Study finds US gay men becoming less promiscuous

Almost every tax bene comes with some expectation. What's expected?

I know you won't answer. I'll keep slamming away until one honest leftist steps up.

 

Don't hold your breath. They've already dreamed up an imaginary "Consitutional Right" to genital preference,as well as continued with the completely INSULTING fallacy that RACIAL RIGHTS are the "same" as sexual behavior(s).

 

I expect intellectual bankruptcy. I also expect to run this to 500 and make it go away.

- - - Updated - - -

Straight marriage is rewarded with benefits from society, tax benes, &c.

Why do we do this? What was the motivation?

And most importantly, why can't the anal sex advocates ever answer this without spewing piles of dung?

 

Nothing is expected. Why do you keep coming up with these red herrings over and over?

 

The same motivation white people had for not enslaving other white people back in the day?

Probably for the same reason anti-homo people refuse to answer the question of oral sex, and why it is not "unnatural" but anal sex is.

 

YOU are intellectually bankrupt. We have explain with adoptions, surrogate women, sterile heterosexuals, couples that don't want children, old age marriages. You only spout your religious beliefs as the reason against gay marriage but deny that you do.

 

Why are sterile couple allowed to marry? Why is a requirement for children not necessary for marriage?

Why are there drive through chapels in Las Vegas? Why is the straight divorce rate so high? Why do 22 states allow incest marriages?

It isn't at the edges, it is at the core. You are making the claim that marriage is about procreation, when the law says nothing about procreation being any kind of requirement. It is not even implied. You could sign a sworn statement saying you have no intent of ever having children, then get yourself sterilized, and the state will still happily give you a marriage license.

The state does not care about procreation when it comes to marriage. That is a completely fake argument.

 

Look at you and RR. You continue to repeat your obnoxious statements over and over again. Most of us are laughing at you because you have nothing original. Sticking your heads in the sands will not stop progress.

There is no such thing as "genital preference". Your penis will get hard no matter who is doing the work. It is your mind that determines what you prefer. If you think that a woman is working on it but you are blindfolded, your penis will react. Nobody but you compare race to "sexual behavior". We compare one individual's right do another individual's right. You can't argue that so you make up a phony comparison.

Marriage benefits are not based on procreation. People have lobbied for deductions because the expenses are higher for 2 than for 1. If one spouse is working and they are filing together, people believe that deductions for 2 people is not enough compared to one person's deductions. Couples believe that their wealth is shared by both and feel that, if one dies, that they should not be penalized for the wealth.

There are a whole bunch of reason why married couples get benefits and tax breaks that have nothing to do with procreation. The child deduction should also apply for gay couples too.

 

Best non sequitur/dodge/utter nonsense today.

Well done.

 

No. My question, as yet unaddressed, is why do we reward straight marriage? What is our societal expectation for this subsidy?

 

It is un-addressed, because it appears to be rhetorical.

If you want a serious answer, here it is: I do not agree with your premise that it is a reward. Or that the purpose of marriage is to get people to procreate.

There is none. Society is not expecting some kind of "payback". There is no obligation, explicit or implicit, that you are expected to do anything at all for the state in return for the privilege of state recognition of your marriage.

 

No expectation of society? A freebee? Then why are we rewarding it? Let's end that right freeeekin now, eh?

Yet another dishonest poster. Join a long list.

- - - Updated - - -

Straight marriage is rewarded with benefits from society, tax benes, &c.

Why do we do this? What was the motivation?

And most importantly, why can't the anal sex advocates ever answer this without spewing piles of dung?

.

 

You must not have read this:

Marriage benefits are not based on procreation. People have lobbied for deductions because the expenses are higher for 2 than for 1. If one spouse is working and they are filing together, people believe that deductions for 2 people is not enough compared to one person's deductions. Couples believe that their wealth is shared by both and feel that, if one dies, that they should not be penalized for the wealth.

There are a whole bunch of reason why married couples get benefits and tax breaks that have nothing to do with procreation. The child deduction should also apply for gay couples too.

 

Why do we reward marriage?

Just my personal take on it, but I believe we 'reward' marriage because a partnership between two people is more economically viable than a single person on his or her own.

Hence such marriage 'benefits' as community property, no inheritance tax between married couples, spouses entitled to survivor benefits.

All of these apply to married couples whether they are the same gender or opposite genders, whether they are fertile or not.

I think that the recession made it even more clear- take two people each with a job- one loses his/her job- the couple is better able to financially survice than a person on their own who loses his/her job.

- - - Updated - - -

Why this obsession with anal sex?

 

That's pretty creative.

Extending that idea, a partnership between 3 or 12 or 100 people would be really, really economically viable. Also, it's more likely that you're not working AT ALL if you're married than if you're single and not a Big Fed looter or moocher. Subsidizing a stay-at-home spouse is a decidedly bad play if you're looking to enhance economic viability.

Try again.

 

Not really. Pretty much my opinion backed up by real world observations of the economic struggles single persons face compared to 'married' couples.
Really fairly obvious.

If thats what you want- go for it. You asked me why the government provides benefits to married couples- and I gave a reason.

And there is a benefit to having a non-working spouse also. Anyone who has been part of a couple knows the trade off of benefits between a 'stay at home' spouse- and a working spouse.

There are benefits to a stay at home spouse, and there are costs to working. Those who have been married understand this.

Try again.

 

None add to 'economic viability'. No, you're avoiding the obvious. You're a fraud.

 

Correct. You are not obligated to give a d*mn thing back to society because you are married.

I would be ok with that. I agree. There is no reason to get any monetary benefit merely because you are married.

.

 

Good. No state incentive to marry. You realize this leads to more out-of-wedlock births and lower quality children in the labor pool, right? (fewer taxes collected, higher costs to educate, &c) And more criminals? Those have costs associated with them. You'd pay those?

 

johnny-one-note, tell us how married couples are reward. What benefits and what tax breaks?

 

not procreation

 

nope you make no sense whatsoever

 

Best response today.

Since you're always wrong, (like Krugman or Dick Morris) we can assume it's about the kids.

 

Marriage is between a man and a woman. even a gay man can marry a woman.

His rights are exactly the same as mine, and yours.

What you want is special rights, new rights, and bullcrap

 

There is no law that says marriage is between a man and a woman. So that is technically incorrect in the legal sense. If you mean the moral sense, that depends on the church. Some churches do not have that restriction.

And will remain so even after gay marriage is allowed. So what is the problem? Why do you want to restrict other people?

How are they special if you have them as well? What is wrong with having new rights?