hope enough of them take abandoned babies to make it worth it?

I'd rather just pay whoever takes the abandoned babies to care for them and skip the paying people for screwing their own sex part entirely

 

[kaz]

Irrelevant to the discussion since gays can marry exactly who straights can. Wanting something different is a matter for the legislature

Thats a villainous cop out.

You gonna cry, Nancy? Oh, those poor gays, you feel so bad for them.

It comes down to what you think is the role of the courts. Is the role of the courts to follow the law? That is a literal process. Are gays literally treated different than straights. No, they are not. Being gay didn't change who they could marry. Did being black changed who you could marry? Damned straight it did, it changed everyone you could marry.

The only way you get there with gays is to put in variables, like "who they want." Gays can marry the same people as straights, but they want something different, that is a job for the legislature, not the courts.

What should scare the ever loving **** out of you is the idea that judgess can change laws because they think they are not fair. Suppose judges says it's not fair to murder a baby in womb, so abortion is banned for everyone everywhere.

See, you want judges to decree what you want. I want them to decree nothing. That I may get my way on some issue isn't worth it, what's far too scary to me is the power they seize when they change laws because they deem them to not be fair

You dumbfuck, marrying "who you want" is possibly the most important criteria. Who marries someone they don't want?? Marrying "who you want" is fundamental towards the inalienable right to pursue happiness. Why on Earth should gays be denied that equal protection?

You dumb ****, "who you want" is not a legal standard, it's a variable. Name another law that changes based on what you "want"

 

[Faun]

I didn't evade you being rightwing now -- I echoed your claim that you were a rightie but now you're not. Capiche?

Thanks for proving me correct though. I appreciate it, rightie.

Yep, you are a clown. Why'd you vote for Romney, anyway, Republican?

Why on Earth do you think I voted for Romney?? You really can't tell I didn't since I'm poking fun at him? But lemme guess ... you voted for that clown, didn'tcha?

You are the one insisting we have a right winger in the conversation, so you get to be it

I'll take that as a, "yes," between the two of us, it was you who voted for that rightwing clown.

 

[Faun]

Irrelevant to the discussion since gays can marry exactly who straights can. Wanting something different is a matter for the legislature

Thats a villainous cop out.

You gonna cry, Nancy? Oh, those poor gays, you feel so bad for them.

It comes down to what you think is the role of the courts. Is the role of the courts to follow the law? That is a literal process. Are gays literally treated different than straights. No, they are not. Being gay didn't change who they could marry. Did being black changed who you could marry? Damned straight it did, it changed everyone you could marry.

The only way you get there with gays is to put in variables, like "who they want." Gays can marry the same people as straights, but they want something different, that is a job for the legislature, not the courts.

What should scare the ever loving **** out of you is the idea that judgess can change laws because they think they are not fair. Suppose judges says it's not fair to murder a baby in womb, so abortion is banned for everyone everywhere.

See, you want judges to decree what you want. I want them to decree nothing. That I may get my way on some issue isn't worth it, what's far too scary to me is the power they seize when they change laws because they deem them to not be fair

You dumbfuck, marrying "who you want" is possibly the most important criteria. Who marries someone they don't want?? Marrying "who you want" is fundamental towards the inalienable right to pursue happiness. Why on Earth should gays be denied that equal protection?

You dumb ****, "who you want" is not a legal standard, it's a variable. Name another law that changes based on what you "want"

Dumbfuck ... the pursuit of happiness is an inalienable right. Marrying "who you want" is fundamental towards that.

 

[Faun]

Are you exempt from the estate tax?

Yes. I did my duty as a red blooded American and screwed until I had a brood. Though granted I didn't stop then...

You realize this doesn't contradict my post. I did the concept of marriage, gays can't. They can adopt or have test tube children, but what are we getting out of that?

What we are getting out of that, at least in the case of adoption, is a home welcoming children who were abandoned by their natural parents.

That's what the gays get, the question is what do taxpayers get? Gays aren't going to make babies, and they aren't going to adopt because they get a tax break. In hetero relationships, there is way more too it

Asked an answered. I can't help you are really so ******* stupid that you don't understand how placing abandoned children in homes is a benefit to society; not just to the parents adopting the children.

You really are fucked in the head, kaz. How do you not understand something as basic as that?

So gays only take "abandoned babies" if they make a buck off it? Other than that, they won't do it?

And we're supposed to pay off all gays and just hope enough of them take abandoned babies to make it worth it?

I'd rather just pay whoever takes the abandoned babies to care for them and skip the paying people for screwing their own sex part entirely

Never said gays only adopt abandoned babies if they make a buck off it. They would likely adopt them if they didn't. This would be another case of you seeing things that are not there. It's why you're as demented as you are.

 

[toxicmedia]

you'll have to explain all that to God someday, and he'll know the truth

Gyod, another right wing, religious whack job. Go peddle your damnation somewhere else to someone who gives a shit about your intolerant religious beliefs. Still missing Jerry Fallwell and The People That Loathe Club, aren't you??

Ummmmmm........yeah............

Because my being a right winger has been a problem around here

Whatever, you started ranting about God and judging people and it sounded like any other right wing Christian bigot to me

No, I'm the bigot who displays prejudice against people who oppose gays, and/or gay marriage.

I'm really irrational about it too. It comes from a childhood full of fights between me, and people who used to pick on my brother, who came out years after.

It's just a little PTSD