• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gays movement without support

How do homosexuals affect your rights and taxes again?
Not at all, if they behave themselves and act in a respectful manner..
We have hundreds of issues in our nation far more important than "homosexual rights".
 
Day to 'call in gay' finds few willing to strike - Yahoo! News

Good people of California! I praise your indifference to such a degenerated movement which tries to destroy our society.

HAHAHA! That's funny! I wish these people would keep their sexuality to themselves instead of throwing it in everybody's face. Hell, I don't prance around telling everyone what I do in the bedroom.

But if you want to know, it'll cost you ten dollah!:lol:
 
Day to 'call in gay' finds few willing to strike - Yahoo! News

Good people of California! I praise your indifference to such a degenerated movement which tries to destroy our society.

Maybe since "the day without "immigrants"(pro-illegals codeword for illegals) was a flop maybe they figured "a day without gays" would be a even bigger flop. What it would like across the country "Oh look honey, what are those three or four guys standing over there wearing those sissy clothes and those mannish looking women wearing mullets standing over there holding those signs those for? Well dear they are having their day without gays protest."
 
Maybe since "the day without "immigrants"(pro-illegals codeword for illegals) was a flop maybe they figured "a day without gays" would be a even bigger flop. What it would like across the country "Oh look honey, what are those three or four guys standing over there wearing those sissy clothes and those mannish looking women wearing mullets standing over there holding those signs those for? Well dear they are having their day without gays protest."

:2funny:

I wonder if Pinkman was there....LMAO!!


135-3521_IMG.jpg



God, I love this guy!
 
I really don't see why anybody without children should get any sort of special help from the government.

Only people with children should get financial benefits, straight or gay.
 
HAHAHA! That's funny! I wish these people would keep their sexuality to themselves instead of throwing it in everybody's face. Hell, I don't prance around telling everyone what I do in the bedroom.

But if you want to know, it'll cost you ten dollah!:lol:

Um..are you kidding me? Do you even watch tv? Heterosexual sexuality is damn near everywhere you look.
 
I really don't see why anybody without children should get any sort of special help from the government.

Only people with children should get financial benefits, straight or gay.

I don't think people with children should get any benefits. People with children tend to use more public resources, if anything they should have to pay more.
 
I thought this thread was about some gay's bowel movement. It made sense to me because, well... you know...
 
I don't think people with children should get any benefits. People with children tend to use more public resources, if anything they should have to pay more.
If you have a child, then you know what it costs you. You think we don't pay enough? What public resources to we get, that outweigh the cost of raising a child?
 
If you have a child, then you know what it costs you. You think we don't pay enough? What public resources to we get, that outweigh the cost of raising a child?

People whom have kids are more likely to use the roads, the parks, schools...ok especially schools as people without children don't send their kids to school, etc. Things paid for with public money. There's no reason that just because you chose to have children that you should have to pay less to the government. The choice is an individual choice, you want kids. Good for you. Pay your own way. I don't think you should force others to pay your way just because you think you did something great by reproducing. Individual choice with individual consequence, live by the results and consequences of your own damned actions. Less of course you think it "takes a village" or some other crap like that.

I don't see why you believe that because you have kids you think that's justification to steal from me.
 
We're also producing future taxpayers, what are you producing?
 
We're also producing future taxpayers, what are you producing?

Current taxes to pay your way cause you can't abide by the full consequences of your own actions.
 
People whom have kids are more likely to use the roads, the parks, schools...ok especially schools as people without children don't send their kids to school, etc. Things paid for with public money. There's no reason that just because you chose to have children that you should have to pay less to the government. The choice is an individual choice, you want kids. Good for you. Pay your own way. I don't think you should force others to pay your way just because you think you did something great by reproducing. Individual choice with individual consequence, live by the results and consequences of your own damned actions. Less of course you think it "takes a village" or some other crap like that.

I don't see why you believe that because you have kids you think that's justification to steal from me.
Because "kids" are more than just "kids". They are the country's future. Thats why having a lot of children used to be important. They secured the existence of the nation.
 
Because "kids" are more than just "kids". They are the country's future. Thats why having a lot of children used to be important. They secured the existence of the nation.

Unfortunately, there's too many people having kids today that can't afford them, so off to the welfare lines they go.
 
I don't think people with children should get any benefits. People with children tend to use more public resources, if anything they should have to pay more.

So do you think married people should get special benefits who don't have any children? And why?
 
Unfortunately, there's too many people having kids today that can't afford them, so off to the welfare lines they go.
:sigh:

The average birth rate in america disgrees with your assessment.

So, whos fault is that, again?
 
Because "kids" are more than just "kids". They are the country's future. Thats why having a lot of children used to be important. They secured the existence of the nation.

That's fine, but it's not my job to raise your kids. That's fact. How many people rallied against the "It takes a village" nonsense Hillary spewed? It doesn't take a a village, it takes responsible adults. Maybe I don't want kids, why should I be paying for everyone else's kids then? I didn't make the choice, you did. Live by it. Children do eventually bring benefit, and they will have to work and do what they can and maybe have kids of their own; but it's all individual choice. I shouldn't be held financially responsible for your choice to have kids. Why do I have to pay for schools? Because it provides some benefit to society? Great, good job doing a duty to "society". But it was your choice, it is then your responsibility. I didn't agree to help raise your kids, so you should quit stealing from me in order to do it.
 
So do you think married people should get special benefits who don't have any children? And why?

I don't think married people should get any special benefits.
 
:sigh:

The average birth rate in america disgrees with your assessment.

So, whos fault is that, again?

We're doing great. We're at replacement, just a tad above with immigration. That's exactly where you want to be. Unlike most of the West and Japan who have negative population growth. We're currently having just the right number of offspring.
 
I can see it now, no tax relief for kids, so the birth rate drops and next thing you know we have to import cheap labor from foreign countries to wipe the asses of the elderly in the nursing homes....either that or pay minimum wage of $1000.00 per hour for the local citizen raised and educated at great expense to his or her family....:2razz:
 
I can see it now, no tax relief for kids, so the birth rate drops and next thing you know we have to import cheap labor from foreign countries to wipe the asses of the elderly in the nursing homes....either that or pay minimum wage of $1000.00 per hour for the local citizen raised and educated at great expense to his or her family....:2razz:

There should be no tax relief, or if there is it should be limited. 3K per kid without limit, you can birth yourself out of taxes. If your contention is that you have to have these tax breaks to raise children, then maybe that says that the overall tax rate is too high.

Why is it that a lot of resistance to the "pay your own way" doctrine comes from the very same people who argue the rich should keep more of their money? They earned it, they should keep it right? Well I earn mine too, why do I need to pay for you? Also, minimum wage should be abolished.
 
Back
Top Bottom