Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No Kaz, you didn't do shite. Now IF you'd said we should stop subsidizing having kids, regardless of the parents' sexual orientation, then you wouldn't be a hypocrite.
have gay sex.....
I pared Kaz's OP down to his essential point.
The concept of marrage is to perpetuate the species?Perpetuation of the species has nothing to do with marriage. One doesnt preclude the other.
So, the op to me is a non starter until he can show that people will cease to know how to procreate and would allow themselves to become extinct, while sentient and all, because straight marriage as sanctioned by govt doesnt exist.
Wow, great point. Instead of saying government marriage perpetuates the species, I should have said that's the concept of marriage. Oh, wait, I did. Thanks for being retarded, it makes merely stupid people feel smart.
Cuz....thats weird.
Poor fucking argument.
LOL, the guy who didn't grasp my first sentence says this, classic
Thats just fucking boiler plate idiocy for a zillion fucking reasons.
Wow
If there is a societal benefit to civil marriage, it applies to gays and straights. If there isn't a societal benefit, it ain't the gays fault.!
I've answered the question so many times, you dumb bimbo, I'm sick of answering it. I am trying to change minds. I've had many people tell me they never thought of that before, but I make sense, they are open to it. You want to grab a sign with a stick and go masturbate with a bunch of other liberals, that is ineffective.And then we are back to....what have YOU been doing to eliminate the government (and the financial benefit) out of marriage? Besides NOT having a government marriage yourself, correct? Because if you did have a legal marriage that would be highly hypocritical, wouldn't it?So gays won't be in long term committed relationships without being paid for it? That by definition shoots holes through your own point
No one is saying that but you.
But it IS similar (and just as stupid as saying)
So straights won't be in long term committed relationships without being paid for it?
I realize you're female and worse a liberal, so you grasp logic like a dolphin grasps forest fires.
But paying people to do things they would do anyway isn't a financial benefit...
you can not like my answer, but stop being such a dumb slut and process it. You keep saying I didn't answer it, I did, wench.
LOL....its sooo funny watching Kaz being reduced to a whiney bitch- because he can't provide a coherent response.
The concept of marrage is to perpetuate the species?Perpetuation of the species has nothing to do with marriage. One doesnt preclude the other.
So, the op to me is a non starter until he can show that people will cease to know how to procreate and would allow themselves to become extinct, while sentient and all, because straight marriage as sanctioned by govt doesnt exist.
Wow, great point. Instead of saying government marriage perpetuates the species, I should have said that's the concept of marriage. Oh, wait, I did. Thanks for being retarded, it makes merely stupid people feel smart.
Cuz....thats weird.
Poor fucking argument.
LOL, the guy who didn't grasp my first sentence says this, classic
Thats just fucking boiler plate idiocy for a zillion fucking reasons.
Wow
If you are saying you don't know most people think marriage is about perpetuating the species, then I am calling you a liar. You do know that
I am saying that marriage and procreation can coexist and also exist independent of one another, and that straight marriages happen for a plethora of fucking reasons.The concept of marrage is to perpetuate the species?Perpetuation of the species has nothing to do with marriage. One doesnt preclude the other.
So, the op to me is a non starter until he can show that people will cease to know how to procreate and would allow themselves to become extinct, while sentient and all, because straight marriage as sanctioned by govt doesnt exist.
Wow, great point. Instead of saying government marriage perpetuates the species, I should have said that's the concept of marriage. Oh, wait, I did. Thanks for being retarded, it makes merely stupid people feel smart.
Cuz....thats weird.
Poor fucking argument.
LOL, the guy who didn't grasp my first sentence says this, classic
Thats just fucking boiler plate idiocy for a zillion fucking reasons.
Wow
If you are saying you don't know most people think marriage is about perpetuating the species, then I am calling you a liar. You do know that
Obviously I have struck a nerve with you. If you truly felt as strongly as you "claim" about government marriage, you would be BRAGGING about what you are actively doing to get rid of it.....instead of getting pissy about my asking you.Sure you are.....you keep saying that....but won't answer my frequently asked question about what you are doing about it......except talking the talk.You people who want a flat tax, a true one, would lose all your financial bennies from having children.
Are you cool with that?
Yes, I'm against all government marriage, retard. You no long term memory because you know that
I've answered the question so many times, you dumb bimbo, I'm sick of answering it. I am trying to change minds. I've had many people tell me they never thought of that before, but I make sense, they are open to it. You want to grab a sign with a stick and go masturbate with a bunch of other liberals, that is ineffective.
you can not like my answer, but stop being such a dumb slut and process it. You keep saying I didn't answer it, I did, wench.
If there is a societal benefit to civil marriage, it applies to gays and straights. If there isn't a societal benefit, it ain't the gays fault.!
Nope, gay sex doesn't lead to children
That isn't the question, Sparky.
So you admit there is no financial benefit to society for funding gay mating?
I didn't say that, and you shouldn't put words in other people's mouths.
Read the post you quoted
You said that there is no financial benefit to society to fund gay marriage. I asked why there has to be a financial benefit to doing the right thing? A question you've yet to respond to
I stated in the op and in my answer this is a financial thread. You want to demand an answer to another question, here's what you do. Start another thread and mention me. I'll try to address it.
And yet you posted it in the politics forum. All I am asking is for you to support your claims.
Secondly, you have made two unsupported claims in your post. The first, that there is no financial benefit to society, and the second, that society is funding gay "mating". You should support your claims, otherwise, people will think you are just making it up.
kaz said:It's a question to you, shit for brains. I'm calling you a liar for your claims to write academic papers. There is no fucking way in hell anyone would publish a paper with your name on it. You can't follow simple logic. There are lots of ways to argue my post. You are just flat out not comprehending it
Yes, Kaz want's to know what the federal filing tax status will be for married gay folk and if they will be able to enter their children as exemptions like the rest of the breeders. I think he does not understand that even single people file exemptions for their children. Marriage is only a requirement for selecting married filling joint return which is used to select the rate box for same when filing jointly.Does ANYONE on this board know what kaz is talking about? Or should we write it off to simple garden variety incoherent ignorance and let it go at that?
Obviously I have struck a nerve with you. If you truly felt as strongly as you "claim" about government marriage, you would be BRAGGING about what you are actively doing to get rid of it.....instead of getting pissy about my asking you.Sure you are.....you keep saying that....but won't answer my frequently asked question about what you are doing about it......except talking the talk.You people who want a flat tax, a true one, would lose all your financial bennies from having children.
Are you cool with that?
Yes, I'm against all government marriage, retard. You no long term memory because you know that
I've answered the question so many times, you dumb bimbo, I'm sick of answering it. I am trying to change minds. I've had many people tell me they never thought of that before, but I make sense, they are open to it. You want to grab a sign with a stick and go masturbate with a bunch of other liberals, that is ineffective.
you can not like my answer, but stop being such a dumb slut and process it. You keep saying I didn't answer it, I did, wench.
So...this pretty much sums up your REAL position on legal marriage:
You: I'm against gay marriage...oh, and I'm against government marriage.
Me: What are you actively doing to get rid of government marriage?
You: More blather about gay marriage...did I mention I'm against government marriage?
Me: What are you actively doing to get rid of government marriage?
You: Even more blather about gay marriage....oh, and I'm against government marriage.
Me: So you don't even have a government marriage yourself because you are against it, right?
You: Gays take our money, blah, blah, blah....I've always been against government marriage.
Me: Hello? What have you been doing to get rid of government marriage since you keep saying you are against it?
You: You %^*$#! I answered your *#^&$ question already, you #$&**@!
If there is a societal benefit to civil marriage, it applies to gays and straights. If there isn't a societal benefit, it ain't the gays fault.!
Nope, gay sex doesn't lead to children
Yes, Kaz want's to know what the federal filing tax status will be for married gay folk and if they will be able to enter their children as exemptions like the rest of the breeders. I think he does not understand that even single people file exemptions for their children. Marriage is only a requirement for selecting married filling joint return which is used to select the rate box for same when filing jointly.Does ANYONE on this board know what kaz is talking about? Or should we write it off to simple garden variety incoherent ignorance and let it go at that?
Do we have to teach you the birds and the bees? You don't have to be married to have children. You know that right?If there is a societal benefit to civil marriage, it applies to gays and straights. If there isn't a societal benefit, it ain't the gays fault.!
Nope, gay sex doesn't lead to children
Ding ding ding.Yes, Kaz want's to know what the federal filing tax status will be for married gay folk and if they will be able to enter their children as exemptions like the rest of the breeders. I think he does not understand that even single people file exemptions for their children. Marriage is only a requirement for selecting married filling joint return which is used to select the rate box for same when filing jointly.Does ANYONE on this board know what kaz is talking about? Or should we write it off to simple garden variety incoherent ignorance and let it go at that?
Yes, Kaz want's to know what the federal filing tax status will be for married gay folk and if they will be able to enter their children as exemptions like the rest of the breeders. I think he does not understand that even single people file exemptions for their children. Marriage is only a requirement for selecting married filling joint return which is used to select the rate box for same when filing jointly.Does ANYONE on this board know what kaz is talking about? Or should we write it off to simple garden variety incoherent ignorance and let it go at that?
Ah...here it is...the "it's a abomination" argument. Bases completely on your interpretation of your religion......and not based in any shape or form on law.^That.I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:
1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.
2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended
So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.
If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?
The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question
First of all you are mixing apples and oranges- which doesn't surprise me. You talk about gays and sex- but not straights and sex. So is your thread about sex- or marriage?
Secondly- based upon purely a financial question- not the moral one- then you are in agreement then that marriage benefits should only go to couples who have children and live together?
But you want to exclude homosexual couples- because their children don't deserve the benefits of the state?
This is the problem with the anti-homosexual agenda. You have issues with consistency.
If we looked at this purely from your pure financial point of view- we would not allow any such benefits to any couple who does not have children- and then we would provide that financial benefit to any couple who does have children.
But you just want to give the financial benefits to straight couples.
Because you approve of how they have sex.
God hates gays more than murderers, it's an abomination to humanity. At least murderers only kill one person. Gays not only do not procreate but they poison the rest of society
If there is a societal benefit to civil marriage, it applies to gays and straights. If there isn't a societal benefit, it ain't the gays fault.!
Nope, gay sex doesn't lead to children
So? My brother's straight sex doesn't either. My grandpa's straight sex didn't either. Nobody tried to deny them a marriage license.
My partner and I do have children. They are ours legally and emotionally. Your argument is destroyed by two simple facts:
1. A lot of gays do have children
2. A lot of married straights don't.
I at least get the concept of straight government marriage. Perpetuation of the species. It is the best situation for kids to have a traditional family with a mother and father because:
1) Men and women have different personalities and it is ideal for kids to have a parental relationship with one of each. Having two of the same sex is like having two left shoes or two right shoes. Neither a left shoe nor right shoes is more important than the other, you need one of each. They are different.
2) Kids are best served with a stay at home parent, generally a mother for many reasons for nurturing, caring and helping them stay out of trouble unattended
So for a mother to stay home, it's expensive. Taxpayers as part of the species benefit from the advancement of the species. And frankly that leads even financially to better taxpayers on average in the future.
If gays want to mate and pool resources, that's fine. But why should taxpayers pay for that? Government revenue is reduced, but why? What do we get out of it? Why should we have to fund it? What benefit is it to society that we should be paying for it?
The question: This is a financial question, not a moral one. How financially do the rest of us benefit that government should be charging us higher taxes to make up for lower taxes for people to have gay sex who do not perpetuate the species? Why do we gain for that we should pay for it? That is the question
