BF2S Forums Are ALL opponents of gay marriage closet gays?

Because they're intended to help people raise kids in a normal family unit.

The alternative is to give cash to everyone with a kid, gays, unmarrieds, absentee fathers, you name it.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-05-07 06:14:39)

ghettoperson wrote:

Fuck off. So sterile married people shouldn't get tax breaks? People who get vasectomies? People who don't want kids? What about (married) gay couples who adopt?

Nope.

No one should get tax breaks for just 'getting married'. The tax incentives should be a direct payment to the welfare of children and have nothing to do with adults married single, gay or straight.

DrunkFace wrote:

ghettoperson wrote:

Fuck off. So sterile married people shouldn't get tax breaks? People who get vasectomies? People who don't want kids? What about (married) gay couples who adopt?

Nope.

No one should get tax breaks for just 'getting married'. The tax incentives should be a direct payment to the welfare of children and have nothing to do with adults married single, gay or straight.

But then you get people producing kids just for the cash, as they do in Aus.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

When you get down to it all, what motivation do people have to be against gay marriage?
Does it affect them in their day to day life?
Sounds more like they just want to interfere further whilst justifying their own feeling of self righteousness.
Give it another decade or so. They'll be teaching our grandchildren in school how backward today's society was on this issue.

From my perspective its not about interfering, its know what the next steps will be.
They'll want tax breaks, pension benefits, 'rights' to have/adopt/surrogate children - gays demanding govt funded IVF treatment for example, etc.
Ley them 'marry' but don't give them the social benefits due to heterosexual couples.

But that's kinda saying that gay people can't be good parents, when a lot can be, and there are heaps of heterosexual parents who are terrible at it.
Also, why not give them the social benefits as a heterosexual couple? Some couples never want children, so gay couples should receive equal to them, in my view.

At the end of a day a relationship is a relationship, if there are two consenting adults in a loving, supportive relationship gender shouldn't play all that big a role. Gay rights are just the next social evolutionary step from equality between the sexes and races.

My personal bottom-line:

These tax breaks are to encourage responsible middle-class married couples to have (more) kids and raise them properly and successfully.
They aren't to help scumballs produce chavs by the dozen - they seem to do that already - hence they are usually given in the form of tax breaks and not cash (except in Aus....).

Gays and lesbians shouldn't get the same benefits - I don't think they should be forming pseudo-families, its not good for the kids or society.
Don't really care if that makes me a bigot.

Dilbert_X wrote:

These tax breaks are to encourage responsible middle-class married couples to have (more) kids and raise them properly and successfully.
They aren't to help scumballs produce chavs by the dozen - they seem to do that already - hence they are usually given in the form of tax breaks and not cash (except in Aus....).

lol at the emphasis on middle-class. Class has fuck all to do with it.

Dilbert_X wrote:

its not good for the kids or society.
Don't really care if that makes me a bigot.

Fucking prove it cos many more clever minds have tried and failed. In fact the opposite is true.

Yes it makes you a bigot, or at least ignoratn about what you're saying. You and lowing should get on.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its not good for society for unemployed trash to be breeding faster than intelligent hard working people, which is why most countries have incentive and disincentive schemes in place to try to tip the balance.

Fucking prove it cos many more clever minds have tried and failed. In fact the opposite is true.

I don't plan to try to prove it, thats my opinion and I don't care if you don't like it.
Now prove the opposite is true, if you can.

right but you're assuming 'intelligent hard working people' can only be found in the 'succesful middle-classes' which is bullshit. Plus being hard working or whatever has fuck all to do with how good you are at raising children.

It's not even your opinion but a prejudice - you clearly haven't researched the issue or know what you're talking about

Dilbert_X wrote:

Generally speaking trash will beget trash, ineducated stupid people are going to be less knowledgeable or skilled at raising children, people without a work ethic will struggle to instil a work ethic in their children.
One of the best predictors of how successful a child will be is how successful their father was.

So you judge the parents on how 'successful' their children are, not on whether or not they raise kids who love people, don't cause harm, care for the environment, live good lives, but only on...what? Success? How much money you can make? Fuck that shit. Succesful parents who work all day and don't spend time with their kids create snotty fucked up sprogs who might then be succesful i.e. make money and work in fukcing banks but are complete cunts. So no, I don't agree with your assessment regarding the best parents as succesful middle-class cocks.

Work-ethic isn't the be all and end all of life. Quite the opposite. Raising kids isn't just about creating another cog in the capitalist wheel. I DO think that people should be given education on how to raise kids cos a LOT of parents from al classes know fuck-all about it. I couldn't care less really what the parent is like so long as they raise nice people cos we have more than enough wankers around.

edit: and regarding the OP so as not to get too off topic, why then wouldn't succesful, intelligent middle-class gay people make better parents than heterosexual chavs?

Last edited by ruisleipa (2010-05-08 00:52:18)

The New Uk government want to bring in tax breaks for married couples.
The lazy bitches who get pregnant to get a house round here might marry their waster boy friends instead of saying they don't know who the father is to get their free everything. Must be hundreds of them in my small town.

The fathers then live like lords with the GF and kid and dont have to work. They spend all day in the pub. Its the new scam.

As soon as you start encouraging people, to marry, have kids, be a single mother etc by offering tax breaks and incentives. Kids and marriage become a new way of making money. So people who wouldn't and many who just shouldn't, have kids, do.
Should be a clear separation money and the fabric of family.

Turquoise wrote:

Here's a thought...

Why give tax breaks to any couples at all?  I see no reason to subsidize marriage, coupling, or having kids.  Your choice in any of those is your business, but there's no reason to promote it through tax incentives.

Sounds like a trap to me

Turquoise wrote:

Seriously though...  lol...  I just never understood the need for it.  It's not like we're in dire need of more kids.  There are too many people on this planet already.

Simplistic.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Seriously though...  lol...  I just never understood the need for it.  It's not like we're in dire need of more kids.  There are too many people on this planet already.

The capitalist system relies on continuous growth and therefore an ever increasing supply of eager consumers/taxpayers.

Find a CEO who says 'I'd like this company to make the same money we made last year, or less. Definitely not more'
Or a politician who wants to spend less tax money than last year.

I'm with Agent Smith, we are like bacteria.

No argument here, but immigration more than takes care of that in most developed countries.

You don't have to bribe immigrants to raise kids.  They do it out of their own volition without any expectation of handouts -- well, in most cases, anyway.