Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[Pop23]

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.

God your desperation is delicious

You can't defeat the argument, so you equate all sex to anal/oral.

Funnier then shit dude

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

God your desperation is delicious

You can't defeat the argument, so you equate all sex to anal/oral.

Funnier then shit dude

Sex is for pleasure and bonding. Once in a blue moon we get a baby out of it. It's biology, stop worrying about what the homos do, it's no different in all but a few cases.

This is why your arguments are always DOA, they're based on ideology, not reality.

 

[Pop23]

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.

God your desperation is delicious

You can't defeat the argument, so you equate all sex to anal/oral.

Funnier then shit dude

Sex is for pleasure and bonding. Once in a blue moon we get a baby out of it. It's biology, stop worrying about what the homos do, it's no different in all but a few cases.

This is why your arguments are always DOA, they're based on ideology, not reality.

You're once in s blue moon only applied to opposite sex couples.

You know that, right?

Making the two demographic groups vastly different.

But trying to equate all sex to those acts performed by same sex couples is cute as a fuzzy kitten.

You do realize that opposite sex couples CAN have completely diffent sex act than same sex, right?

Or has your political view warped reality so much you actually think acting like a babbling fool make you seem smart?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

God your desperation is delicious

You can't defeat the argument, so you equate all sex to anal/oral.

Funnier then shit dude

Sex is for pleasure and bonding. Once in a blue moon we get a baby out of it. It's biology, stop worrying about what the homos do, it's no different in all but a few cases.

This is why your arguments are always DOA, they're based on ideology, not reality.

You're once in s blue moon only applied to opposite sex couples.

You know that, right?

Making the two demographic groups vastly different.

But trying to equate all sex to those acts performed by same sex couples is cute as a fuzzy kitten.

You do realize that opposite sex couples CAN have completely diffent sex act than same sex, right?

Or has your political view warped reality south you actually think acting like a babbling fool
Makes you seem smart?

What's the difference when two people fuck a couple of hundred times a year only every few years or so one couple produces a child? Oh right, no difference that matters. From a biological standpoint fucking is fucking, and it isn't for making babies or we'd have a whole lot more of them.

A heterosexual couple who can't, or won't, reproduce when they have sex are exactly the same as a gay couple having sex. There is no difference at all.

 

[Pop23]

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.

God your desperation is delicious

You can't defeat the argument, so you equate all sex to anal/oral.

Funnier then shit dude

Sex is for pleasure and bonding. Once in a blue moon we get a baby out of it. It's biology, stop worrying about what the homos do, it's no different in all but a few cases.

This is why your arguments are always DOA, they're based on ideology, not reality.

You're once in s blue moon only applied to opposite sex couples.

You know that, right?

Making the two demographic groups vastly different.

But trying to equate all sex to those acts performed by same sex couples is cute as a fuzzy kitten.

You do realize that opposite sex couples CAN have completely diffent sex act than same sex, right?

Or has your political view warped reality south you actually think acting like a babbling fool
Makes you seem smart?

What's the difference when two people fuck a couple of hundred times a year only every few years or so one couple produces a child? Oh right, no difference that matters. From a biological standpoint fucking is fucking, and it isn't for making babies or we'd have a whole lot more of them.

A heterosexual couple who can't, or won't, reproduce when they have sex are exactly the same as a gay couple having sex. There is no difference at all.

So back to getting into people's bedrooms? God what I've reduced you to!

So you deflect again, when was the last time a same sex couple had to worry about pregnancy from a sexual encounter with their parter?

Answer: none

So are you going into a discriminatory rampage on the disabled and elderly now?

In 3........2.........1........

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...when was the last time a same sex couple had to worry about pregnancy from a sexual encounter with their parter?

Which matters? Oh right, not at all unless you make or sell birth control that isn't a condom, since both couples use those as well, since they are nearly the same which makes it unnecessary to treat them differently.

And discriminate against the elderly or the disabled? I can't say as to why we would...

 

[Pop23]

...when was the last time a same sex couple had to worry about pregnancy from a sexual encounter with their parter?

Which matters? Oh right, not at all unless you make or sell birth control that isn't a condom, since both couples use those as well, since they are nearly the same which makes it unnecessary to treat them differently.

And discriminate against the elderly or the disabled? I can't say as to why we would...

Oh, I see, because the both couples use condoms for birth control.

News flash, no same sex couple has ever used a condom for birth control.

The more you desperately try to make the couples seem the same, the more you loss ground.

Keep on diggin.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...when was the last time a same sex couple had to worry about pregnancy from a sexual encounter with their parter?

Which matters? Oh right, not at all unless you make or sell birth control that isn't a condom, since both couples use those as well, since they are nearly the same which makes it unnecessary to treat them differently.

And discriminate against the elderly or the disabled? I can't say as to why we would...

Oh, I see, because the both couples use condoms for birth control.

News flash, no same sex couple has ever used a condom for birth control.

The more you desperately try to make the couples seem the same, the more you loss ground.

Keep on diggin.

The couples are same, only the law that makes them equals needs to be changed to say so.

And if I had a teenage daughter I'd support same sex sex to the hilt. As you said, thier sex, like most sex, doesn't make babies but there's nothing special about that, you just think that it matters....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Half wits and simpletons .... Well that only explains half of you- the other half is your hate for Americans who happen to be gay.

Yes, not wanting to pay gays to screw and not procreate is hating them. You got us

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.

And reap the benefits of those children.

If you need a doctor, that doctor is the result of male/female coupling

If I need a doctor, he is not the result of same sex coupling.

Quite the disparity, don't you think?

Ok, then let's only give tax breaks to parents who produce doctors.

You got something against Cops, soldiers, teachers, and everyone else?

All supplied by opposite sex couples.

Are you that much of a bigot?

Man, you gays get a great deal!

So what if your reproduction produces a serial killer son and a drug addict daughter. One ends up in prison on the taxpayer dime and the other ends up in the nuthouse on the taxpayer dime.

Should you refund all the tax breaks you got?

 

[NYcarbineer]

...when was the last time a same sex couple had to worry about pregnancy from a sexual encounter with their parter?

Which matters? Oh right, not at all unless you make or sell birth control that isn't a condom, since both couples use those as well, since they are nearly the same which makes it unnecessary to treat them differently.

And discriminate against the elderly or the disabled? I can't say as to why we would...

Oh, I see, because the both couples use condoms for birth control.

News flash, no same sex couple has ever used a condom for birth control.

The more you desperately try to make the couples seem the same, the more you loss ground.

Keep on diggin.

Marriage has no reproduction requirement and even you have admitted it. Why are you arguing with yourself?

...other than for the obvious reason that you're demented...

 

[Pop23]

...when was the last time a same sex couple had to worry about pregnancy from a sexual encounter with their parter?

Which matters? Oh right, not at all unless you make or sell birth control that isn't a condom, since both couples use those as well, since they are nearly the same which makes it unnecessary to treat them differently.

And discriminate against the elderly or the disabled? I can't say as to why we would...

Oh, I see, because the both couples use condoms for birth control.

News flash, no same sex couple has ever used a condom for birth control.

The more you desperately try to make the couples seem the same, the more you loss ground.

Keep on diggin.

The couples are same, only the law that makes them equals needs to be changed to say so.

And if I had a teenage daughter I'd support same sex sex to the hilt. As you said, thier sex, like most sex, doesn't make babies but there's nothing special about that, you just think that it matters....

They are the same except for very key differences.

Sorry, the rest is just emotion.

 

[Pop23]

Yes, not wanting to pay gays to screw and not procreate is hating them. You got us

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.

And reap the benefits of those children.

If you need a doctor, that doctor is the result of male/female coupling

If I need a doctor, he is not the result of same sex coupling.

Quite the disparity, don't you think?

Ok, then let's only give tax breaks to parents who produce doctors.

You got something against Cops, soldiers, teachers, and everyone else?

All supplied by opposite sex couples.

Are you that much of a bigot?

Man, you gays get a great deal!

So what if your reproduction produces a serial killer son and a drug addict daughter. One ends up in prison on the taxpayer dime and the other ends up in the nuthouse on the taxpayer dime.

Should you refund all the tax breaks you got?

Still job producers. Attorneys, judged, cops, jailers. Builders and on and on.

 

[Pop23]

...when was the last time a same sex couple had to worry about pregnancy from a sexual encounter with their parter?

Which matters? Oh right, not at all unless you make or sell birth control that isn't a condom, since both couples use those as well, since they are nearly the same which makes it unnecessary to treat them differently.

And discriminate against the elderly or the disabled? I can't say as to why we would...

Oh, I see, because the both couples use condoms for birth control.

News flash, no same sex couple has ever used a condom for birth control.

The more you desperately try to make the couples seem the same, the more you loss ground.

Keep on diggin.

Marriage has no reproduction requirement and even you have admitted it. Why are you arguing with yourself?

...other than for the obvious reason that you're demented...

It's funny being called demented. I mate. Get that

And as pointed out, several jurisdiction state that some must prove the can't procreate to get a license.

Hmmmm, can't procreate?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...when was the last time a same sex couple had to worry about pregnancy from a sexual encounter with their parter?

Which matters? Oh right, not at all unless you make or sell birth control that isn't a condom, since both couples use those as well, since they are nearly the same which makes it unnecessary to treat them differently.

And discriminate against the elderly or the disabled? I can't say as to why we would...

Oh, I see, because the both couples use condoms for birth control.

News flash, no same sex couple has ever used a condom for birth control.

The more you desperately try to make the couples seem the same, the more you loss ground.

Keep on diggin.

The couples are same, only the law that makes them equals needs to be changed to say so.

And if I had a teenage daughter I'd support same sex sex to the hilt. As you said, thier sex, like most sex, doesn't make babies but there's nothing special about that, you just think that it matters....

They are the same except for very key differences.

Sorry, the rest is just emotion.

As far as the law is concerned there is no difference. Time for reality to intrude on you fantasy life.

 

[kaz]

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.

Actually, 5 kids = 5 tax deductions. They don't need more money, they didn't have the kids themselves

 

[kaz]

What you want to do is ensure that the children of gays are raised with less money than the children of straights

Kids should be raised by straights if possible, it's how we evolved

 

[kaz]

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. You're losing it now. It's best for children to be in a man/woman household. It's how we evolved.
d

Explain any other rational other than you despise the children of gay couples to justify you wanting to take money away from them to give to childless 80's year old married couples?

When you put words like "despise" in the question, you aren't looking for a serious discussion

 

[kaz]

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

Gays want money to have sex, no children. Straights have children. You want to use the word "prostitute" it applies far more to gays than straights

 

[kaz]

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.

Strawman, I'm for flat taxes and no government marriage

 

[kaz]

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

No, it isn't, dumbass...

We didn't evolve with men and women having babies? You are lying, you know we did