Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Syriusly]

Okay- I will do so- sorry.

You just consider both parties to the marriage to be government sponsored prostitutes?

We are good.

And I never said anyone was a prostitute. You did. How do prostitutes hire each other? I don't even get how you think that makes sense

According to you marriage is all about the government paying married couples for sex- prostitutes get paid for sex- the government is paying both of them for sex, hence both are prostitutes.

Or maybe porn actors.

I mean logically following your odd point of view that marriage is all about the government paying couples to have sex.

Gays are only having sex if they are paid to have sex? What is that based on?

That's even a better argument to not fund gay mating. Let's stop paying them to have sex so they stop having sex and we end the whole ridiculous issue. Now you're talking!

That was based upon your idiotic claim

It's their wanting me to pay for their gay fucking I oppose.- Thats you Kaz- speaking of marriage of course- which means you believe marriage is nothing more than government sponsored prostitution.

And of course it just brings it back to:
Kaz is happy to get his government bennies and have gay couples pay for them- but he doesn't want share with them

Gays are after the money, Holmes. You work out who you are saying is a prostitute

Gays are 'after the money' in exactly the same way as straights are- and you think marriage is all about the government paying people to have sex- i.e. prostitution.

And of course it just brings it back to:
Kaz is happy to get his government bennies and have gay couples pay for them- but he doesn't want share with them

 

[Syriusly]

You ask me this question over and over and I answer it over and over. Why should I bother if you don't retain the answer? You don't like my argument so you're going to ignore it isn't an argument

I'm just reminding everyone how wrong you are on this.

He's playing with percentages, but should be looking at the actual numbers. The number of married straight couples without children is far, far greater than the number of gay couples without them.

He's a bigot that doesn't like the way gays have sex.

My view is that no marriage should be a government marriage. I said at least I get the "concept" of marriage. The Concept of marriage is that people accept those odds. My agreeing with that or not is irrelevant and what you said doesn't contradict my personal views, so it is irrelevant

And you are a hypocrite of the First Order. You don't care about government marriage....except for gays having government marriage.

Actually I am for no one having government marriage. But you knew that, you are a liar

You are fine with having your government marriage- and getting your government bennies.

You just want gay couples to pay for yours- and make sure you don't have to pay for theirs.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It's best for children to be in a man/woman household. It's how we evolved.

No, it isn't, dumbass...

 

[Syriusly]

I see no difference between a gay couple who chooses to- or not to- have children- and to get married- or not get married and

a straight couple who is infertile- and chooses to- or not to- have children- and to get married - or not get married

The gay couple wasn't having children either ex-post or ex-ante. The straight couple was 90% having children ex-ante. Decisions have to be made ex-ante, not ex-post. You keep ignoring my pointing that out. How do you go back and change the upfront choice?

You and the law do not care- whether the straight couple can or cannot have children- the man could be missing his nads and you would give him the bennies without any question. Two 80 year olds get marry- and you give them bennies without question

But a gay couples raising 5 kids- you would deny them the bennies you give to the two 80 year olds.

Just because they are gay- and since the result of doing that is to take money from their family- clearly you want to harm their children also.

I hate children too. That's funny. d

And you would take money away from the children of gays- for your family to have bennies.

Again- how do you explain taking the money away from the children of homosexuals and giving it to childless 80 year olds- other than your intent to harm those children?

 

[Syriusly]

And you are a hypocrite of the First Order. You don't care about government marriage....except for gays having government marriage.

You understand this opens up marriage to more than gays, right?

Wrong.

Same sex hetro's will also be able to marry.

Can't see a compelling state interest in denying them those rights? Can you, or are you simply displaying bigotry?

There is no compelling state interest.

Yes, like giving gays marriage licenses when gay sex doesn't produce children. Where's the benefit in that? There's not

To you there is not.

You are fine giving marriage licenses to anyone else who can't have children- you just want to deny them to homosexuals.

Just bigotry.

 

[Pop23]

And you are a hypocrite of the First Order. You don't care about government marriage....except for gays having government marriage.

You understand this opens up marriage to more than gays, right?

Wrong.

Same sex hetro's will also be able to marry.

Can't see a compelling state interest in denying them those rights? Can you, or are you simply displaying bigotry?

There is no compelling state interest.

Yes, like giving gays marriage licenses when gay sex doesn't produce children. Where's the benefit in that? There's not

We are good.

And I never said anyone was a prostitute. You did. How do prostitutes hire each other? I don't even get how you think that makes sense

According to you marriage is all about the government paying married couples for sex- prostitutes get paid for sex- the government is paying both of them for sex, hence both are prostitutes.

Or maybe porn actors.

I mean logically following your odd point of view that marriage is all about the government paying couples to have sex.

Gays are only having sex if they are paid to have sex? What is that based on?

That's even a better argument to not fund gay mating. Let's stop paying them to have sex so they stop having sex and we end the whole ridiculous issue. Now you're talking!

That was based upon your idiotic claim

It's their wanting me to pay for their gay fucking I oppose.- Thats you Kaz- speaking of marriage of course- which means you believe marriage is nothing more than government sponsored prostitution.

And of course it just brings it back to:
Kaz is happy to get his government bennies and have gay couples pay for them- but he doesn't want share with them

Gays are after the money, Holmes. You work out who you are saying is a prostitute

Gays are 'after the money' in exactly the same way as straights are- and you think marriage is all about the government paying people to have sex- i.e. prostitution.

And of course it just brings it back to:
Kaz is happy to get his government bennies and have gay couples pay for them- but he doesn't want share with them

And because your coupling has never produced a doctor, opposite sex couples should pay less for health care, and same sex couples more.

Fair is fair afterall.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You are fine giving marriage licenses to anyone else who can't have children- you just want to deny them to homosexuals.

Just bigotry.

Not even that, it's just fear, the fears of a child to match his mind of a child. June is just going to kill him...

 

[Pop23]

You understand this opens up marriage to more than gays, right?

Wrong.

Same sex hetro's will also be able to marry.

Can't see a compelling state interest in denying them those rights? Can you, or are you simply displaying bigotry?

There is no compelling state interest.

Yes, like giving gays marriage licenses when gay sex doesn't produce children. Where's the benefit in that? There's not

To you there is not.

You are fine giving marriage licenses to anyone else who can't have children- you just want to deny them to homosexuals.

Just bigotry.

Do you feel we should discriminate against the elderly and the disabled? And the rest, GET OUT OF THEIR BEDROOMS!

Hard to take your own advice? AYE?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

You understand this opens up marriage to more than gays, right?

Wrong.

Same sex hetro's will also be able to marry.

Can't see a compelling state interest in denying them those rights? Can you, or are you simply displaying bigotry?

There is no compelling state interest.

Yes, like giving gays marriage licenses when gay sex doesn't produce children. Where's the benefit in that? There's not

According to you marriage is all about the government paying married couples for sex- prostitutes get paid for sex- the government is paying both of them for sex, hence both are prostitutes.

Or maybe porn actors.

I mean logically following your odd point of view that marriage is all about the government paying couples to have sex.

Gays are only having sex if they are paid to have sex? What is that based on?

That's even a better argument to not fund gay mating. Let's stop paying them to have sex so they stop having sex and we end the whole ridiculous issue. Now you're talking!

That was based upon your idiotic claim

It's their wanting me to pay for their gay fucking I oppose.- Thats you Kaz- speaking of marriage of course- which means you believe marriage is nothing more than government sponsored prostitution.

And of course it just brings it back to:
Kaz is happy to get his government bennies and have gay couples pay for them- but he doesn't want share with them

Gays are after the money, Holmes. You work out who you are saying is a prostitute

Gays are 'after the money' in exactly the same way as straights are- and you think marriage is all about the government paying people to have sex- i.e. prostitution.

And of course it just brings it back to:
Kaz is happy to get his government bennies and have gay couples pay for them- but he doesn't want share with them

And because your coupling has never produced a doctor, opposite sex couples should pay less for health care, and same sex couples more.

Fair is fair afterall.

Most "coupling" doesn't produce anything beyond pleasure and bonding. It was never meant to. Human reproduction gets a free ride on sex, not the other way around.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Wrong.

Same sex hetro's will also be able to marry.

Can't see a compelling state interest in denying them those rights? Can you, or are you simply displaying bigotry?

There is no compelling state interest.

Yes, like giving gays marriage licenses when gay sex doesn't produce children. Where's the benefit in that? There's not

To you there is not.

You are fine giving marriage licenses to anyone else who can't have children- you just want to deny them to homosexuals.

Just bigotry.

Do you feel we should discriminate against the elderly and the disabled? And the rest, GET OUT OF THEIR BEDROOMS!

Hard to take your own advice? AYE?

Show us said discrimination? Oh right, there isn't any.

 

[Pop23]

Wrong.

Same sex hetro's will also be able to marry.

Can't see a compelling state interest in denying them those rights? Can you, or are you simply displaying bigotry?

There is no compelling state interest.

Yes, like giving gays marriage licenses when gay sex doesn't produce children. Where's the benefit in that? There's not

Gays are only having sex if they are paid to have sex? What is that based on?

That's even a better argument to not fund gay mating. Let's stop paying them to have sex so they stop having sex and we end the whole ridiculous issue. Now you're talking!

That was based upon your idiotic claim

It's their wanting me to pay for their gay fucking I oppose.- Thats you Kaz- speaking of marriage of course- which means you believe marriage is nothing more than government sponsored prostitution.

And of course it just brings it back to:
Kaz is happy to get his government bennies and have gay couples pay for them- but he doesn't want share with them

Gays are after the money, Holmes. You work out who you are saying is a prostitute

Gays are 'after the money' in exactly the same way as straights are- and you think marriage is all about the government paying people to have sex- i.e. prostitution.

And of course it just brings it back to:
Kaz is happy to get his government bennies and have gay couples pay for them- but he doesn't want share with them

And because your coupling has never produced a doctor, opposite sex couples should pay less for health care, and same sex couples more.

Fair is fair afterall.

Most "coupling" doesn't produce anything beyond pleasure and bonding. It was never meant to. Human reproduction gets a free ride on sex, not the other way around.

But only opposite sex couples have to worry that the pleasure turns into a pregnancy.

Thanks for pointing out how vastly different these two groups are!

 

[Pop23]

Same sex hetro's will also be able to marry.

Can't see a compelling state interest in denying them those rights? Can you, or are you simply displaying bigotry?

There is no compelling state interest.

Yes, like giving gays marriage licenses when gay sex doesn't produce children. Where's the benefit in that? There's not

To you there is not.

You are fine giving marriage licenses to anyone else who can't have children- you just want to deny them to homosexuals.

Just bigotry.

Do you feel we should discriminate against the elderly and the disabled? And the rest, GET OUT OF THEIR BEDROOMS!

Hard to take your own advice? AYE?

Show us said discrimination? Oh right, there isn't any.

Correct, your side argues there should be.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There is no compelling state interest.

Yes, like giving gays marriage licenses when gay sex doesn't produce children. Where's the benefit in that? There's not

To you there is not.

You are fine giving marriage licenses to anyone else who can't have children- you just want to deny them to homosexuals.

Just bigotry.

Do you feel we should discriminate against the elderly and the disabled? And the rest, GET OUT OF THEIR BEDROOMS!

Hard to take your own advice? AYE?

Show us said discrimination? Oh right, there isn't any.

Correct, your side argues there should be.

We do? Never seen it. Sounds like you listening to that little voice in your head again.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Same sex hetro's will also be able to marry.

Can't see a compelling state interest in denying them those rights? Can you, or are you simply displaying bigotry?

There is no compelling state interest.

Yes, like giving gays marriage licenses when gay sex doesn't produce children. Where's the benefit in that? There's not

That was based upon your idiotic claim

It's their wanting me to pay for their gay fucking I oppose.- Thats you Kaz- speaking of marriage of course- which means you believe marriage is nothing more than government sponsored prostitution.

And of course it just brings it back to:
Kaz is happy to get his government bennies and have gay couples pay for them- but he doesn't want share with them

Gays are after the money, Holmes. You work out who you are saying is a prostitute

Gays are 'after the money' in exactly the same way as straights are- and you think marriage is all about the government paying people to have sex- i.e. prostitution.

And of course it just brings it back to:
Kaz is happy to get his government bennies and have gay couples pay for them- but he doesn't want share with them

And because your coupling has never produced a doctor, opposite sex couples should pay less for health care, and same sex couples more.

Fair is fair afterall.

Most "coupling" doesn't produce anything beyond pleasure and bonding. It was never meant to. Human reproduction gets a free ride on sex, not the other way around.

But only opposite sex couples have to worry that the pleasure turns into a pregnancy.

Thanks for pointing out how vastly different these two groups are!

They aren't different except when intentionally trying to make a baby. Otherwise, they are all just fucking for the fun of it. Same difference.

 

[Pop23]

Yes, like giving gays marriage licenses when gay sex doesn't produce children. Where's the benefit in that? There's not

To you there is not.

You are fine giving marriage licenses to anyone else who can't have children- you just want to deny them to homosexuals.

Just bigotry.

Do you feel we should discriminate against the elderly and the disabled? And the rest, GET OUT OF THEIR BEDROOMS!

Hard to take your own advice? AYE?

Show us said discrimination? Oh right, there isn't any.

Correct, your side argues there should be.

We do? Never seen it. Sounds like you listening to that little voice in your head again.

No, your sides never brought up that some opposite sex couples can't reproduce and still get married?

God you're a simpleton

 

[Faun]

You don't pay gays anything. Gays pay far more in taxes by being childless than they can ever gain from getting married.

The takers are people like you who get huge tax breaks just from breeding.

I thought you said there were no tax breaks, now suddenly you get it?

And yes, we get it for breeding. Raising a family is expensive. My question exactly. Why should gays get it for not breeding, just having sex?

People get a rax break for breeding?? Does that mean married couples who don't breed don't get a tax break?

Asked and answered

If the answer was, "yes," then you were full of shit; if the answer was, "no," then you have the explanation for why gays getting married are also entitled to the tax break.

Your lack of grasp of liner time has nothing to do with intelligence. Well, it does, but not in a good way

"Liner time?"

Regardless, answer, "yes," and you're full of shit. Answer, "no," and that's why gays are entitled to the same benefits.

... and your answer was ... ?

 

[Pop23]

There is no compelling state interest.

Yes, like giving gays marriage licenses when gay sex doesn't produce children. Where's the benefit in that? There's not

Gays are after the money, Holmes. You work out who you are saying is a prostitute

Gays are 'after the money' in exactly the same way as straights are- and you think marriage is all about the government paying people to have sex- i.e. prostitution.

And of course it just brings it back to:
Kaz is happy to get his government bennies and have gay couples pay for them- but he doesn't want share with them

And because your coupling has never produced a doctor, opposite sex couples should pay less for health care, and same sex couples more.

Fair is fair afterall.

Most "coupling" doesn't produce anything beyond pleasure and bonding. It was never meant to. Human reproduction gets a free ride on sex, not the other way around.

But only opposite sex couples have to worry that the pleasure turns into a pregnancy.

Thanks for pointing out how vastly different these two groups are!

They aren't different except when intentionally trying to make a baby. Otherwise, they are all just fucking for the fun of it. Same difference.

Name the same sex couple worried about pregnancy because they had sex?



Oh, right, that would be none

 

[TemplarKormac]

To make sense of it they assume you hate them.

They can assume whatever it is they want about me. But I don't hate anyone, with that said, I will not compromise my religious beliefs to accommodate their weddings or whatnot. They have plenty of other avenues of accommodation to pursue. None of their rights are being stripped from them. Given the diversity of American society, there is a 100% chance of there being someone out there willing to cater to their needs.

What they don't realize, is what's really going on is you fucking despise the ground they walk on and wish they were dead.

You have crossed the line, RKM. In your seething anger, did you bother to think this through before you posted such a baseless accusation? If anything, I wish they would grant me/us/anyone else the same understanding they desire of us. I don't despise or hate anyone to the point that I want them to die. How dare you insinuate such a thing? What were you thinking?

Hate really isn't strong enough a word is it?

No, really it isn't, when you are just as guilty of spreading hatred as you claim we are. Hatred isn't unique to one group.

 

[TemplarKormac]

the other half is your hate for Americans who happen to be gay.

There you go with that "hate" word again.

There is his hate, and then there's yours--for those who happen to disagree with gay marriage.

Nope- I don't hate anyone- even idiot bigots.

The name calling says otherwise. Don't lie to me.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yes, like giving gays marriage licenses when gay sex doesn't produce children. Where's the benefit in that? There's not

Gays are 'after the money' in exactly the same way as straights are- and you think marriage is all about the government paying people to have sex- i.e. prostitution.

And of course it just brings it back to:
Kaz is happy to get his government bennies and have gay couples pay for them- but he doesn't want share with them

And because your coupling has never produced a doctor, opposite sex couples should pay less for health care, and same sex couples more.

Fair is fair afterall.

Most "coupling" doesn't produce anything beyond pleasure and bonding. It was never meant to. Human reproduction gets a free ride on sex, not the other way around.

But only opposite sex couples have to worry that the pleasure turns into a pregnancy.

Thanks for pointing out how vastly different these two groups are!

They aren't different except when intentionally trying to make a baby. Otherwise, they are all just fucking for the fun of it. Same difference.

Name the same sex couple worried about pregnancy because they had sex?



Oh, right, that would be none

Name the opposite sex couple worried about getting knocked up sucking each others junk or having some nice butt sex? Oh right, none. Your distinction is utterly meaningless.