Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[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. 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?

No, you would. You want government marriage, progressive taxes and the death tax, you're the bigot discriminator. I want none of those

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Having them, not raising them.

 

[kaz]

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.

Actually, Sparky, the question is what does society get out of gay fucking that we should fund it. We don't perpetuate the species, we get nothing. They can screw all they want, they just shouldn't ask to be paid for it. You know, like how is it you keep calling it? Prostitution?

 

[kaz]

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?

Yes, syriusly hates the elderly, the disabled and the impotent, there is no other explanation for his loathing hatred

 

[kaz]

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.

You can only have a baby so often. Well, heteros can anyway, gays can't. The point of the thread

 

[kaz]

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.

Well, there's no discrimination against gays, they can marry anyone straights can. Unlike blacks in the past

 

[kaz]

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.

As Seawytch pointed out, actually 90% of heterosexuals having married sex have babies. Zero percent of gays do

 

[kaz]

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 ... ?

Linear, idiot. You didn't know that was what I meant? Now you're down to spelling? Now that's desperation, you know you're getting your ass kicked

 

[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.

You can only have a baby so often. Well, heteros can anyway, gays can't. The point of the thread

They have plenty of babies, they just don't do it the way that you approve of, like bunnies.

Some animals are more equal than others, and you aren't one of them.

 

[kaz]

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.

Why does that matter? You Catholic?

 

[kaz]

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?

Now that's a government you can get behind, more overt power to make those decisions

 

[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

Having them, not raising them.

That's what the thread's about, Holmes

 

[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.

Why does that matter? You Catholic?

It matters to Biology, in which the vast majority of sex has nothing to do with making babies, and was never meant to.

 

[kaz]

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.

You can only have a baby so often. Well, heteros can anyway, gays can't. The point of the thread

They have plenty of babies, they just don't do it the way that you approve, like bunnies.

Some animals are more equal than others, and you aren't one of them.

If I had my way, there would be no "bennies." You want the progressive taxes and death tax, then you want to not pay them. I'm consistent, I don't want the progressive taxes I don't want to pay. There's a word for you. It starts with "h" and ends with "ypocrite." Do you know what it is?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Having them, not raising them.

That's what the thread's about, Holmes

What you believe about human history, isn't true...

 

[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.

You can only have a baby so often. Well, heteros can anyway, gays can't. The point of the thread

They have plenty of babies, they just don't do it the way that you approve, like bunnies.

Some animals are more equal than others, and you aren't one of them.

If I had my way, there would be no "bennies." You want the progressive taxes and death tax, then you want to not pay them. I'm consistent, I don't want the progressive taxes I don't want to pay. There's a word for you. It starts with "h" and ends with "ypocrite." Do you know what it is?

I happily pay taxes, and the only fair ones are progressive. You are a selfish child, nothing more.

 

[kaz]

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.

Why does that matter? You Catholic?

It matters to Biology, in which the vast majority of sex has nothing to do with making babies, and was never meant to.

Your argument is a dead end. They are getting paid for the babies, what else they do is irrelevant. They aren't getting marriage tax for making waffles either. The fact is as Seawytch pointed out 90% of straight marriages do end up in perpetuating the species.

Gay sex never leads to babies. That is the difference.

That and your hypocrisy that you want progressive taxes, then you want to not pay them.

So what about Republicans who supported the Iraq war, should they not have to pay for it?

 

[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

Having them, not raising them.

That's what the thread's about, Holmes

What you believe about human history, isn't true...

Liar, you know people evolved with male and female parents. It's amazing how stupid you people will work to vouch for your kool-aid ideology

 

[kaz]

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.

You can only have a baby so often. Well, heteros can anyway, gays can't. The point of the thread

They have plenty of babies, they just don't do it the way that you approve, like bunnies.

Some animals are more equal than others, and you aren't one of them.

If I had my way, there would be no "bennies." You want the progressive taxes and death tax, then you want to not pay them. I'm consistent, I don't want the progressive taxes I don't want to pay. There's a word for you. It starts with "h" and ends with "ypocrite." Do you know what it is?

I happily pay taxes, and the only fair ones are progressive. You are a selfish child, nothing more.

So you don't take tax breaks? We both know that is a lie

 

[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.

Why does that matter? You Catholic?

It matters to Biology, in which the vast majority of sex has nothing to do with making babies, and was never meant to.

Still only one group can advance the species. Making the two groups vastly different.

One group IS necessary for our species to survive

The other

Plays zero role

That's as basic as biology gets

As for pleasure and bonding.

One group can use sex for that I suppose

The other group has that PLUS the continuation of the species. Again vastly different

Accept it, the above are all facts, and are all absolutes.