Is gay marriage the most important issue in the USA?

[Syriusly]

You don't hate gays you just think they are PEDOPHILES and CARPET MUNCHERS.

WOW JUST WOW!!!

No, people who molest boys, are PEDOPHILES. Gay people are not pedophiles. People who have sex with consenting adults are not pedophiles, you dumb shit. And no, the majority of peds are not gay that is a baseless lie.

not all gays are pediphiles, but all pediphiles are gay, draw your own conclusions.

So you are now claiming that priests who rape young boys are not gay??????? really?

I did not say the sisters partaking in carpet munching were gay, you said that.

No. Pedophilia has NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING GAY OR HETEROSEXUAL, you dumb shit. WTF is wrong with you? Seriously? WTF is wrong with you?

Bullshit, a sick male who molests little boys is GAY. a sick female who molests girls is GAY.

Yes, a male who molests girls may or may not be gay, but he is sick and should be locked away from society.

So let me get this straight- because it is always hard to get a straight answer from a confused homophobe.

A father who has been married for 20 years to a woman, with no record of ever having sex with a man, molests his own son- and therefore he is 'gay'?

What- the previous 20 years of heterosexual adult sex suddenly disappears according to you when a sick perv molests children?

We can agree that any child molester should be locked away- regardless of whether or not the man is attracted to adult females or adult males.

You are the one who keeps looking for some area of agreement- stop trying to call child molesters 'gay' and lets all agree that the sick monsters who prey on children should be locked up.

What is it about those years that defines him as "heterosexual"? The actions.

So what is it about molesting his son that defines him as "homosexual"? The action.

Leaving alone for a moment the unlikelihood of someone out-of-the-blue becoming a child molester for the first time in his 30s or 40s, this person would actually be defined as a bisexual.

This is what happens when people insist on re-defining reality every time it doesn't suit them: they get bogged down and confused by extraneous bullshit.

No- this is what happens when homophobes insist on calling homosexuals pedophiles.

The majority of men who molest boys identify themselves as 'heterosexual'- which makes sense since all of their adult relationships are with women. This includes fathers/stepfathers/grandfathers/brothers/uncles.

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% of cases in which an adult molester could be identified – only 2 of the 269 cases (Jenny et al., 1994).

Calling child sexual abuse the same thing as adult consensual sex(heterosexual or homosexual) is no different than calling rape, sex.

 

[Syriusly]

Swish, missed my OP post again, that isn't what I said.

And not wanting to give people tax breaks to mate when they can't reproduce is being a "bigot." Noted

But that's not what your OP said. Your OP singles out gay people and does not include straight people having non productive sex.

(Gays can and do reproduce...Stupid bigots don't realize that gay does not equal infertile)

That's s lie. Homosexuals can not produce. What they can do is use the genetic material of someone of the opposite sex to create a baby but the homosexual couple themselves did not reproduce.

Homosexuals have kids every day. What makes you think homosexuals can't have kids? Are you a moron? Here's how it works.. Gay guy walks up to woman, says let's make a baby. She agrees they engage in coitus. Nine months later baby comes out. See how that works?

Wow, you should read the OP post. The thread isn't about test tubes and adoption

The thread is about the fallacy that the tax system rewards people for not having children...

...the truth is exactly the opposite.

No it's not, you idiot. First, you are in the wrong thread. Second, read my OP post. The thread is about the opposite, that the tax code rewards people for having children. What is wrong with you? What grade did you drop out of school?

The tax code rewards people for having children- regardless of whether or not the parents marry.
Regardless of whether or not the children are their biological children.

This thread is just about you wanting your marriage bennies, and having gay couples pay for them, while denying gay couples the same bennies.

 

[Lilah]

No. Pedophilia has NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING GAY OR HETEROSEXUAL, you dumb shit. WTF is wrong with you? Seriously? WTF is wrong with you?

Bullshit, a sick male who molests little boys is GAY. a sick female who molests girls is GAY.

Yes, a male who molests girls may or may not be gay, but he is sick and should be locked away from society.

So let me get this straight- because it is always hard to get a straight answer from a confused homophobe.

A father who has been married for 20 years to a woman, with no record of ever having sex with a man, molests his own son- and therefore he is 'gay'?

What- the previous 20 years of heterosexual adult sex suddenly disappears according to you when a sick perv molests children?

We can agree that any child molester should be locked away- regardless of whether or not the man is attracted to adult females or adult males.

You are the one who keeps looking for some area of agreement- stop trying to call child molesters 'gay' and lets all agree that the sick monsters who prey on children should be locked up.

What is it about those years that defines him as "heterosexual"? The actions.

So what is it about molesting his son that defines him as "homosexual"? The action.

Leaving alone for a moment the unlikelihood of someone out-of-the-blue becoming a child molester for the first time in his 30s or 40s, this person would actually be defined as a bisexual.

This is what happens when people insist on re-defining reality every time it doesn't suit them: they get bogged down and confused by extraneous bullshit.

W-what?

Was I mumbling? No, couldn't have, I'm typing. Which words didn't you understand?

Words are not the problem; it's your inability to use them correctly.

 

[Syriusly]

What makes you think homosexuals are incapable of heterosexual acts? And no, just because some girl prefers girls over men does not mean she is incapable of choosing to have sex with a man to get pregnant. People have sex all the time, being gay does not prevent normal intercourse, nor does it prevent them from walking in a straight line, nor does it prevent them from talking like heteros. ROFL

Perversion is a learned response

Is that your excuse for your perverted acts on gays?

I know lots of happy people but I am pretty sure I didn't do perverted things with all of them.

Then you've changed your mind and are now in favor of gays having rights.

Lmao you are under the delusion that gay means homosexual lol

Not a delusion- just being conversant with a dictionary. A delusion would be like you- pretending that gay does not mean homosexual even though you know the dictionary says otherwise.

Webster:
1gay
adjective \ˈgā\
: sexually attracted to someone who is the same sex

: of, relating to, or used by homosexuals

: happy and excited : cheerful and lively

 

[Syriusly]

Homosexuals have kids every day. What makes you think homosexuals can't have kids? Are you a moron? Here's how it works.. Gay guy walks up to woman, says let's make a baby. She agrees they engage in coitus. Nine months later baby comes out. See how that works?

Then they used heterosexual means ....a baby will never be produced using homosexual means..... that is a fact. Also is homosexuality was genetic then wouldn't it be impossible for a homosexual to have heterosexual relations?

No, we used scientific means. IVF and AI are not heterosexual or gay, they're science. Adoption is adoption.

How children are created is relevant to parenting (and to civil marriage, obviously)

Which means you can not have your girlfriends or wife's baby

Actually, yes, I could have carried her child if we'd had enough money for that sort of thing. We didn't. We did it the old fashioned way...gay guy watching porn in the living room and doing his thing into a cup.

Again, 1.5 million babies were born using ART last year. Many of those NOT the genetic material of both the male and female of the couple.

Now explain what that has to do with anything?

Let me rephrase that then.... you and your partner can not have a baby with your and her DNA. It is impossible.

Wow- you figured that out on your own?

Neither can millions of heterosexual couples- who we marry without any concerns regarding whether they have any babies or not- or whether their babies have both parents DNA.

You just want a different standard for homosexuals.

 

[Syriusly]

But that's not what your OP said. Your OP singles out gay people and does not include straight people having non productive sex.

(Gays can and do reproduce...Stupid bigots don't realize that gay does not equal infertile)

That's s lie. Homosexuals can not produce. What they can do is use the genetic material of someone of the opposite sex to create a baby but the homosexual couple themselves did not reproduce.

Homosexuals have kids every day. What makes you think homosexuals can't have kids? Are you a moron? Here's how it works.. Gay guy walks up to woman, says let's make a baby. She agrees they engage in coitus. Nine months later baby comes out. See how that works?

Then they used heterosexual means ....a baby will never be produced using homosexual means..... that is a fact. Also is homosexuality was genetic then wouldn't it be impossible for a homosexual to have heterosexual relations?

What makes you think homosexuals are incapable of heterosexual acts? And no, just because some girl prefers girls over men does not mean she is incapable of choosing to have sex with a man to get pregnant. People have sex all the time, being gay does not prevent normal intercourse, nor does it prevent them from walking in a straight line, nor does it prevent them from talking like heteros. ROFL

Perversion is a learned response

How exactly did you learn your perversion?

 

[Syriusly]

What a ridiculous analogy. Fuck your brains out with a chick, I don't give a shit. Just stop using it as a chance to stick your hand in other people's wallets. Have non-reproductive sex on your own dime

Once again- here you are equating sex with government bennies- once again you portray legal marriage as nothing more than prostitution.

But of course what your real message is:

Kaz gets his government bennies, and is happy to have gays pay for them, but he doesn't want gay couples who have children to get the same benefits- or pay for them.

 

[Syriusly]

Except in the case of marriage equality, the Constitution is being upheld...specifically the 14th Amendment.

Y'all are cute when you're shrill and losing though.

Hey stupid homosexuality is a choice.

When did you realize you wanted to suck a guys cock?

You do love the playground insults

Even if it were true that sexual orientation is a choice (it's not), that is not a response. Religion is a choice and yet if you tried to say that Protestants couldn't marry, you'd run afoul of the Constitution, wouldn't you?

What a ridiculous analogy. Fuck your brains out with a chick, I don't give a shit. Just stop using it as a chance to stick your hand in other people's wallets. Have non-reproductive sex on your own dime

Heterosexuals have non-reproductive sex 'on your dime' all the time, based on your reasoning.

Why do you give them a pass? Other than because you're a bigot.

And not wanting to give people tax breaks to mate when they can't reproduce is being a "bigot." Noted

Yes- not wanting to give gay people exclusively tax breaks for being married, while happily giving tax breaks to hetero couples who can't reproduce is being a bigot.

Its pretty straightforward- you want to exclude gay couples just because they are gay.

You want them to pay for your bennies, while ensuring you don't pay for their children.

 

[kaz]

But that's not what your OP said. Your OP singles out gay people and does not include straight people having non productive sex.

(Gays can and do reproduce...Stupid bigots don't realize that gay does not equal infertile)

That's s lie. Homosexuals can not produce. What they can do is use the genetic material of someone of the opposite sex to create a baby but the homosexual couple themselves did not reproduce.

Homosexuals have kids every day. What makes you think homosexuals can't have kids? Are you a moron? Here's how it works.. Gay guy walks up to woman, says let's make a baby. She agrees they engage in coitus. Nine months later baby comes out. See how that works?

Wow, you should read the OP post. The thread isn't about test tubes and adoption

The thread is about the fallacy that the tax system rewards people for not having children...

...the truth is exactly the opposite.

No it's not, you idiot. First, you are in the wrong thread. Second, read my OP post. The thread is about the opposite, that the tax code rewards people for having children. What is wrong with you? What grade did you drop out of school?

The tax code rewards people for having children- regardless of whether or not the parents marry.
Regardless of whether or not the children are their biological children.

This thread is just about you wanting your marriage bennies, and having gay couples pay for them, while denying gay couples the same bennies.

Different tax breaks. When you learn to read, read the OP post

 

[kaz]

Once again- here you are equating sex with government bennies

No I didn't, you really are stupid

 

[kaz]

Hey stupid homosexuality is a choice.

When did you realize you wanted to suck a guys cock?

You do love the playground insults

Even if it were true that sexual orientation is a choice (it's not), that is not a response. Religion is a choice and yet if you tried to say that Protestants couldn't marry, you'd run afoul of the Constitution, wouldn't you?

What a ridiculous analogy. Fuck your brains out with a chick, I don't give a shit. Just stop using it as a chance to stick your hand in other people's wallets. Have non-reproductive sex on your own dime

Heterosexuals have non-reproductive sex 'on your dime' all the time, based on your reasoning.

Why do you give them a pass? Other than because you're a bigot.

And not wanting to give people tax breaks to mate when they can't reproduce is being a "bigot." Noted

Yes- not wanting to give gay people exclusively tax breaks for being married, while happily giving tax breaks to hetero couples who can't reproduce is being a bigot.

Its pretty straightforward- you want to exclude gay couples just because they are gay.

You want them to pay for your bennies, while ensuring you don't pay for their children.

I've addressed that point repeatedly, and it shouldn't have been necessary once if you were literate and read my OP post.

90% of straight marriages have children. Explain how you know ex-ante what the ex-post result of the marriage would be for that.

On the other hand, 0% of gay marriage sex produces children. The ex-ante result of that ex-post knowledge is perfectly clear.

I mean duh

 

[kaz]

Its pretty straightforward- you want to exclude gay couples just because they are gay

It's certainly at least a fringe benefit, denying a tax break to a bunch of whining liberals.

You realize you want the progressive taxes and death tax, why should you be let out of your own trap?

 

[Syriusly]

Its pretty straightforward- you want to exclude gay couples just because they are gay

It's certainly at least a fringe benefit, denying a tax break to a bunch of whining liberals.

You realize you want the progressive taxes and death tax, why should you be let out of your own trap?

Hmmm?

I am fine with progressive taxes and inheritance taxes- and I am also fine with paying my fair share.

My family gets the benefits of familial tax breaks and also pays taxes- and I believe that should be available exactly the same to gay couples and straight couples.

You want to be able to keep your bennies, and have gay couples pay for them- and deny the same bennies to gay couples.

Because they are gay.

And you already got yours.

 

[Syriusly]

When did you realize you wanted to suck a guys cock?

You do love the playground insults

Even if it were true that sexual orientation is a choice (it's not), that is not a response. Religion is a choice and yet if you tried to say that Protestants couldn't marry, you'd run afoul of the Constitution, wouldn't you?

What a ridiculous analogy. Fuck your brains out with a chick, I don't give a shit. Just stop using it as a chance to stick your hand in other people's wallets. Have non-reproductive sex on your own dime

Heterosexuals have non-reproductive sex 'on your dime' all the time, based on your reasoning.

Why do you give them a pass? Other than because you're a bigot.

And not wanting to give people tax breaks to mate when they can't reproduce is being a "bigot." Noted

Yes- not wanting to give gay people exclusively tax breaks for being married, while happily giving tax breaks to hetero couples who can't reproduce is being a bigot.

Its pretty straightforward- you want to exclude gay couples just because they are gay.

You want them to pay for your bennies, while ensuring you don't pay for their children.

90% of straight marriages have children. Explain how you know ex-ante what the ex-post result of the marriage would be for that.

On the other hand, 0% of gay marriage sex produces children. The ex-ante result of that ex-post knowledge is perfectly clear.h

Once again you mix apples and oranges- basically you are saying since straight couples have apples, gays should not be allowed to eat oranges.

The majority of straight marriages have children- their own biological children, adoptive children, and children born through various forms of fertility assistance.

I haven't seen what the majority of gay marriages have yet- but I am thinking within a few years the majority of gay marriages will have children also- in two of the exact same methods as straight couples use.

You want to give the bennies to straight couples- regardless of whether or not they have children or not- and you want gay couples to pay for them.

You want to deny bennies to gay couples- even if they do have children- so you want gay couples with children to pay for the bennies to straight couples with no children.

Basically you want to screw over the children of gay couples.

Between that and you thinking that marriage is some form of government paid prostitution- you are really screwed up.

You got yours- you want gay couples to pay for your bennies- and screw over their children.

 

[Syriusly]

Once again- here you are equating sex with government bennies

No I didn't, you really are stupid

Everytime you mention government bennies and sex that is exactly what you are doing.

You just don't want to admit it because even you know how asinine it is when I put it in the correct context.

 

[Syriusly]

That's s lie. Homosexuals can not produce. What they can do is use the genetic material of someone of the opposite sex to create a baby but the homosexual couple themselves did not reproduce.

Homosexuals have kids every day. What makes you think homosexuals can't have kids? Are you a moron? Here's how it works.. Gay guy walks up to woman, says let's make a baby. She agrees they engage in coitus. Nine months later baby comes out. See how that works?

Wow, you should read the OP post. The thread isn't about test tubes and adoption

The thread is about the fallacy that the tax system rewards people for not having children...

...the truth is exactly the opposite.

No it's not, you idiot. First, you are in the wrong thread. Second, read my OP post. The thread is about the opposite, that the tax code rewards people for having children. What is wrong with you? What grade did you drop out of school?

The tax code rewards people for having children- regardless of whether or not the parents marry.
Regardless of whether or not the children are their biological children.

This thread is just about you wanting your marriage bennies, and having gay couples pay for them, while denying gay couples the same bennies.

Different tax breaks. When you learn to read, read the OP post

I read the OP- it was stupid then and hasn't gotten less stupid
The tax code rewards people for having children- regardless of whether or not the parents marry.
Regardless of whether or not the children are their biological children.

This thread is just about you wanting your marriage bennies, and having gay couples pay for them, while denying gay couples the same bennies.

 

[kaz]

Its pretty straightforward- you want to exclude gay couples just because they are gay

It's certainly at least a fringe benefit, denying a tax break to a bunch of whining liberals.

You realize you want the progressive taxes and death tax, why should you be let out of your own trap?

Hmmm?

I am fine with progressive taxes and inheritance taxes- and I am also fine with paying my fair share.

My family gets the benefits of familial tax breaks and also pays taxes- and I believe that should be available exactly the same to gay couples and straight couples.

You want to be able to keep your bennies, and have gay couples pay for them- and deny the same bennies to gay couples.

Because they are gay.

And you already got yours.

Exactly, you support progressing taxes and death taxes ... for other people. Then you want out of it.

I want flat taxes for everyone.

Clearly the hypocrite is you, Sammy. Sorry guy, just is

 

[kaz]

You do love the playground insults

What a ridiculous analogy. Fuck your brains out with a chick, I don't give a shit. Just stop using it as a chance to stick your hand in other people's wallets. Have non-reproductive sex on your own dime

Heterosexuals have non-reproductive sex 'on your dime' all the time, based on your reasoning.

Why do you give them a pass? Other than because you're a bigot.

And not wanting to give people tax breaks to mate when they can't reproduce is being a "bigot." Noted

Yes- not wanting to give gay people exclusively tax breaks for being married, while happily giving tax breaks to hetero couples who can't reproduce is being a bigot.

Its pretty straightforward- you want to exclude gay couples just because they are gay.

You want them to pay for your bennies, while ensuring you don't pay for their children.

90% of straight marriages have children. Explain how you know ex-ante what the ex-post result of the marriage would be for that.

On the other hand, 0% of gay marriage sex produces children. The ex-ante result of that ex-post knowledge is perfectly clear.h

Once again you mix apples and oranges- basically you are saying since straight couples have apples, gays should not be allowed to eat oranges.

How on earth do you get that out of what I said? You realize you're on the internet. If you don't know what ex-ante and ex-post mean, you can look it up. no?

The majority of straight marriages have children- their own biological children, adoptive children, and children born through various forms of fertility assistance.

I haven't seen what the majority of gay marriages have yet- but I am thinking within a few years the majority of gay marriages will have children also- in two of the exact same methods as straight couples use.

You want to give the bennies to straight couples- regardless of whether or not they have children or not- and you want gay couples to pay for them.

You want to deny bennies to gay couples- even if they do have children- so you want gay couples with children to pay for the bennies to straight couples with no children.

Basically you want to screw over the children of gay couples.

Between that and you thinking that marriage is some form of government paid prostitution- you are really screwed up.

You got yours- you want gay couples to pay for your bennies- and screw over their children.

100% of gay sex won't lead to children, we don't have to wait and see what the results are

 

[kaz]

Once again- here you are equating sex with government bennies

No I didn't, you really are stupid

Everytime you mention government bennies and sex that is exactly what you are doing.

You just don't want to admit it because even you know how asinine it is when I put it in the correct context.

You're babbling again. There is no logical flow to anything you are saying

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Tell us Kaz, what's it like to be on the losing end at all times, to know what you believe is being rejected by the majority? That must really suck eh?